The World of Computer Software/The World of Computer Software.iso/tc13-id!.zip/TC13-ID!.TXT

Text File | 1993-01-03 | 53KB | 1,313 lines

·    Subject: Another Flood of Caller-ID Messages - PI

Another flood of Caller-ID messages has hit the Digest, and rather
than fill up issue after issue with the messages which follow and even
more replies, I am sending out a few special issues with all of them
in one large bunch. Many of you will, I suspect glance over this and
toss it out. I deliberatly did not number it as an issue of the Digest
and these messages will *not* be stored in the Archives. Otherwise
this could go on forever!  :) No replies to any of these will be
published in the Digest. Interested parties can flame each other in
email.  Here is the first batch:

From: [e-mail] (sohl,william h)
Subject: Re: No Caller-ID in California
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 14:56:16 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <john@zygot.
ati.com> writes:

> As a result of the ridiculous requirements imposed upon the service by
> the California Public Utilities Commission, Pacific Bell has announced
> that it has no plans to offer Caller-ID at the present time. These
> restrictions make it impossible to offer a viable product to
> customers, according to Pac*Bell.

> By the way, no other state in the union has the requirements that the
> CPUC has imposed upon the CNID offering. It is good to know that
> anonymous and crank callers have people in high places looking out for
> them. No where else but in California would this be the case. Too bad
> the real, productive people in this state have no advocates.

> For what it is worth, Pacific Bell will begin offering Call Block,
> Call Return, and Call Trace beginning in March. As long as the person
> who is being harassed cannot find out who is doing the harassing, the
> CPUC has said that Pac*Bell can offer these services. Whoopie.

The ironic aspect of any state action against caller ID is that the
prohibition or restrictions are only affecteing intra-state calls.
All those that didn't want caller ID still have their number displayed
on inter-LATA calls since there is no federal prohibition against
caller ID.  For several years, the same cCalifornia opponents have
potentially had their numbers displayed on calls to some 800 numbers,
etc.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Mike Schenk [phone]) writes:

> So what is the great advantage in Caller-ID anyway? (And don't tell me
> it is easy to stop crank calls because anybody smart enough would make
> crank calls from phone booths!)

That is ONLY true for the individual that is bent on harrasing a
specific person s/he has targeted.  The great majority of crank calls
has always been by kids at home when mom and dad are out.  Here in New
Jersey where we've had caller ID for several years, the incidence of
crank calls has almost totally ended.  Sure, if someone was targeting
my home for a particular reason, they might then revert to making pay
phone calls, but even they can be traced (auto return) and that would
probably scare the caller off.  I don't have caller ID, but all NJ
Bell customers do have automatic call return (you only pay a per call
charge when you use the service).  It works great.  Personal story...

I came home from work and my 15 year old daughter said she had
received several harrasing calls since she was home from school.  She
said it sounded like kids.  Sure enough, about 10 minutes later it
happened again.  When they heard my voice they hung up immediately,
BUT I then invoked the automatic call return and when they answered
the phone I simply said I have your number (I really didn't as the
auto return call doesn't provide me with it) and if you call here
again I'm turning it over to the police.  That immediately ended the
calls and I'd have given anything to see the fear in the faces of the
little brats when they got my return call.  I'll bet they don't try
calling anyone after having that happen.

As to why else we should be allowed to have caller ID, that opens the
whole discussion up again.  From my perspective I think I should have
the opportunity to know from what location a caller is invading my
personal life.  For those that can't or don't want to chance the
provision of such information to me they have two options: (1) don't
call me, or (2) call me from a pay phone.  I see no reason why anyone
should be able to call me yet they feel I shouldn't be able to return
a call to them which is the bottom line issue with unlisted numbers
and caller ID.

The other great advantage of caller ID is that it tells me who is
calling before I answer the phone.  Maybe I don't care to talk to Mr.
Jones today, or maybe I only want to answer the phone if the call is
from a particular person (the doctor, etc.).  With caller ID I can
ignore the other calls and just answer the one(s) I want.


Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!cc!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  [e-mail]

 -------------

From: [e-mail] (David S. Roland)
Subject: Re: No Caller-ID in California
Organization: Roland Projects, Inc
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:43:43 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Mike Schenk [phone]) writes:

> So what is the great advantage in Caller-ID anyway? (And don't tell me
> it is easy to stop crank calls because anybody smart enough would make
> crank calls from phone booths!)

Caller ID provides a party (Who), and geographic (Where)
identification.  One obvious, immediate sale is to block unwanted
calls. The more distant view is for the sale of service information,
such as AAA's location direction service which utilizes current
calling location to provide proper traffic directions to a given
location.

The more general service you will see is for convienence services such
as where is the cheapest gasoline near my present location; Where can
I find a copy of Lethal Weapon 3. What are the road conditions within
5 miles of my home. Essentially Caller ID opens up a segment of a
(today) non-existant market for personal services. The Service
creation industry is just getting started but has a number of problems
of maintaining current information.

Roland Projects is developing the applications to support this niche
of the market, and Caller ID is a major information key to the
success.

Dave
ROLAND PROJECTS, Inc. - P.O. Box 491/Fairport, New York 14450/[phone]
Interactive Voice Response Application and System Telecommunication Software

  ----------------

Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 14:02:46 PST
From: "Anthony E. Siegman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No Caller-ID in California


John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:

> As a result of the ridiculous requirements imposed upon the service by
> the California Public Utilities Commission, Pacific Bell has announced
> that it has no plans to offer Caller-ID at the present time...

> The two major stumbling blocks are the requirement for per-line
> blocking (and the correlary requirement that ALL unlisted numbers be
> blocked by default), and the stringent customer notification and
> education that Pac*Bell would have to provide

   I personally believe Caller-ID is a reasonable, even desirable
technological development, and much of the opposition to it is
knee-jerk and Luddite.  But the requirements noted above (per-line
blocking, and adequate customer education) seem to me not only
perfectly reasonable but highly desirable.


  ----------

From: [e-mail] (Tom Benham)
Subject: Re: No Caller-ID in California
Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 04:13:56 GMT


[e-mail] (Mike Schenk [phone]) writes:

> So what is the great advantage in Caller-ID anyway? (And don't tell me
> it is easy to stop crank calls because anybody smart enough would make
> crank calls from phone booths!)

If you lived in the States where calling people at dinner time and
every other time has become de riguer for marketing outfits you might
understand people's desire to block 'unknowns'.  In addition,
Americans buy home delivery food like crazy and caller ID helps the
seller know he's not going to make a delivery to a bogus place and it
helps the impatient American buyer to place his order in the shortest
possible time.  When caller ID is tied to a database lookup the
possibilities for better service can be significant.


Tom

 ----------

From: [e-mail] (Stephen Friedl)
Subject: Re: No Caller-ID in California
Date: 30 Dec 92 00:11:24 GMT

Organization: Steve's Personal machine / Tustin, CA


> Those 40% of residential subscribers have non-pub to protect their
> privacy.

This sounds like a bogus number to me.  When one orders residential
service here in CA, you have to pay for non-pub status.  Of course,
many do just this to protect their privacy as mentioned above.

Additional lines at the same house, however, can be non-pub for free,
and many choose not to publish these extra lines (modem, fax,
whatever) would just clutter up the directories and make it HARDER to
track somebody down via 411.  I have four lines for modems and faxes,
and their non-pub status is for convenience rather than privacy.  If
these are included in the stats, it is certainly giving a false
impression (i.e., I am a "published" user).

While California certainly has more than its share of telephone
subscribers concerned about privacy, I find it very hard to believe
that four out of ten *people* have unlisted numbers in the real sense.


Stephen J Friedl | Software Consultant | Tustin, CA |     [phone]
3b2-kind-of-guy  | I speak for me ONLY |   KA8CMY   | uunet!mtndew!friedl

 ----------

From: [e-mail] (Rob Boudrie)
Subject: Re: No Caller-ID in California
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:54:52 GMT


> Why would people reject an unidentified party? I wouldn't. I would
> just answer the call and break it off if I don't like the call for some
> reason.

Caller ID will change telephone answering habits.

Typical algorithm for call recipient:

 1 - See who's calling.  Do not call if I do not wish to speak to the
     person at the present time.

 2 - If the call is unidentified but not blocked, answer it.

 3 - If the call is explicitly "id blocked", do not answer it under the
     assumption that it is from someone who would be filtered out under
     #1 above (and probably knows it, hence the blocking of id when they
     called!).


Rob Boudrie   [e-mail]

 ----------

Date: Sat, 26 Dec 92 16:16:58 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Stonemarche Network Co-op
From: [e-mail] (Mark Eklof)
Subject: Re: California PUC Reduces CLID Restrictions


In comp.dcom.telecom, article <[e-mail]>, it
says ...

> PUC also ruled that per-line blocking with per-call unblock, required
> in their June ruling, would be subject to a "limited rehearing" on its
> technical feasibility.
>
> Pacific Bell said in a July filing that developing the technical
> capability to offer that form of blocking would take three years.

    Excuse me?!  What's technically infeasible with per-line
blocking, with per-call unblock?  Unless they're using different
terminology, that's what I have on my lines.  They block CNID sending,
by default, and I can use *67 to unblock if I wish to do so on any
given call.

    We just got CNID here, though.  The NH PUC required that
per-line blocking be available free, and that per-call blocking and
unblocking also be available free.  They disallowed last call return.
New England Telephone went ahead and offered CLASS features on these
terms.  (Call Trace is also available, for a (I think) $9.22 setup
charge, and $3.25 per successful trace.  Caller-ID is $4.95/month.)


Mark D. Eklof   Brookline, New Hampshire, USA  [e-mail]

 ----------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: California PUC Reduces CLID Restrictions
Date: 28 Dec 92 15:43:03 GMT
Organization: Applied Information Systems, Chapel Hill, NC


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John
Higdon) writes:

> On Dec 26 at 13:37, TELECOM Moderator writes:

>> [Moderator's Note: Well good golly, how did you manage to make do all
>> these years before Caller-ID was invented?  How did you manage to deal
>> with all the strangers on your phone lines in the past? Whatever you
>> did, just keep on doing it.   PAT]

> What I have done was patiently waited until CNID would become
> available, tolerating the mostly useless (to me) voice telephone the
> best I could. Now that I see the waiting has been in vain, it is time
> to change strategies.

  ["LONG DISCUSSION OF PHONE RINGING WHEN GOING OUT THE GARAGE DOOR
   AND BEING UNABLE TO RESIST ANSWERING IT" HAS BEEN DELETED.]

> Without CNID or my full-time-everyone-who-calls-gets-screened-device,
> the only other two possibilities are: 1) get rid of the phone except
> for fax and modem use; or 2) just become much more rude ("Sorry, I'm
> busy! <click>", after I have discovered that it is someone that is
> non-essential.)

> You can perhaps suggest another alternative?

LEARN TO LET THE PHONE RING.  IF YOU DON'T HAVE TIME TO TALK, YOU
DON'T HAVE TIME TO ANSWER THE PHONE.  PERIOD.  If you can't just say
NO and not answer when you are busy, maybe you should just restrict
yourself to fax and modem where you have more control. :-)

While I am not one to defend the actions of the PUC, I must admit that
I agree with the position on unlisted numbers.  If, as a subscriber to
telephone service in CA, I were to pay extra for an "unlisted" number,
then I should expect that it have per-line blocking by default.  The
fact that 40% of the residential phones are unlisted (at extra cost I
expect) is a strong indication that CID may not be appropriate in CA,
if it is appropriate anywhere in its present form.

(We are getting this now in NC and I selected per-line blocking on all
30 or so lines that I have.)


Arthur Coston    AIS, Chapel Hill, NC    [e-mail]

 ----------

From: lcw@uucp (Larry Wolfe)
Subject: Re: California PUC Reduces CLID Restrictions
Organization: TANDEM Computers, Inc (CS2)
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:53:05 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon<[e-mail].
com> writes:

> On Dec 26 at 13:37, TELECOM Moderator writes:

>> [Moderator's Note: Well good golly, how did you manage to make do all
>> these years before Caller-ID was invented?  How did you manage to deal
>> with all the strangers on your phone lines in the past? Whatever you
>> did, just keep on doing it.   PAT]

...a substantial rant, elided

> Without CNID or my full-time-everyone-who-calls-gets-screened-device,
> the only other two possibilities are: 1) get rid of the phone except
> for fax and modem use; or 2) just become much more rude ("Sorry, I'm
> busy! <click>", after I have discovered that it is someone that is
> non-essential.)

> You can perhaps suggest another alternative?

Well, if I got it right; that is, you are going to stop and respond to
the stupid phone rather than go on about your business ... then, I
would suggest that you install a remote speaker from your answering
device to your garage.  Monitor the caller's message and pick up the
handset as appropriate.  I suspect that the percentage of calls that
fail to leave a message will be no larger than that of people to whom
you would like to speak calling from some unfamiliar phone number.
And then there is the option of removing the "bell" from the garage
phone...  Why?  Well in my case the garage is used as a shop and I
don't wish to be startled by a ring loud enough to be heard over power
tools when using very sharp hand tools


Larry Wolfe    [e-mail]

 ----------

Subject: Caller-Id Product - Special Offer
From: [e-mail] (Eric Jacksch)
Date:     Fri, 1 Jan 1993 20:43:02 -0500


If you have any questions with regard to this product or this special
offer, please feel free to contact me.  It is also available in
business, single line security, and multi-line security
configurations.

internet:  [e-mail]
fidonet:   Eric Jacksch  1:250/218


                       === Call SecurID ===

                       ICON CS Canada Inc.
                       21 Lynwood Ave.
                       Ottawa, Ontario.
                       Canada
                       K1Y 2B4


Are you tired of people calling your BBS and abusing your system?
Tired of call back verification programs that just don't work
satisfactorily and create a hassle for your user community?  Would you
like to be able to have your BBS share a phone line with a fax and a
VOICE phone?

If you answered yes to any of the questions above, Call SecurID may be
able to help you.


WHAT IS CALL SecurID ?

Call SecurID is a telephone line management system.  It is a versatile
product that allows you to control how the telephone services you pay
for are used.

Call SecurID has a number of features that make it ideally suited to
the bulletin-board system operator:

1)  Control access to your system by the caller's number.

With Call SecurID you eliminate the need for call-back verifiers, or
"manual" call back verification of users on your BBS.  You can tell in
an instant if the information new users give is true or not.

Call SecurID allows you to lock out callers whom you have determined
are more trouble than they are worth.

"Per Call Blocking" cannot be used by people to circumvent Call
SecurID - YOU have control over what to do with "blocked" calls,
as well as Long Distance calls and others

2)  Share your BBS line with a voice phone, a fax or other device;

Call SecurID allows you to redirect calls to various devices based on
the caller's number.  You could, for example, share a phone, a modem
and a fax on the same line.  This can result in reduced costs for the
system operator.

3)  Maintain accurate logs of system usage.

Call SecurID maintains accurate, readable logs of system usage.  This
information can allow the system operator to determine the total use
of his system for expansion planning.  Call SecurID logs can also
provide supporting evidence in the event of a "crack" attempt on a
BBS.

4)  Share information with others.

Your Call SecurID database is easily merged with the databases of
other Call SecurID users.  This feature allows for an ever expanding
knowledge base that can help keep your system secure.

The sysop version of Call SecurID has all these features to help you
manage the use of your phone line:

     -   caller identification for each call received
     -   attach a name and information screen to each number
     -   records the date, time, and optionally the duration of each call
     -   records the historical total number of calls for each number
     -   call management in 10 groups, and 5 categories.
     -   call management by time of day/week/year
     -   answer management by redirection to 1 of 3 answering devices
     -   on-line information editing
     -   manual call re-direction for on-line changes
     -   database merging and a complete caller database managing system
     -   sysop selectable history logs in human readable format

ALL THOSE FEATURES ARE INTERESTING, BUT I HAVE CALLER-IDENT ROMS IN MY MODEM
SO WHY WOULD I WANT CALL SecurID?

Recently, a number of modem companies have been offering Caller Ident
ROM upgrades.  This is a good technology, and the popularity of the
upgrades indicates a willingness on the part of the consumer for the
type of information and security that Caller Ident provides.  Call
SecurID is superior to those modem upgrades in a number of areas:

1)  Call SecurID is an established product.

Call SecurID has been on the market, installed and WORKING for over 18
months.  The design has matured and expanded to incorporate features
most demanded by the sysop community.

2)  Modem ROMs do not offer the flexibility of Call SecurID.

While a ROM upgrade may be cheaper, it does not offer the range of
options that Call SecurID does.  The whole technology of caller ident
in a modem is developmental - Call SecurID is a proven technology that
works TODAY.

3)  Security.

A ROM upgrade in your modem may give you the number of the caller, but
knowing that number doesn't do much good unless you can act on the
information.  Call SecurID allows you to set and ENFORCE a security
policy for your system.

4)  Switching.

Modems do not provide the ability to switch between one of three
output ports.  This is a very powerful feature of Call SecurID that
permits changing how you manage callers depending on the day of the
week and the time of the day.

5)  Interfaces.

Several interface options provide near universal means to interface
with BBS software or almost any other database type software, voice
mail and all popular BBS mailers.  A support echo in FidoNet is
available.

6)  Groups.

All callers are not equal.  There are family members, workmates, BBS
callers and telephone solicitors to suggest a few.  Call SecurID
provides for 10 such groups that can be managed differently.

7)  Power, speed, capacity.

The Call SecurID can run in Windows 3.1, Desqview or DOS.  It can
operate as a TSR activated system.  The system makes full use of all
the speed, storage capacity and input/output provided by the PC.  The
full power of the PC is used for 4 seconds when the phone first rings
After that, the system goes into idle until the next time the phone
rings.


WHAT DO I NEED TO RUN CALL SecurID?

Aside from the Call SecurID board and software, you will also need:

 - A PC/MS-DOS type computer with an 8 or 16 bit expansion slot
   (286 or higher recommended);

 - CGA, EGA, VGA, or Hercules display system;

 - A hard disk drive

 - PC/MS-DOS 3.3 or higher  (DOS 5.0 recommended)

 - A phone line with Call ID features activated by your telephone company.

DOLLARS and CENTS  -  HOW MUCH DOES IT COST

                               REGULAR       SYSOP
      Call SecurID version     PRICE         PRICE

          Sysop                $400          $225

Prices in Canadian funds.  Taxes, and shipping not included.

The regular price of the basic Call SecurID system is $400.  ICON CS
Canada offers qualifying system operators a reduced price of $225.

This is a limited time offering that will terminate on 31 March 1993
or until the present stock is exhausted (whichever comes first).

HOW TO QUALIFY FOR THE SYSOP PRICE:

Your Bulletin Board must have been in operation for a minimum of three

(3) months prior to the receipt of your order.

Your Bulletin Board must remain in operation for a minimum of three
(3) months after receiving your Call SecurID system.

Bulletin Boards run by commercial enterprises, and government
organisations cannot qualify for this sysop discount.  Registered
charities may still qualify.

You must post a bulletin visible to all callers upon login to your BBS
that your system is protected by Call SecurID by ICON CS Canada Inc.

You agree not to re-sell the Call SecurID system for one year.

WHAT YOU GET:

Upon receipt of your pre-paid order ICON CS Canada will ship your CSID
board, and attractive bound user manual, and CSID software.  The CSID
hardware carries a one year warranty against defects in materials and
workmanship.

Call SecurID is D.O.C certified, F.C.C part 15 (Class B computing
device) certified and F.C.C part 68 certified.

QUERIES:

Enquiries may be directed to ICON CS Canada Inc. at the address below,
or by fax or phone to [phone].  E-mail queries may be sent to:

    Internet:  [e-mail]
               [e-mail]
               [e-mail]

    Fidonet:   Darin Cowan, 1:163/444
               Eric Jacksch, 1:250/218
               Art Hunter, 1:163/131 (f'req FEATURE.ZIP)


HOW TO ORDER YOUR CALL SecurID SYSTEM:

To order your Call SecurID system, complete the following order form and
mail it to:
                 ICON CS Canada Inc.
                 21 Lynwood Avenue
                 Ottawa, Ontario
                 Canada
                 K1Y 2B4

Should you wish information on the Business and Security models of
Call SecurID, ICON CS Canada can be contacted at the address above, or
by phone or fax at [phone].

 ==================   CUT HERE  ===================

                        CALL SECURID ORDER FORM

 ORDER CODE: 92ECJ2912

 Name:_______________________________________________

 Company:____________________________________________
         ____________________________________________

 Address:____________________________________________
         ____________________________________________
         ____________________________________________
         ____________________________________________
         ____________________________________________

 Phone: voice: ________________
        fax:   ________________



 Prices:   Business, government, another commercial sites:  $400 each
           Qualifying sysops (complete info section below): $225 each

 +------------------------+---------+---------------+
 |       Product          |   Qty   |     Amount    |
 +------------------------+---------+---------------+
 |                        |         |               |
 |  Call SecurID System   |         |               |
 |     Sysop model        |         |               |
 |                        |         |               |
 +------------------------+---------+---------------+
                       sub-total 1  |               |
                                    +---------------+
                         shipping   |      $20.00   |
                                    +---------------|
                       sub-total 2  |               |
                                    +---------------+
      Canadian residents add 7% GST |               |
                                    +---------------+
        Ontario residents add 8% of |               |
        sub-total 2 for PST         +---------------+
                             TOTAL  |               |
                                    +---------------+

 Please enclose payment in the form of a money order or certified
 cheque in Canadian funds.  Cheques must be drawn on a Canadian
 bank.  VISA is also accepted. NO C.O.D ORDERS.

 If you prefer to use your VISA card, please fill out the following:


 _______________________   ___/___   _______________________________
       VISA number         expiry    Name as it appears on the card


 _____________________________
     Authorizing signature


 SYSOP INFORMATION SECTION

 To qualify for the special sysop discount, you must fill out the section
 below:

 Bulletin Boards run by commercial enterprises, and government organisations
 do not qualify for the sysop discount.  Registered charities may
 receive this discount.

 BBS Name: _________________________________________

 BBS Phone number: _________________________________

 How long has your BBS been in operation: __________

 Hours of operation: _______

 If you have E-Mail addresses, please list them here (with net names
 if applicable):

 ___________________________________________________
 ___________________________________________________
 ___________________________________________________

 In order that we may verify your BBS, you must create an account that
 ICON CS may login and use.  We will inform you by message on your BBS
 when the verification has been completed.  Please enter that login
 information below:

   login ID: _______________
   password: _______________


 Certification:

 I certify that my BBS is not run by a commercial enterprise or government
 organisation and that I will abide by the following terms:

    1) My Bulletin Board has been in continuous operation for a minimum of
       three (3) months.
    2) My Bulletin Board shall remain in operation for a minimum of three
       (3) months after receiving the Call SecurID system.
    3) I shall post a bulletin visible to all callers upon login to your BBS
       that the system is protected by Call SecurID by ICON CS Canada Inc.
    4) I shall not re-sell the Call SecurID system for 1 year.


 _______________________                 ________________________________
       Date                                       Signature
                                          (if you are a minor, a parent or
                                           guardian must also sign below)

                                         _________________________________
                                                  Signature

   -------------------------------------------------------------------------
  |   Eric Jacksch   [e-mail]   Data/Fax: [phone]   |
   -------------------------------------------------------------------------



From: [e-mail] (Todd Inch)
Subject: Re: CallerID on FX Lines?
Organization: Maverick International Inc.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 21:40:36 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Brian Perry) writes:

> I am interested in finding out if Caller-ID works over Foreign
> Exchange lines.  I am in an area at home which has an old 1AESS switch
> which New England Tel has no plans to upgrade anytime soon.

> [Moderator's Note: I have experience with FX lines, and I can tell you
> it will cost you a bundle just to get the FX, let alone the various
> features you want.  For the FX, there will be a monthly mileage
> charge.

Our FX lines at work aren't that much more - but I guess the size of
the "bundle" is relative.  This may also be one of those features that
isn't that much more, percentage wise, for business lines but is
significantly more, percentage wise, for residential.

It would cost a big bundle if we wanted to FX very far or between two
different BOC's (GTE and US West, formerly PNW Bell).

> In addition, FX is not tariffed for residence service ... only
> for business.

GTE tells me residential FX is available here in Washington state.

> If you are still interested, ask telco about the
> new features and if they will work on the FX. (I don't think so -- not
> that they can't; but that it is unlikely they are tariffed for it.)  PAT]

Don't be surprised if they say it won't work and it does.  Or, if they
say it's not available on FX, you might try to get them to turn it on
again after installation without mentioning that it's an FX line.

Anecdote:  I ordered and received a circular hunt where line 1 hunts
line 2 and vice-versa and was later told that only single-direction
hunts (non-circular) are tarriffed and it was deprogrammed.  Tarriffs
are especially fun when, in this case, the feature is free and the
hardware and software can do it, but I can't get it for any price
because there's no tarriff.  As it turns out, I think I'm glad I only
have one-way hunting, however.

 ----------

From: [e-mail] (Brent Capps)
Subject: Re: Caller ID Unit With Computer (RS232) Query
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 22:05:28 GMT


[e-mail] (Terry Parks) and others write:

> I'd like information on the availability of Caller ID units which I
> can hook to my computer. Thanks.

Try a product called Caller ID+.  It's a miniturized modem the size of
a gender mender with an RS-232 plug on one side and an RJ-11 on the
other.  It traps the caller ID signal from the phone interface and
spits it out the RS-232 i/f as ASCII characters.  It's made by an
outfit called Rochelle; I can't find their brochure at the moment but
they're in New Jersey and they advertise in {Teleconnect Magazine}.
The device comes with an API you can use to write your own software
apps that use caller ID.  Last May it was going for around $400, it's
probably come down a bit since then.

If you want software that's already written, try WindowPhone by AG in
Phoenix, Az.  They made a big spash last February when they announced
their caller ID-compatible PC phone.  Another one is The
TeleCommunicator made by SIIG, Inc. in Fremont, CA.


Brent Capps    [e-mail] (gay stuff)
[e-mail] (telecom stuff)

 ----------

Date:  Mon, 28 Dec 92 17:56:53 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NT Caller ID Unit


[e-mail] (John Higdon) wrote:

> I am actually considering a screening system using one of my business'
> 800 numbers. Let us see the "anony-freaks" get around that!

And of course no one calling from outside the USA could imaginably be
of business or personal interest to you, so they presumably won't be
considered.


Tony Harminc

 --------------------

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 10:23:36 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NT Caller ID Unit
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail].
com> writes:

> On Dec 25 at 21:55, TELECOM Moderator writes:

>> What do PA and CA have in common? I'll let John H. respond to that.

> Not a whole lot. There are no laws in CA proscribing CNID; in fact
> even the current PUC regulations do not prohibit the offering of that
> feature. PA has a law; CA has an attitude.

> California is an example of special interests gone berzerk. Unless a
> person is a member of some definable special interest group or
> classification, he has no rights. In this case, we have the group
> inappropriately labeled "privacy advocates" who has had its way.

  Well, John, you can get up and leave if you find it intolerable here
with the rest of us crazies with an attitude ...

> The average telephone user such as myself (who is not a member of any
> special interest group) has no say. Except for letters of annoyance
> that went off to my assemblyperson and my state senator (both of whom
> I believe are against Caller-ID anyway), there is not much left to do
> but make whatever limited adjustments are possible within the crippled
> scope of operation allowed within this state. Or move; but I am not so
> inclined.

  There John goes again, passing off his opinions as reality. The
obvious fact to any regular reader of the digest is that, based upon
your own descriptions of your 'system' and business and habits, you
are anything but an average user of telephones -- either in equipment,
service, or in breadth of knowledge.

  The PUC, in its not so infinite wisdom (on the same scale with us
other poor, not so omniscient telephonists) decided that the right to
the status quo with respect to telephone (number) privacy overrode the
revenue desires of the phone companies and the 'special interest's of
phone system professionals and afficianados who wish to have
new-fangled gadgets to set up special ways to protect themselves or
gather information that they are not inherently entitled to.

  I expect PAT is going to quickly tire of the semi-infinite,
permanent floating Caller-id debate (again) if he even publishes this.
However, he probably shouldn't print the first crotchety harangue if
he isn't going to allow at least some rebuttals. We could all live
without both, we've heard it all before ... and before that.


Jeff Sicherman

 ----------

From: emory!wa4mei![e-mail] (Randy Jarrett)
Subject: Re: CID Device Recommendations Wanted
Organization: Amateur Radio Gateway WA4MEI, Chamblee, GA
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 18:07:08 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gantt Edmiston)
writes:

> Lo and behold, CID is coming to North Carolina!  Actually, it's
> already available in some areas but in Raleigh, NC, it will be
> available Jan 30.  I called an signed up and now I have to find some
> CID devices.  Can someone point me to sources for CID equipment?  I
> have the Hello Direct catalog, BTW.  I also hear the Northern Telecom
> will be making a ~$20 CID device in 93.

> I know it's been asked before, but I am also interested in a device
> that would output RS232 CID info to my PC.  Email and I will post a
> summary.  Thanks.

For a rs232 interfaced unit check with Bell Atlantic.  They have a 800
number.  Make sure that you ask for their catalog that has the CID
devices.



Randy Jarrett  WA4MEI
UUCP  ...!{emory,gatech}!wa4mei!rsj   | MAIL: 54 Patterson Rd.
PHONE [phone]              | Lawrenceville, GA 30244

 ----------

From: [e-mail] (Dave Grabowski (KxiK))
Subject: Re: Caller-ID Substitute
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 05:17:56 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail].
com> writes:

> I have an interesting workaround to the lack of Caller-ID. It is
> called DID. Here is how it works:

[deleted is a rather long and involved process of getting a couple
hundred POTS lines and giving the number of only one to each of your
friends]

> I may call my rep tomorrow and order DID. See? Getting around the lack
> of CNID is easy; at least for people with sufficient means.

  No offense to John, but this is a really silly idea, and I seriously
hope that's all he meant it to be. If you've got the means to pay for
200 phone lines, you've got a LOT of cash to spare. Although, you
should be shot for such a waste of telco resources/money/copper wire.
If you've got that kind of cash, and you're DYING to have Caller ID,
get yourself an 800 number with ANI. Presto, you've got NATIONWIDE
Caller ID. On one phone line.

  Not to mention that all your friends who are long-distance will be
willing to call you a lot more. :)


Dave
Kappa Xi Kappa - Over & Above!                         [e-mail]
9 Sussex Ave., Newark, NJ (car theft capital USA)   [e-mail]

 ----------

From: [e-mail] (Richard Banks)
Subject: Re: Caller-ID Substitute
Date: 1 Jan 1993 02:41:29 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Richard Banks)


In a previous article, [e-mail] (John Higdon) says:

> I have an interesting workaround to the lack of Caller-ID. It is
> called DID. Here is how it works:

(See ealier messages for how it works.)

Just be sure to tell those people you gave your number to not to give
it out to others.

 ----------

From: [e-mail] (Alan Millar)
Subject: Re: Caller-ID Substitute
Organization: The Bolis Group, San Jose, CA
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 22:50:10 GMT


And John Higdon <[e-mail]> didst rise up and spake forth:

> You have installed one or more DID trunks and buy 100 or 200 or
> whatever necessary amount of telephone numbers from Pac*Bell.

> Now, when you give out phone numbers, you give a different one
> to each and every person that calls you on any kind of a regular
> basis.

> See? Getting around the lack of CNID is easy; at least for people
> with sufficient means.

This must some new usage of the word "easy" that I wasn't previously
familiar with :-)

In my opinion, a much easier solution (certainly a much cheaper one)
is to use an answering machine to screen your calls, and wire an
extension speaker for the answering machine in the required locations
such as the garage.  A small amplifier from Radio Shack etc. or a
simple home intercom system should solve any volume problems.


Alan Millar       [e-mail]

 ----------

Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 19:51:08 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller-ID in Connecticut


A bill insert in my most recent SNET bill announces that Caller ID
will come live in most of Connecticut on January 25, 1993.  No
information is provided about costs for the service; the folder is
really about blocking.

Per-call blocking will be available from all phones (except pay
phones, and the pamphlet notes that there may be problems for certain
PBX's and other complex configurations.)  Per-line blocking is
available:

- Free to domestic violence shelters and similar institutions and
    people associated with them;
- For $1/month (residence) or $2/month (business) to others, BUT
    only to those who file a sworn statement (made before a
    notary, judge, etc.) that "disclosure of their telephone
    number may jeopardize their personal safety."

There is no way to disable blocking on a per-call basis for a line
with per-line blocking.

There's no initial charge for enabling per-line blocking, but there is
a charge for turning it back on if you've had it turned off.

The pamphlet -- six pages of fairly small type -- goes into a fair
amount of detail about various special situations.  For example, it's
noted that your number is always available to 911 and 700 (?), 800,
900, and 950 services, and that some people may choose to ignore calls
with blocked ID.  (Block blocking isn't part of the offering.)

Telephone listings for social service agencies that choose not to
subscribe to Caller ID can have a special mark next to their listing -
but only in the special "Community Services" listing at the front of
the phone book.

Per-call blocking is described as "dial *67 (1167) and wait for dial
tone".  Pain in the neck for automatic dialers ....


Jerry


[Moderator's Note: But you really do not have to 'wait for dial tone'.
All you have to do with an autodialer (or manually) is just shove the
digits out one behind the other. *67987-6543 works just as well as
*67 (pause for tone spurts) 987-6543.  You can dial right through the
tone spurts with no problem.  PAT]

 ----------

Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 19:47 PST
From: [e-mail] (Todd Lesser)
Reply-To: Todd Lesser <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID


A company called Rochelle in Austin Texas sells a caller ID box that
can handle 6 incoming lines and has a RS232 output. Several boxes can
be linked together. Their telephone number is 512-794-0088.  They
include software with your choice of either Unix or Dos to connect it
up to your computer.


Todd Lesser  Info Connections   [phone] Voice    [phone] Fax
<[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!todd>

 ----------

Subject: DID as Replacement For Caller ID?
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 23:23:21 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex


I wish John success in his DID project. I know the rates in FL or OH
would be too high to be practical.

But his idea does have a solid advantage over CNID. It [if you exclude
wrong numbers] identifies WHO is calling him, not what trunk is
calling him. In today's cell-phone/multiple offices/work @ home world,
this is no small point. Plus, you can give two people at the same
location (The bozo boss, and the useful worker-bee) distinct #'s, and
even if they use the same outdial trunk ...


wb8foz

 ----------

Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 19:53:36 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Jonas)
Subject: Caller ID and a False Sense of Security



There are a recent rash of postings in the USENET groups
alt.cyberpunk,sci.electronics about caller-id, mostly people froathing
at the mouth and jumping up and down excitedly with emotions running
high and technical content practically nonexistant, such as:

> This thing could be a lot of trouble while people try to decide what
> to do with that information.  All the phone companies have studied
> (to my knowledge) is the technical viability, and the bare-bones
> legalities.  They havn't looked at rather it should be done, just
> if it could be done. ...

My reply is:

Oh come off it!  First of all, there is the TELECOM privacy group for
caller-id discussions: [e-mail].  Please get the
archives and see that this discussion has been hashed out many times
already in a more appropriately dedicated forum.

Secondly: commercial users of 800 and 900 numbers have real time ANI
for a long time now, and it is similar to caller-id: it delivers the
caller's phone number to the recipient in real time.  Caller-id is a
way to offer a similar service to us little guys.  (the difference
between caller-id and ANI is slight: ANI gives the billing number,
caller-id the originating number.  This is not the same for multiple
line subscribers).

Thirdly: caller-id is not widely implemented.  I have caller-id (in
central New Jersey) and most calls do not pass the caller-id.  Only
local calls are reported correctly at this time.  So it's not a
particularly informative service at this time.

Fourthly: even under the best of circumstances, the number identifies
only the originating phone, not the caller.  (ex: calls from a
business give the number of the trunk line, not the extension within
the building).  Somebody calling from a row of pay phones will give
different numbers for every phone.  Cellular phones and operator
assisted calls give the number for the Point Of Presence (POP), not
the originating phone.

I am trying very hard to be thoughtful and considerate of those that
desire privacy, but it was mostly an illusion anyway since 800 and 900
numbers always identify the callers.

My main desire for caller-id is so that I as the call recipient can
better manage my phone calls.  I am not a slave to the phone.  Nobody
has the right to intrude and interrupt me just because they feel like
calling me.  By having caller-id, I can prioritize my phone calls.  I
agree that a more honest and direct approach is to answer the phone
and say "I'm sorry - I can't talk right now, may I call you back
later?"  but most people will reply "since we're on the phone already,
just give me a few minutes right now" and bend my ear for a while (as
John Higdon has already posted).  I have the right to NOT listen and
NOT be interrupted.  I could simply just not answer the phone, or use
the answering machine to screen calls.  Caller-id offers a better
method.

As an analogy: when I get my mail, I sort it and prioritize it based
on the origin.  Envelopes with unknown return addresses are low
priority.  Envelopes with partial or no return address are treated
with suspicion.  You may send mail with no return address, but I may
respond by not opening it.  The same with blocked caller-id.

The analogy is partially faulty because mail is a batch process
(there's only one delivery a day) whereas phone calls are real time.
But that's why I want caller-id.  I want to prioritize phone calls by
their origin and anticipated content, not their arrival time.

Here's a case where caller-id would have helped:

A friend was anxiously waiting for a call from the hospital.  She
anxiously answered every phone call and had to explain to all callers
to please clear the line for the important call.  When (and if)
caller-id is universally implemented, she could have been less jumpy
at every phone call.

"They (wives) are people who think when the telephone bell rings, it
is against the law not to answer it" --- Ring Lardner , 1923

I agree with the sentiment.  If I'm chatting with a real live person,
phone calls take lower priority (both at home and at the office).

I guess you (caller-id opponents) have never been at somebody's office
trying to get something important done, only to get interrupted by
phone calls every few minutes.  The calls are disrupting ME as well.
Some people place greater priority on the phone calls than to people
in their office.  I really hate that.  It's as if the people in the
office can wait but the phone calls can't.  With caller-id, the calls
can wait even if the caller can't.  [in cases like that, I'm tempted
to pull out a cellular phone and call the person in front of me just
to regain his attention].

So why should real live people be less important when I'm home?  I
want the same phone management at home as well as the office.  If you
call me while I'm eating, or downstairs, I'm sorry but your only error
was calling me at an unopportune time.  Either leave a message on my
answering machine so I can call you back, or suffer the consequences
of my not calling you back when I can give you the proper time and
attention.

Please don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying to give up on your privacy
issue.  Caller identification has been available for a while now
without your consent.  What's new and different is your awareness due
to caller-id being made available to residential subscribers.  I would
like to see a universal code for blocking caller-id implemented in all
states (unlike the current system where it toggles the line status,
has no acknowledgement, and is not available in all areas) and free
per-line blocking to those who desire it.

Even I perceive need for caller-id blocking.  I have two phone lines
(one for me, one for the computer).  I occasionally dial out on the
modem's line (particularly to keep the incoming line available for
incoming calls).  I do not want ANYBODY getting the modem number,
particularly since I never answer that phone (that's why it is
unlisted).  If the number is delivered with the call, people may start
calling me at that number.  My gripe is that I never gave them my
permission to call me at that number.  What if I want to reserve that
number for urgent calls only?  If the number is known to anybody, my
prioritization is defeated.  (yes, I know that call-return will work
anyway).

I'm really tempted to parody a WWI training film about radar (as seen
on Nova "The Echoes of War").  "the weather bears out the forecast -
cloudy and low visibilty.  But if the enemy took comfort in that,
they're living in a fool's paridise, for in an instant, tons of high
explosives will be on their way to the target, guided by the miracle
of RADAR".

Similarly, the good folks of Pennsylvania and California who don't
have caller-id are playing a child's game of peek-a-boo.  If I can't
see you, you can't see me.  But anybody receiving the call via SS7,
even across state lines, will see their number whether or not the
originator can use caller-id.  Their security blanket of privacy has
too many peep holes.

Grrrrrr!  I feel better now.


Jeffrey Jonas   [e-mail]

 ----------


[Moderator's Note: And finally, this last minute item which arrived
while I was in the process of editing this article.  PAT]


Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 21:54 GMT
From: Richard G Barry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller-id
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In item # <<telecom12.921.7>> Mike Schenk ([e-mail])
writes:

> If somebody familiar calls you will most likely recognize them
> anyway so you don't need Caller-ID. And if somebody you don't know
> calls, you won't recognize the phone number anyway so you have to
> pickup the phone anyway.

> Why would people reject an unidentified party? I wouldn't.  I would
> just answer the call and break it off if I don't like the call for
> some reason.

No one is FORCING you to subscribe to Caller-ID.  And virtually every
PTT gives you one or more Caller-ID blocking options.  Why not let
individuals and corporations who want to use it do so?

I like Caller-ID because I don't have to spell out my name, address,
phone and credit card number every time I call businesses I deal
frequently with - they pick my record up in their marketing database
using the Caller-ID feed.

While we in Europe don't have to put up with 'telesales slime' cold
calls interrupting our dinner, I can appreciate why someone in San
Jose, CA with 15 or so phone lines in his home (like JH) would be
somewhat annoyed (to put it mildly) at some brain-dead regulatory
authority effectively depriving him of a long awaited solution to
these repeated, uninvited intrusions into his life!


Richard Barry

| Richard G Barry, 133 Merrion Village, IRL-Dublin 04 (Ireland) |
| Voice [phone]#                  Fax  [phone]# |


[Moderator's Note: There is yet a Part III coming your way in a few

minutes; a long very detailed Caller-ID product description will be
included.   PAT]

---
[Moderator's Note: With this message, the Caller-ID thread is once
again being put to rest in TELECOM Digest -- at least until the next
time it flares up!   :)    PAT]