Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. Mongeon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Using the "O" Operator to Defeat 800 ANI and Caller*ID
Message-ID: <9665@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 12 Jul 90 14:54:40 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Reply-To: root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. Mongeon)
Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc.
Lines: 22
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 478, Message 9 of 13


In article <9581@accuvax.nwu.edu> goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred
R. Goldstein) writes:

>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.

The tariff (Item 86 of CRTC tariff 6716) was approved.  There is an
additional provision to the charge that calls originating from
"certified shelters for victims of domestic violence" will not be
subject to the charge.  When the tariff was considered, there were a
number of representations made to the effect that battered wives etc.
might somehow be found through the use of caller ID.


|||  Marcel D. Mongeon          
|||  e-mail:    ... (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root  or
|||                                joymrmn!marcelm