Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Sun, 14 Apr 91 02:08:05 GMT From: Paul Durham Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Per Line Blocking? Reply-To: Paul Durham Message-ID: Organization: Microtel Pacific Research Ltd., Burnaby, B.C., Canada 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 292, Message 5 of 10 Lines: 41 In article John Higdon writes: > To me, the term 'per line blocking' would be synonymous with 'no > Caller ID'.... > "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? "Never", of course. > Now as a customer, you order Caller ID. However, the rep becomes > uncharacteristically candid with you Not very likely ;-). > 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"? No, not at all. If you are a caller ID zealot, you can screen your incoming calls to eliminate anyone calling without caller ID (automatically, of course). If anybody wants to call _you_ they will have to be unblocked. However, if they can get line blocking, people can prevent their phone numbers (and names) from being accumulated by businesses without any extra cost or inconvenience. Remember, people enjoy this _already_. To keep the network fully connected, per-call unblocking would have to be provided, of course. Everybody would be happy - except the telemarketers and the phone company (due to loss of caller ID revenue). Sounds good to me. P. Durham