Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!att!mcdchg!tellab5!vpnet!louisg
From: louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us (Louis Giliberto)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Caller ID: a modest proposal
Message-ID: <1991Feb01.032841.6266@vpnet.chi.il.us>
Date: 1 Feb 91 03:28:41 GMT
References: <15377@milton.u.washington.edu> <48611@apple.Apple.COM> <10585@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: Vpnet Public Access
Lines: 26

In article <10585@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> fadden@cory.Berkeley.EDU writes:

>What might make everyone happy is to have two options: per-call blocking,
>and per-phone-blocked-call-blocking.  The latter means that a given line
>will not ring unless Caller ID information is sent first; that way you
>can't be harassed by somebody without knowing their number, but services
>which want to guarantee anonymity can leave the lines open.
>
>>		  baum@apple.com		(408)974-3385
>
>-- 
>fadden@cory.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden)
>..!ucbvax!cory!fadden
>fadden@hermes.berkeley.edu (when cory throws up)

This is the best idea I've heard yet.  In fact, I think the per-phone-blocked-
call-blocking should be implemented immediately.  This way, the typical
home owner could force out all the unreported calls, but businesses could
still receive orders.  

The only fault I could see is that the per-phone-blocked-call-blocking would
be a bit expensive to implement, but then again, I don't set the prices
and do the engineering for the Telco.

Louis Giliberto
louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us