Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!telecom-request
From: cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: SPECIAL REPORT: NY Tel Plans For Caller ID
Message-ID: <telecom11.482.3@eecs.nwu.edu>
Date: 23 Jun 91 05:25:10 GMT
Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle
Lines: 50
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 482, Message 3 of 9

Re the comments of Mr. Bailey M. Geeslin, Vice President-Regulatory,
in his whine to the New York State Public Service Commission why the
Commission should dispense with per-line blocking requirements:

> We believe that this may, indeed, be one of those times when changes
> in telecommunications technology may lead to changes in our customers'
> privacy expectations.

When haven't the telephone companies and their suppliers looked to
technology to change their customers's habits and ways of thought?
One thing after another, whether successful (Princess phones) or not
(videophones), some telco's can't resist telling us how we should
change our lives for the better.  Revenue gains are always incidental,
of course.

> But we must interject our primary and most urgent objection to
> all-call blocking -- an objection that has been joined in by emergency
> response agencies across the country.  In addition to diminishing the
> value of Caller ID, all-call blocking compromises the ability of
> police, fire, and other emergency service providers to determine the
> source of the call, thus impeding responses in emergencies and
> increasing false alarms.
 
> All-call blocked callers to fire, police, or medical agencies
> (non-E-911) calling in an emergency would be likely to forget to
> "unblock" their telephone number.  Customer focus group interviews in
> New York also indicated a concern that children, currently taught to
> dial 911 or the police direct dial number to summon help, would not
> remember to or be able to disengage the line blocking feature in an
> emergency.  From a public safety point of view, per-call blocking is
> clearly the best option.

This has GOT to be bogus.  Isn't SS7 and associated services fully
reprogrammable, so that 911 calls get special treatment regardless of
line-blocking for usual calling?  If not, we as ratepayers are getting
rooked twice over, once for an expensive service and again when it's
able to be used only in conjunction with the collection of personal ID
for marketing purposes.

And if the emergency threat is so great, where are all the police,
fire department, hospital, and insurance services to make the point?
How come so many are in opposition to the proposition that the service
makes things better?  Company-conducted focus groups are hardly the
last word on expertise.

Buggers.


Bob Jacobson