🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <JaiVRc3w165w@slic.cts.com>, mikey@slic.cts.com (Mike Shirley)
writes:

MS>devildog@nic.cerf.net (Ren Hoek) writes:
MS: Not necessarily but it would be helpful.


RH> It didn't work and I called Pac Bell to ask why and the told me
RH> it was because the State Senate's Public Utilities COmmision
RH> blocked them from selling or advertising that service after big
RH> pressure from lobbist serving the Bill Collecting and
RH> Telemarketing Industries...

MS: If that's what they told you, they LIE.  The CPUC did not disallow
MS: Pac Bell to offer CID.  Pac Bell chose NOT to offer it because the
MS: CPUC would REQUIRE Pac Bell to offer line block along with per-call
MS: block.  Pac Bell looks at this as a marketing angle and not as a
MS: service that would help Californians.

I agree.  The phone companies passed because they couldn't deliver to
businesses a CID option that would be profitable (to the phone companies
AND businesses).  That is the goal of phone companies:  delivering
residential information to businesses.  I wrote to the PUC commending
their decision not to cater to the whims of the phone companies.

Imagine if we didn't have the PUC looking out for the interests of the
residential customers.  However, now I think it is time to write to the
PUC to have them pressure  the phone companies to deliver CID in a manner
that protects the residential customer.  Perhaps CID blocking standard
with per call enabling.  Then you could require callers to turn on CID
before their call will get through to you.

Mike Coen
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
no fancy tagline
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++