🚀 go-pugleaf

From the 1/4/93 "Boston Globe"

Worries about privacy could tone down success of ID caller
		Jonathan Yenkin
		Associated Press

Boston - Caller ID, a phone service touted as an electronic peephole to let  
customers see who's calling, is making its way around the country.  But it may  
not become a ringing success because of privacy worries.

The service, which displays the number and sometimes even the name of the  
caller, is available in more than 20 states and has won praise for deterring  
obscene and annoying phone calls.

But because of privacy concerns, many states have slapped on restrictions that  
phone companies fear will undercut the service's value.

"At what point does the subscriber say, 'It's not worth it anymore?' I don't  
know," said Clifton Metcalf, a spokesman for Southern Bell in North Carolina.   
"We're going to find out."

The restrictions imposed by utility regulators allow callers to block their  
numbers from appearing on a display unit by the phone.  This can be done by  
pressing certain keys when making each call, or, in some states, by having the  
line blocked off entirely from being decoded by Caller ID.

After the state imposed such restrictions in Massachusetts, New England  
Telephone officials found them so onerous that they initially withdrew their  
plans to offer the service.

Susan Butta, a spokeswoman for New England Telephone, said executives worried  
the restrictions might make the service harder to sell.  They eventually changed  
their minds and decided to try it.

U.S. West Communications, which serves more than a dozen states, decided to  
include the blocking options in its proposals to utility regulators, not waiting  
for officials to order them, said Gwen Law, a company project manager.  Consumer  
advocates and civil liberties groups say such restrictions are necessary.  In  
Pennsylvania, the state Supreme Court ruled this year [sic] that Caller ID -  
without the blocking options - violated the state wiretap law.

Critics often point to battered women or undercover police officers as examples  
of people who need to keep their phone numbers secret.

"There are some people for whom the risk of forgetting to block is very great,"  
said Mark Cooper, research director for the Consumer Federation of America.

But New Jersey Bell, which pioneered Caller ID in the late 1980s, doesn't offer  
any blocking, and fewer than 1 percent of customers have complained about phone  
numbers leaking out, said company spokesman James W. Carrigan.

On the other hand, Carrigan said the service has helped deter nuisance calls.

About 200,000 New Jersey Bell customers, or 4.6 percent, subscribe to Caller ID.   
That compares with a 28 percent acceptance rate for Call Waiting, which allows  
customers to receive more than one call at the same time.

But Carrigan insisted customers in his state who don't have Caller ID still  
benefit, "because the other people don't know whether you have the service, so  
they won't make that (harassing) call."

In some places, phone companies say they are succeeding with the service despite  
the restrictions.

Centel Corp. in Las Vegas, which serves southern Nevada, offers the blocking  
options and still has more than 10 percent of its customers subscribing.

Dianna Fyke, a marketing manager for Centel, said there were some initial fears,  
but once people get accustomed to the service it becomes "a matter of fact  
thing."