Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!killer!vector!telecom-gateway
From: mit-amt!geek@mit-amt.media.mit.edu (Chris Schmandt)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension
Message-ID: <telecom-v09i0095m02@vector.UUCP>
Date: 17 Mar 89 16:44:50 GMT
Sender: news@vector.UUCP
Reply-To: Chris Schmandt <mit-amt!geek%media-lab.media.mit.edu@eddie.mit.edu>
Organization: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge MA
Lines: 44
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 95, message 2 of 5

In article <telecom-v09i0087m05@vector.UUCP> sidney@goldhill.com (Sidney
Markowitz) writes:

>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 87, message 5 of 7
>
>  <talk about MIT's 5ESS and ISDN system>
>
>It seems to me that the MIT system's solution is the ideal. I like the
>idea of being able to screen my calls.

It is indeed true that call screening is very useful.  Note that our
LCD display shows calling party *number*, not name.  Because we have
calling party ID for internal calls only, it also lets me see when
I'm getting an outside call.  It is convenient to be able to treat the
two cases differently (an inside call is usually brief and let's me help
someone in my organization get something done; outside calls are more
likely asking *me* to do something).

I've noticed a lot of use of calling party ID.  People will answer
the phone with "hi chris!", and it's not just us phone hackers, so
it must be useful.

The obvious solution to the privacy issue is that I would like two bits
on my phone.
 1) I will or will not allow my number to be transmitted
 2) I will or will not accept calls which do not ID calling party.

<I'd argue that given the widespread use of telemarketing, I would not
want to give my number to ANY business>

The problem is, it must be trivial (automatic?) to en/dis able the
first bit.  Here I have to dial a 2 digit prefix for privacy (called
party sees "private number" on the display).  That's fine for
occaisional use, but I think it would be inadequate for my taste
in my house.

(personally, I might be satisfied with banning telemarketing and
prefix-override for those occaisional calls which really should be
anonymous).

Otherwise, great business for those AOS's running (anonymous) pay
phones!!

chris