Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Tue, 9 Apr 91 20:34 PDT From: John Higdon Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Per Line Blocking? Reply-To: John Higdon Message-ID: Organization: Green Hills and Cows Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu 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 280, Message 7 of 8 Lines: 30 There has been much talk of the hearings concerning CLASS features in California. A widely debated issue at each hearing so far has been the matter of per line vs per call blocking. Many, including some on this forum seem to prefer per line blocking. To me, the term 'per line blocking' would be synonymous with 'no Caller ID'. Why? A customer calls the telco business office to establish service. After the vitals are exchanged, the rep asks, "And which long distance carrier do you want? Measured or unmeasured? Listed or unlisted? Any Custom Calling features? Blocked or unblocked?" "What?", you say. "Do you want your line to always reveal your number to any person you call that subscribes to Caller ID, or do you want it to never reveal it?" Now realistically, what do you think 99.999% of all telephone customers are going to answer at this point? Now as a customer, you order Caller ID. However, the rep becomes uncharacteristically candid with you and points out that ten people in your area have "unblocked" lines and suggests reconsidering your order. So come on now, all you per line blocking advocates. Isn't per line blocking just the new code for "no Caller ID"? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !