Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!killer!vector!telecom-gateway From: sidney@goldhill.com (Sidney Markowitz) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Calling Party ID Suspension Message-ID: Date: 13 Mar 89 20:44:26 GMT Sender: news@vector.UUCP Lines: 27 Approved: telecom-request@vector.uucp X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.uucp X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 87, message 5 of 7 The controversy has reached Massachusetts, with NYNEX talking about following New Jersey's lead of instituting calling party ID that can not be blocked. MIT's new phone system has calling party ID, but a caller can block it on a per call basis by entering the appropriate code. The student-run peer counseling hot line dealt with the privacy issue by announcing that they had removed the lcd indicators from their phones. It seems to me that the MIT system's solution is the ideal. I like the idea of being able to screen my calls. At the same time, the very same facility would force me to provide my home number to any business I call in exchange for the convenience of calling from my home. The correct balance would allow anyone to choose whether or not they announce their number before I answer the phone, and allow me to choose whether to answer the phone from an anonymous or unfamiliar number. Perhaps even better would be an additional feature that would allow me to press a button and have the caller's (blocked) ID recorded at the telco office, where they would only release it under proper legal circumstances. That would provide both caller and callee with a useful degree of service, privacy, choice and protection from harassment. The worst solution in my opinion is the current New Jersey one of alleviating the current lack of privacy of the callee by decreasing the privacy of the caller. I find myself on both ends of the phone too often to want to take only side. -- sidney markowitz