Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: shri@ncst.ernet.in (H.Shrikumar)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: EED Caller ID Specs
Message-ID: <15389@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 12 Dec 90 05:55:42 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Reply-To: "H.Shrikumar " <shri@ncst.ernet.in>
Organization: National Centre for Software Technology, Bombay, INDIA
Lines: 27
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 879, Message 9 of 12


In article <15217@accuvax.nwu.edu> m21198@mwunix.mitre.org (John
McHarry) writes:

>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.

   And (shudder!) if I were to call from here in India, to such a
number. Surely my caller id will not show up, so will all my calls be
diverted to a bit-bucket ?

   And I'd pay toll too !! .. at about a day's pay per such a call !!!

   Please do remember the rest of the world :-)


shrikumar ( shri@ncst.in )


[Moderator's Note: The distinction would be in the phrasing on the
read out: 'ID refused' would be an entirely different scenario than 
'ID not available' or 'ID not provided by other telco', etc. I think
almost any of us would accept the latter type of call in good faith
where we might be inclined to reject the first type.  PAT]