Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: microsoft!alonzo@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Message-ID: <2355@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 22 Dec 89 04:31:46 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 29
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 587, message 9 of 9

In article <2229@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write:
 
> The solution to the Caller-ID controversy seems obvious to me.  So
> here is the Ken Levitt plan for ANI.
>... 
> 4. Subscribers should be able to request an alias ANI for each line.
>    The alias would be a unique number with a special area code to indicate
>    that it is not a real number.  All calls from that line would transmit
>    the alias number unless ANI is suppressed for that call.  The alias system
>    could also be used to transmit the main number for a location that has
>    several lines.

This is a better alternative than licensing.  You either give out your
number or you have have a pseudo number that does the same as a
license.

You can choose to have your number revealed (a convenience to both
caller and receiver) on a per call basis.  We could get a measure of
control by giving particular kinds of users (emergency, phone company,
telemarketers, etc.) an identifying pseudo area code (most such users
would prefer not to give out there real numbers anyway).

This is a good plan and should be given real thought.  Does anyone
know if there is some hidden agenda behind Caller-ID (conspiracies
everywhere...)?

Alonzo Gariepy
microsoft!alonzo