Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!killer!vector!telecom-gateway From: lts!amanda@uunet.uu.net (Amanda Walker) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension Message-ID: Date: 17 Mar 89 21:53:28 GMT Sender: news@vector.UUCP Reply-To: Amanda Walker Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation, Reston, VA Lines: 26 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 4 of 5 In article , paul@unhtel.uucp (Paul S. Sawyer) writes: As the New Hampsha fahma (New Hampshire farmer) told his dinner guest, as he ignored the many rings of the newly installed telephone, "I paid good money to have that thing put in for MY convenience - not theirs." This is basically my opinion; I don't have a phone as a service to anyone who feels they want to call me; I installed it for my own convenience. I pay for it, after all. I should be able to decide how and when I use it. Also, something I haven't seen mentioned in this debate is the idea that there are businesses that would be hurt by mandatory caller-id reporting. They may be annoying, but they're not illegal--things like high-pressure telemarketing "boiler rooms." It kind of takes the edge of a hard sell if someone can say "I'll think about it and call you back..." It's not black and white, and because of that I think that the ability to disable caller id reporting is important. It keeps the most options open for everyone. -- Amanda Walker, InterCon Systems Corporation amanda@lts.UUCP / ...!uunet!lts!amanda / 703.435.8170 -- C combines the flexibility of assembler with the power of assembler.