Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!telecom-request From: oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: An HONEST PacBell Survey About CLID Message-ID: Date: 31 Mar 91 17:23:40 GMT Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 21 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 262, Message 11 of 11 In article , root@surya.uucp (The unknown Florentine) writes: > It was also interesting to note that the poll (and the "informative > brochure") did not mention CLID blocking or BLocked Call blocking. > Sounds like PACBELL has no intent to provide these. No, Pac*Bell has no reason to ask. California state law requires that CLID blocking be available. So why bother asking? Actually, there is one valid question--total blocking or per-call blocking. Pac*Bell wants per call while several "consumer" groups want total blocking. So it's not whether to block CLID, but how. R. Kevin Oberman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Internet: oberman@icdc.llnl.gov (415) 422-6955 Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.