🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: tx.general
Article #179

Re: repost from comp.dcom.telecom

#179
From: David L. Cathey
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:38
41 lines
2718 bytes
In article <Bzzn1y.v21@austin.ibm.com>, dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com (Dewey Coffman) writes:
> In article <2934509413.4.p00200@psilink.com>, "John R Kennedy" <p00200@psilink.com> writes:
> |> >
> |> >Under a new law that just passed in Texas, consumers are allowed to
> |> >collect up to $1500 in fines agains any company who initaites a phone
> |> >call with a non-human and can be identified (and who does not have
> |> >prior permission to contact you).

> |> As you may know, the Texas PUC has decided that CallerID is in violation
> |> of a state wiretap law, and thus has declared the service illegal.

	The only reason I don't like it, is I don't want to get on yet
another stupid mailing list or pigeon-holed into another set of demographics
everytime I call a store.  There is already stuff on the market to hook
computers up to CLID boxes to collect your phone number.  And Cole's
Directory can provide most of the other information (and it is available
on CD!).  Next time you call Radio Shack, >poof<, you get another stupid
advertizing rag...  Or how about getting a Columbia Video club mailing/
Cable Co. solititation/etc, just because you called a theater or 444-FILM?
Mailing/Phonelists are big business these days...

	What problem (or whose) is this technology trying to solve, and
who do you really think it will benefit?  Me?  Not really...  I usually
know who is calling (phone number doesn't give you "who").  Even
working from home, I get few calls from telemarketing (I'm not even
unlisted), and I just waste their time as long as I can.  They get
pissed off, and don't call back...

	If you want a feature that will *help* me, then get a 
"telemarketer block" feature.  But I don't suspect that lobbists
at the FCC, PUC, etc will be pushing really hard for something
like that...

	There was quite a bit of controversy on this in alt.privacy
a while back.  I haven't read it for a while, so it could still be
going on.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117
Technical Details
Message-ID: <1992Dec29.113821.16962@montagar.com>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!wupost!wotan.compaq.com!moxie!ernest!europa!dalnet!void!mic!montagar!davidc
References: <2934509413.4.p00200@psilink.com> <Bzzn1y.v21@austin.ibm.com>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!wupost!wotan.compaq.com!moxie!ernest!europa!dalnet!void!mic!montagar!davidc
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.general,austin.general
Subject: Re: repost from comp.dcom.telecom
Message-ID: <1992Dec29.113821.16962@montagar.com>
Date: 29 Dec 92 11:38:21 CDT
References: <2934509413.4.p00200@psilink.com> <Bzzn1y.v21@austin.ibm.com>
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX
Lines: 41