Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!lll-winken!telecom-request From: peterm@rwing.uucp (Peter Marshall) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Caller ID and Name Being Tested by US West Message-ID: Date: 30 Apr 91 16:25:04 GMT Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 22 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 328, Message 10 of 13 Re: Bruce Carter's comment in 11/317, 4/29; Boise is not only a "test area," but a signficant one, with results likely to have effects beyond Idaho, following a relatively large, six-month market trial incorporating NT's Calling Name ID. Yet, re: Bruce's comment about getting ACLU et.al. to "quit howling about invasion of privacy;" would seem he may have a bit of a sticky wicket as of yesterday, when the Idaho PUC granted part of an ACLU Petition for Reconsideration of the PUC's earlier decision that due to passage of a bill largely deregulating a range of US West services, the PUC lacked jurisdiction over CID. The IPUC has therefore decided to re-open the underlying question involved as to whether CID as per the Boise trial is a "basic" service under Idaho law, after previously assuming it wasn't, contrary to the position of its own counsel. The staff position stated more recently also viewed CID as a function of "basic" service as Idaho defines the term. Patience, Bruce.... Peter Marshall