Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!hacgate!ashtate!dbase!dveditz
From: dveditz@dbase.A-T.COM (Dan Veditz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Caller ID: Is comp.dcom.telecom biased?
Message-ID: <1991Jan30.225646.23336@dbase.A-T.COM>
Date: 30 Jan 91 22:56:46 GMT
References: <15377@milton.u.washington.edu>
Organization: Ashton-Tate Glendale Development Center, requiescat in pace
Lines: 103

Bob Jacobson (cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu) noticed a posting in
comp.dcom.telecom from Bill Berbenich in Atlanta (where, according to
*Bob* "Southern Bell is forcing customers to accept Caller ID without 
the minimal safeguards of public choice, like per-call blocking.").
He goes ballistic over the moderator's addendum.

The article in question is in the TELECOM Digest Volume 11 Issue 75, 
Message 9 of 12 by Bill Berbenich (bill@eedsp.gatech.edu):
> ...
> One order clerk (with whom I spoke at relatively great length) did admit
> that she had received a call from a somewhat upset "older gentleman"
> along the lines of 'if Southern Bell follows through on offering CLID,
> I'm going to have my phone disconnected!'
> ...
> 
> [Moderator's Note: The service rep talking to the 'older gentleman'
> should have called his bluff on the spot:  If I'd been responding to
> him I'd have probably said "Oh, my! Well, Mr. Jones, we'll certainly
> be sorry to lose you as a good subscriber after X years. It has been
> approved and will be available around February 14. Do you want me to
> process the disconnect order on your service for the same day or would
> you want me to have the service turned off sooner?"  (pause, let him
> take it from there ...)   PAT]

To which Bob responds:
> Is this person biased, or what?  Would you want the moderators of all
> of the conferences that handle controversial topics popping off like
> this, making those who hold opposing points of view feel foolish?
> As a moderator, I'm offended.  As someone with a regard for privacy
> interests, I'm alarmed, because this newsgroup, comp.dcom.telecom,
> wields a lot of informational power.  But what to do about this?

First, Bob, you sound a little biased yourself -- Bill's article mentioned
that almost all of the calls to Southern Bell have been requests for the
service, which isn't exactly "forcing customers to accept Caller ID."
Although I agree with your view of CLID, obviously not everyone does.

But more to the point: the TELECOM moderator is a phone-service junkie.
If he weren't he probably wouldn't have the interest to spend as much
time moderating as he does, and he wouldn't have the knowledge that makes
his comments worth reading.  So yes, he does want to see CLID, but unless 
I've misread his posts he also wants to see per-call ID Blocking implemented
along with it (if nothing else it's another phone service he can play around
with).  But that wasn't the point of his comment.

The point is that the old man in all likelyhood will *not* have his phone 
disconnected, he was bluffing to make the poor service person feel bad or 
to let off steam.  He may have been bluffing unconsciously, but the phone 
is too useful to give up on, and even if he did the phone company wouldn't
really notice.  A response such as Pat suggested would at least point out to
the man the futility of making a statement in that way.  If he really wanted 
to change things he shouldn't harass the service rep., he should write letters 
to the PUC and to the highest telco exec he could get the name of.  Cancelling 
service is pointless and ineffective UNLESS you also send a letter to 
someone who counts explaining why you did it.

As for moderators "popping off", that's one of the things I like about
the TELECOM and RISKS digests because I usually find their comments
to be informative, but I wouldn't want to see all moderated groups 
operate that way.  I suppose it depends on why the group is moderated
and what the moderator is expected to provide.  Not everyone likes
the way Pat does his job, so alt.dcom.telecom was recently created
as an outlet for unmoderated discussions on the topic.

To answer Bob's questions.  Biased? You bet -- isn't everyone?  "Popping
off"? Editorials from the Moderator are part of the culture in some
groups, and telecom is one of them.  Making people out to be fools?
I've not seen him do so to one of the participants of the group (though
he does hold strong opinions), but then my interpretation of this incident 
differs from yours.  Unconcerned about privacy?  Not likely -- he often
posts (and allows others to post) tips on how to keep phone numbers out
of the hands of people you don't want to have them.  What to do about it?
I don't plan on doing anything, but you could try (in rough order):

   - writing to the Moderator in question and expressing your concern
     (maybe it's just a misunderstanding, or maybe the Moderator will
     see your point and change his policy).  Face it, if you get shoddy 
     treatment from the clerks at Sears, complaining to Penny's customers 
     isn't likely to make Sears any better. 

   - posting to the group itself -- I often see moderators (including 
     the TELECOM moderator) post articles that disagree with them.

   - bringing the matter up in news.groups, which covers discussions about 
     newsgroups, not just NEW groups.  We've talked about specific moderators 
     there in the past.  news.misc gets some of this traffic as well.

   - starting an alternative unmoderated/uncensored group with all the 
     other disgruntled readers (like alt.dcom.telecom).

(Note that posting to a completely unrelated group is not on that list.)

A good rule of life: if you don't like what someone has done, confront 
them privately first.  Maybe they won't listen, but if they do you can
avoid a lot of hassle, controversy, misunderstandings and ill-will. 

And just maybe it'll turn out to be *you* who misinterpreted things and
you'll save yourself a lot of public embarrassment.

-Dan Veditz

dveditz@dbase.A-T.com
uunet!ashtate!dveditz