Xref: utzoo alt.privacy:92 comp.org.eff.talk:1885
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ccut!wnoc-tyo-news!dclsic!sjc!leia!harkcom
From: harkcom@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Caller ID problems
Message-ID: <HARKCOM.91Apr2180955@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp>
Date: 2 Apr 91 09:09:55 GMT
References: <1991Mar29.154847.16915@engin.umich.edu>
	<1991Mar29.195940.12006@eng.umd.edu> <1991Mar30.194145.4202@netcom.COM>
	<1991Apr1.065503.21564@milton.u.washington.edu>
	<BRAND.91Apr1113835@mephisto.ils.nwu.edu>
Sender: news@leia.pa.yokogawa.co.jp
Followup-To: alt.privacy
Organization: Yokogawa Electric Corporation, Tokyo, Japan
Lines: 19
In-reply-to: brand@mephisto.ils.nwu.edu's message of 1 Apr 91 17:38:35 GMT

In article <BRAND.91Apr1113835@mephisto.ils.nwu.edu>
   brand@mephisto.ils.nwu.edu (Matthew Brand) writes:

 =}	   (1) Caller ID on your outgoing calls can be blocked for a small
 =}	       extra phone service fee.  I suggest the fee because Caller ID
 =}	       is primarily an income booster for phone companies, and there
 =}	       must be some profit incentive in supporting privacy options.

   ...now that customer satisfaction and service are worthless...

   The privacy option should be free. And it should be as easy as
pushing a button on your phone or dialing 1 extra digit...

 =}	       Unlisted phone service costs extra for the same reason.

   Unlisted numbers already cost too much (more than nothing is too
much for such a service).

Al