Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!ames!lll-winken!netsys!vector!telecom-gateway From: mipos3!intelob!merlyn@decwrl.dec.com (Randal L. Schwartz @ Stonehenge) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Number privacy for fee? Message-ID: Date: 20 Mar 89 17:08:19 GMT Sender: news@vector.UUCP Reply-To: mipos3!intelob!merlyn@decwrl.dec.com Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via BiiN, Hillsboro, Oregon, USA Lines: 22 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 99, message 6 of 7 In article , bnelson@ccb (Barry C. Nelson) writes: | What sort of trouble would a company get into with the following scheme? Say | they opened an inward WATS (1-800) service someplace and then (for a nominal | fee) forwarded the calls of privacy seekers to their intended destinations, | whereupon THEIR outWATS number would be displayed, giving the recipient no | info as to the caller (except that privacy was precious). I will grant you your wish. Repeat after me: ALDS Just sign up for an alternate long-distance service travel card (one of those with an 800-number), and make all your "secret" calls with the card. Sheesh. This one was easy. -- Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 on contract to BiiN (for now :-), Hillsboro, Oregon, USA. ARPA: <@intel-iwarp.arpa:merlyn@intelob> (fastest!) MX-Internet: UUCP: ...[!uunet]!tektronix!biin!merlyn Standard disclaimer: I *am* my employer! Cute quote: "Welcome to Oregon... home of the California Raisins!"