Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!lll-winken!netsys!vector!telecom-gateway
From: tel@hound.att.com (Thomas E Lowe)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: ANI Updates Wanted
Message-ID: <telecom-v09i0428m06@vector.dallas.tx.us>
Date: 3 Oct 89 16:18:27 GMT
Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US
Reply-To: tel@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (thomas.e.lowe,ho,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 28
Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us
X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 428, message 6 of 10

>I've heard that at least two class action lawsuits have been filed
>against AT&T in NJ and Florida

>[Moderator's Note:
>But I suspect the suits would be against local telcos rather than AT&T
>would they not?   PT]

Not necessarily.  AT&T does provide ANI information to many large
telemarketing firms.  Many of the 800 numbers you call to order merchandise
from have this service.  Most of it, if not all, is provided using MegaCom
service and/or ISDN services.  I would think this would make AT&T as
venerable to a suit as the telcos.

I personally know of no suits against AT&T or local telcos.

Tom Lowe    tel@hound.ATT.COM or  att!hound!tel     201-949-0428
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Room 2E-637A
Crawfords Corner Road,  Holmdel, NJ  07733
(R) UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T  (keep them lawyers happy!!)

[Moderator's Note: But unlike the telcos, AT&T provides the information
for billing purposes. The telcos provide it out of customer curiosity for
the information. If the litigants want to sue AT&T, at least where the
provision of telephone numbers for billing is concerned, what would be
their complaint? That the person who pays for a phone call has no right
to know what calls they are paying for? If I pay for your phone calls,
it is an invasion of *your* privacy to tell *me* the details of the
connections established?  PT]