🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan6.154210.21259@seas.smu.edu>, doug@seas.smu.edu (Doug Davis) writes:
> >...for twice the price of an answering machine set in `screen' mode and
> >at a fraction of the effectiveness.
...
> I had a "black box" that would redirect calls from numbers not in a list
> to an answering machine. 
> 
> I might even have a "special" message reserved for certain numbers.

Hmmm... interesting idea ... but isn't the debate supposed to be about
"Caller ID" vs. "Calling Number ID"?   What if you are blocking an
emergency phone call from your wife/freind/lover/etc who finds
themselves marooned at a poorly lit phone both on east 12th St?
Unless you don't care about having to explain why you didn't answer that
call during deep space 9, its not a good idea.

The point is the phone company COULD HAVE proposed a Caller ID scheme,
and chose not to.  While Caller ID's benefit Joe Public, they are almost
totally useless (depending on the actual scheme proposed) to large
marketing organizations.  But Calling Number ID is great if you want to
do phone sales, keep track of pizza orders/catalogue shopper avg.
monthly outlay/ financial services transactions/ etc.  You don't NEED 
a black box to get these services to work.

> Oh yeah, shortly afterwards I'ed build another "black box" that would
> do the samething for my computer, but it would only raise DTR to
> the modem *IF* a call came from a known number.

Ohh I like that ... but Caller ID could have done the same thing, if
only it was offered by the telco.

--linas
-- 
^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^
You are in a twisty little maze of standards, all conflicting.

^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^