Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!hayes!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: cpqhou!scotts@uunet.uu.net (Scott Shaffer)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Interesting Statistics
Message-ID: <8952@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 14 Jun 90 20:43:18 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 26
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 434, Message 2 of 9


A newspaper in my town recently released the following interesting
statistics:

According to Survey Sampling Inc:

Rank City	  % of residential customers with unlisted numbers

1    Las Vegas    63%
2    Los Angeles  61%
3    Oakland	  59%
21   Houston	  41%
30   New York	  37%

The article went on to interview people who had unlisted numbers and
some psychologists to determine why they got unlisted numbers.  It
also went on to explain ANI (and how even unlisted numbers weren't
immune) and how ANI is not Caller*ID.  It also said that it costs an
average of $1 per month to have an unlisted number, and that some
considered it a status symbol.

A SWBell employee listed the three main reasons for unlisted numbers
as "sleep, security, and 'I don't want to be bothered.'"


+ Scott Shaffer @ SW Development @ Compaq Computer Corporation @ Houston, TX +