swatt@ittvax.UUCP (Alan S. Watt) (09/08/83)
Funny, I would support exactly this feature for the same reason you oppose it: the identity of the caller could no longer be anonymous. Think of all the problems we have now because the caller cannot be known. Obscene and threatening phone calls, computer vandalism, etc. All this would either stop or be greatly curtailed if the originating phone number were always available. Take the UUCP situation, for example. I give another site a logon ID and password. How do I stop that person from in turn giving that information to others? Right now I can set a flag that forces my system to call the other one back, but what if that other system is similarly paranoid? If the originating phone number were available, you could always verify that it was one of the list of numbers from which you are prepared to take calls. How much would we be hearing about "computer break-ins" if you could get a log every month of every phone number which dialed into your computer? The problem of accidentally giving away your unlisted phone number could be solved in a more general way by providing support to "screen" incoming calls and only accept those from people you which to speak to. You should be able to program your phone to only accept one of a list of numbers, and bounce the rest. This of course requires your relatives to be at home when they call you. Another solution is to make your unlisted number a receive only circuit (it is done today; we have some here). My point is the current phone system is way out of balance in terms of relative control by the calling and called parties. Essentially, the caller is in control of the phone; he "aims" it at the intended party, and "fires" off a number. He might "hit", or he might "miss", but in either case the called party is just a target. This is simply wrong. The only redress in recent years is the phone answering machines. But for every new advantage given to the callee, two more are given to the caller. You can now get all kinds of automatic re-dial options for your phone, including one that will keep re-dialing a busy or non-answering number as many times as you want. Try ignoring the phone during dinner when someone uses one of those on you! I can put a little peep-lens on my door and see who is knocking before I open it; I should have the same right with the phone. - Alan S. Watt
rf@wu1.UUCP (09/09/83)
A nice idea; maybe even a good one. There are, however, some technical problems. First, the changes to the telephone network you are describing would involve altering communications protocols (in the industry, these are called "signalling") that have been in place for some 50 years. Most of the cost of these changes would fall upon the local telephone companies. As a result of the AT&T divesture, these are already strapped for cash, having been handed the oldest, hardest-to-maintain parts of the telephone network. Second, it would probably take as long as 20 years to convert certain central offices. So, serious creeps would just go to an unconverted office. Third, many lines in private (company) exchanges would only be identified as "WWW co. line 3" -- not particularly useful for tracing messages. Randolph Fritz Western Union Telegraph
dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) (09/09/83)
But you are obviously not going to get the real calling number for anyone using SPRINT, WATS extenders, etc. A better idea for screening calls than checking the calling number would be if all phones were touch tone and you required the caller to give a code. After all, what about the case of someone you really do want to be able to all you who just happens to be calling from a pay phone? Remember, one reason that no record is kept of called numbers for billing in many European countries, where the government runs the phone company, is that the collection of such information can be an invasion of privacy. If the calling number were always forwarded to the called office/instrument, then your local law enforcers could also find out the numbers of all the peoplle who were calling you.