Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!killer!vector!telecom-gateway From: jbn@glacier.stanford.edu (John B. Nagle) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension Message-ID: Date: 15 Mar 89 04:40:47 GMT Sender: news@vector.UUCP Reply-To: "John B. Nagle" Organization: Stanford University 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 89, message 1 of 8 The Orlando FL area was the first area with caller ID services, offered under the name TouchStar. But the rules seem to vary from area to area. I read in that area that calls from an unlisted number displayed as the word "private" on caller ID displays. Even without a caller ID display, one could, using some sequence beginning with an *, call back the last number that called you. Whether this applied when called from an unlisted number is not clear. Is there to be an FCC comment period on this? I propose the following: - A subscriber can select both whether calls from his number will be identified, and whether his number will accept calls from unidentified numbers. - A call from a nonidentifying number to a number that requires a caller ID results in an intercept message. - A call from a nonidentifying number can be made identifying by using some prefix. This prefix should be mentioned in the intercept message. This should preserve everyone's rights. John Nagle