Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Using the "O" Operator to Defeat 800 ANI and Caller*ID
Message-ID: <9581@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 10 Jul 90 17:39:19 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
Lines: 30
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 473, Message 3 of 15


In article <9529@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dave%westmark@uunet.uu.net (Dave
Levenson) writes...

>>In article <9481@accuvax.nwu.edu>, riot!slr@csvax.caltech.edu writes:

>> On a related question: For those of you with Caller*ID, what happens
>> when you get a call routed through the "O" operator ?  

>Here in New Jersey, local calls placed through the operator are
>displayed as "OUT OF AREA" on the Caller*ID display.

The Canadian Radio-Television Commission, in approving Caller ID for
Bell Canada (which serves most of Ontario and Quebec), stated that
per-call blocking by dialing "0" was adequate.  Bell Canada filed a
tariff charging $.75/call for that service; I don't know if it was
approved.

This has the advantage, in the short term, of allowing call blocking
on demand from ALL exchanges, including electromechanical ones that
don't support feature code dialing.  In the long term, this will
probably be phased out in favor of a dialable prefix.  Logically the
price should fall too, since the 75 cents is basically a charge for
the operator's time.


Fred R. Goldstein   goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com 
                 or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com
                    voice:  +1 508 486 7388