Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: Dave Levenson Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Using the "O" Operator to Defeat 800 ANI and Caller*ID Message-ID: <9666@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 12 Jul 90 16:22:05 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA Lines: 25 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 10 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. ...... > 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. While this is certainly true, my experience here in NJ indicates that callers from electromechanical exchanges don't need to do anything special to block their numbers from the destination Caller*Id feature -- the crossbar switches don't seem to send any ID anyway. Calls from these CO's show up as "OUT OF AREA". Dave Levenson Voice: 201 647 0900 Fax: 201 647 6857 Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney]