Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: ms6b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Marvin Sirbu)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Caller ID on 800 Service
Message-ID: <2384@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 23 Dec 89 05:13:28 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 25
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 591, message 4 of 8


>The service that provides the 800 customer with the callers number has
>nothing to do with CLASS and does not require CLASS capability at
>either the origin or the destination. It is simply the passing of the
>caller's number obtained via ordinary ANI to the end customer.

>Again, the service has nothing to do with SS#7, CLASS, or any other
>relatively recent technology. When in use, there is no way to block
>your number from being transmitted. There are no tarrifs or
>regulations that would protect your privacy.

Unless the carriers are providing calling number identification to
customers for free (fat chance!) they must file a tariff for the
service with the FCC.  AT&T did indeed file a tariff with the FCC for
its Info-Call service and charges 2-3 cents per calling number
delivered.  We can thank the FCC for completely igonoring the privacy
aspects of the tariff and approving it without much fanfare.

The FCC could have chosen to take the same policy stance as the
California PUC and mandate the ability to block calling line
forwarding to *IEC customers* (though not of course to the IEC itself
which needs the number for billing purposes).  They chose not to.


Marvin Sirbu