Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!bionet!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: m21198@mwunix.mitre.org (John McHarry)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: EED Caller ID Specs
Message-ID: <15217@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 4 Dec 90 13:34:05 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 19
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 865, Message 6 of 13


David Tamkin notes that one can get around the defect in CLASS that it
will not block the class of callers blocking transmission of their
number by simply not answering when the display so indicates.  This
sounds to me like an opportunity to add a feature to the clid box: If
the caller is blocking, don't even ring, or better yet, answer with an
announcement that you don't take such calls.  In the latter case, the
caller has to pay for the announcement, if the call was toll or
message unit.

Note that one must distinguish between blocked and out-of-area calls,
unless one wants to block all inter-lata calls.  Unfortunately, most
boiler room calls are probably in the latter class.  I would like a
feature that would route most calls to an answering machine, but ring
for certain known numbers.  If this worked (when it works?)
inter-lata, I could leave my answering machine on and not irritate my
mother, who does NOT want to leave a message if I am not home.  I
would guess such boxes are not too far in the future since they would
not be at all hard to build.