🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7322@fluke.COM> inc@tc.fluke.COM (Gary Benson) writes:
>
>John Moore of Anasazi Inc. in Phoenix wrote:
>
>>	In some areas of the East Coast, you can now get ANI (automatic
>> number identification) service by paying a service charge and buying
>> a ~$40 box to display caller's number. As ISDN is installed (already
>> available at many residences here in Phoenix), this service is automatic -
>>  part of the ISDN protocol includes the caller's number.
>> 
>>	There have been some privacy flames about this in the news
>> media, so its possible that ANI will be outlawed.
>
>And I have this to add:
>
>This strikes me as yet another instance of the backwards logic that seems to
>ALWAYS get applied to technology in this country. Out of the clear blue sky
>any podunk little scam artist can pick up a phone book and solicit me, yet
>it is seen as an invasion of HIS privacy for me to know the number he is
>calling from! I feel strongly about phone solicitation's legality. The claim
>seems to be that when I allow the phone company to publish the number they
>assigned to my phone, I am placing that piece of information in the public
>domain and therefore anyone can use that information in anyway they want.
>But since the scam artist chooses not to reveal his digits, he is entitled
>to privacy!

Actually, Gary, I have known people who worked for telephone
solicitation companies, and *none* worked from published directory
information.  Rather, they assigned lists of *exchanges* to the
callers, and they simply called each number in an exchange in
sequence.  Many of the people with "unlisted" numbers first statement
was, "How did you get my number?!".

This is even more true of the computerized telephone solicitations,
which also simply run down lists of exchanges.  This can be especially
annoying after-hours at a company with hundreds of sequential phone
numbers, where one must listen to each phone in the office ring 5 to
10 times, one after the other.

>My counter to that is that I have no choice but to publish my number since
>it is the default phone company action. I am required to purchase the
>"special service" of NOT having it published if I want to avoid harrassing
>solicitation. (Which I agree with John about: phone solicitation ought to be
>outlawed.)

See the above.  An unlisted number does not make you immune from
solicitation.  My wife has developed a simple response: as soon as
they start their spiel, she interrupts and says, "I'm sorry, I make it
a policy not to respond to telephone solicitation.  Good bye." and
hangs up.  No muss, no fuss.  And no guilt. :-)

>In my opinion, it is only a lack of imagination of the part of the phone
>companies NOT to have been developing ANI as a normal, routine part of the
>system. Obviously the information exists in the system, else how could the
>connection be made? It seems to be only a matter of time before everyone has
>call-screening hardware of some sort anyway, so why shouldn't the phone
>companies take a leadership role rather than having to be carried kicking
>and screaming (AHA! if they complain enough, they can charge more for it
>when they finally relent!)

Of course they will charge for it, if they can get away with it.
After all, they're the Phone Company, aren't they?

Actually, I conceived of the idea of an electronic phone that would do
this sort of thing for you, years ago.  Upon completion of the call,
it would send an electronic data burst which would identify the
calling party.  The answering phone could then screen the call and
display the information, record the call data for the recipient's
return and inform the calling phone that the party was unavailable,
etc.  Unfortunately, it would have had to complete the call before
exchanging information with the called-party's phone, so it wouldn't
save you tolls.  Also, this phone wouldn't be of much use unless the
calling party was using one, also.

On the other hand, the phone company itself may very well charge for
the same information, even if the call is not completed, so that
disadvantage might be mitigated.  Having the service built into the
phone system is an enormous advantage, however.

>The telephone I want to see will not just display the number, but by the
>end of the first ring, I want it to look up the number in the on-line phone
>book database, too, and display the name of the party the number is assigned
>to. The personal computer then can take a look at my "kill file" during the
>second ring. If that party or number is in my personal "kill file", the
>third ring never occurs, and the recorder says, "Sorry. The number you have
>dialed is not accepting calls at the moment. Perhaps you'd like to try again
>later?" An option for my phone would be to supress all rings until the data
>is checked, meanwhile giving the caller a message, "Checking your access
>privileges. Please be patient." Oh and the other option: that neato password
>device that requires the caller to punch up a four-digit code before ringing
>through. That exists already, and I think it's terrific.
>
>Ah, kids, I tell you, the future is awfully bright!

Not as bright as it could be.  Remember, the government (FCC and
state) is involved in regulating your phone company. :-(  There's no
telling what sort of idiocy will result from *that* combination!


Longish .signature follows.  Skip now, or don't complain!

Greg Wageman			ARPA:  greg@sj.ate.slb.com
Schlumberger Technologies	BIX:   gwage
1601 Technology Drive		CIS:   74016,352
San Jose, CA 95110-1397		UUCP: ...!uunet!sjsca4!greg
(408) 437-5198
------------------
There's nothing I hate more than a Usenet posting which took three
seconds to compose and three minutes to type, glibly dismissing three
years (or three decades) of an author's work in three lines.
------------------
Opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the author.
(And the author wouldn't have it any other way.)