Caller-ID in CA (finally)?
John Higdon
>Give the old biddies a chance and they will be back in court filing
>suits angainst everyone to stop it. Even without it the system will
>not be in place until April 1994.
This time it won't matter. It will be out of the hands of the CPUC and
under the auspices of the FCC. The FCC is notorious for ignoring old
biddies and even "anonymous callers' rights activists".
From what I hear, this time it is going to happen and all the old,
tired arguments against it will just fall by the wayside. Finally!
--
John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX:
jo...@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407
John Higdon
to put in place standards for Caller-ID handling on an interstate
basis, the CPUC is considering withdrawing its heavy-handed
restrictions and simply adopting the FCC's version. For one thing, when
the FCC's rules are put in place, Pac*Bell will no longer be able to
"zero out" the calling number field on calls handed to an IXC. The FCC
will require that field to be correct, but will also require the
terminating telco to honor the privacy bit. But that will mean the
CLASS features would work properly, even across state lines.
I guess California is the only state in the Union without Caller-ID at
this point. While I ususally dislike Federal meddling in any matter, in
this case I will welcome any efforts it can bring to bear to push
California into the late twentieth century.
David A. Kaye
: I guess California is the only state in the Union without Caller-ID at
: this point. While I ususally dislike Federal meddling in any matter, in
: this case I will welcome any efforts it can bring to bear to push
: California into the late twentieth century.
I don't like Caller ID at all because it gives salespeople another edge
for calling back people who call them for info. Sure, this info is
available on 800 service, but Caller ID so expands the availability that
unscrupulous people will begin using it. Maybe it hasn't happened yet in
other states, but California is a world unto itself. As it is whenever
I've moved to a new apartment the Chronicle has usually been my first
incoming call, trying to sell me a subscription. Who knows how far this
will go if every time I call a business I get put into their database for
a future pitchman to phone.
--
d...@crl.com B3 f t++ w+ d+ k+ s- e r p; S6/7 g l- z++ o a++ u J++
San Francisco Approved by the Comics Code Authority
Steven H. Lichter
Not to argue with you since I agree 100% (that scares me), but the old
bittis could go to Federal court and slow things down unless the courts
act fast and we both know that will not happen.
--
***************************************************************
| -=- Sysop: Apple Elite II -=- an Ogg-Net Hub BBS |
| (909) 359-5338 12/24/96/14.4 V32/V42bis |
***************************************************************
john@zygot ati com
In article <2o37k8$d...@crl.crl.com> d...@crl.com (David A. Kaye) writes:
>John Higdon (jo...@zygot.ati.com) wrote:
>I don't like Caller ID at all because it gives salespeople another edge
>for calling back people who call them for info.
So here they come, the usual specious arguments against CNID.
>Sure, this info is
>available on 800 service, but Caller ID so expands the availability that
>unscrupulous people will begin using it.
Yes, it expands the capability to you and to me. Right now, businesses
are the ONLY telco customers who have this capability. You apparently
want business to be able to identify callers, but not the common man.
Are you in bed with big business or something?
>As it is whenever
>I've moved to a new apartment the Chronicle has usually been my first
>incoming call, trying to sell me a subscription. Who knows how far this
>will go if every time I call a business I get put into their database for
>a future pitchman to phone.
Wait a minute. You seem to have the concept of CNID backwards. If
people (the Chronicle, for example) call YOU, they already HAVE your
number. (They don't actually have your number; it is done randomly.)
Having CNID available does not post your number up on a
billboard somewhere--it is still unpublished and private. Only the
people that YOU CALL can see your number. If you do not want them to
see it, dial *67 (or don't call them in the first place).
So that we can get an idea concerning the magnitude of this problem,
could you list each and every business you have called in the last
thirty days? (Use the back of the page if necessary.) Do NOT include
any businesses that you gave your number to anyway. Then of those that
you list, explain why having that particular business knowing your
number would cause you harm. Then, finally, explain why it would have
been impossible for you to dial *67 before making that particular call.
I am serious about this. I really want to understand your point of view
here. Generalities won't do it. Your specific list of businesses as
mentioned above would surely convince me of your position. And I am
particularly eager to hear why you could not have dialed *67. If you
can show me these concrete examples and reasons, I will be willing to
put my whole being behind the anti-CNID cause. Remember, no
generalities, "what-ifs", theories, or fantasies. I want specific
examples how the implementation of CNID in that situation would have
caused you, Mr. Kaye, real inconvenience or harm.
Ron Schnell
>for calling back people who call them for info. Sure, this info is
Just prefix your calls to businesses with *67. Then they will not
get your number.
#Ron
dk@crl com
Ron Schnell (ron...@twitch.mit.edu) wrote:
: Just prefix your calls to businesses with *67. Then they will not
: get your number.
This assumes that such a provision will be required by the FCC decision.
Have you read it yet? If this is the case then I have no objection.
John Higdon
>I don't like Caller ID at all because it gives salespeople another edge
>for calling back people who call them for info.
So here they come, the usual specious arguments against CNID.
>Sure, this info is
>available on 800 service, but Caller ID so expands the availability that
>unscrupulous people will begin using it.
Yes, it expands the capability to you and to me. Right now, businesses
are the ONLY telco customers who have this capability. You apparently
want business to be able to identify callers, but not the common man.
Are you in bed with big business or something?
>As it is whenever
>I've moved to a new apartment the Chronicle has usually been my first
>incoming call, trying to sell me a subscription. Who knows how far this
>will go if every time I call a business I get put into their database for
>a future pitchman to phone.
Wait a minute. You seem to have the concept of CNID backwards. If
people (the Chronicle, for example) call YOU, they already HAVE your
number. (They don't actually have your number; it is done randomly.)
Having CNID available does not post your number up on a
billboard somewhere--it is still unpublished and private. Only the
people that YOU CALL can see your number. If you do not want them to
see it, dial *67 (or don't call them in the first place).
So that we can get an idea concerning the magnitude of this problem,
could you list each and every business you have called in the last
thirty days? (Use the back of the page if necessary.) Do NOT include
any businesses that you gave your number to anyway. Then of those that
you list, explain why having that particular business knowing your
number would cause you harm. Then, finally, explain why it would have
been impossible for you to dial *67 before making that particular call.
I am serious about this. I really want to understand your point of view
here. Generalities won't do it. Your specific list of businesses as
mentioned above would surely convince me of your position. And I am
particularly eager to hear why you could not have dialed *67. If you
can show me these concrete examples and reasons, I will be willing to
put my whole being behind the anti-CNID cause. Remember, no
generalities, "what-ifs", theories, or fantasies. I want specific
examples how the implementation of CNID in that situation would have
caused you, Mr. Kaye, real inconvenience or harm.
--
dk@crl com
John Higdon (jo...@zygot.ati.com) wrote:
: Yes, it expands the capability to you and to me. Right now, businesses
: are the ONLY telco customers who have this capability. You apparently
: want business to be able to identify callers, but not the common man.
Most telemarketers use DOD (Direct OUTWARD Dial) numbers which do not HAVE
telephone numbers, only circuit numbers. So, a telemarketing call made on
one of these 1-way circuits will not show anything on the Caller-ID box.
The key-jerk answer is "Well, just don't answer calls which don't display
a number." Sure, and miss a potential call from a friend vacationing in
a GTE or Podunk telco service area.
: Wait a minute. You seem to have the concept of CNID backwards. If
: people (the Chronicle, for example) call YOU, they already HAVE your
: number. (They don't actually have your number; it is done randomly.)
Apparently you're not familiar with SFNA's telemarketing. They get lists
of all new installations directly from Pac*Bell, and have for years. The
calls are not random at all. They ask for the householder by name, in
fact. What I am getting at by using the Chron example is not how caller
ID works, but to demonstrate the pervasiveness of telemarketing. But
WAIT, there's more...
CASE #1: If I answer an ad to buy someone's bicycle they may sell my
number to a bicycle store. (I once uploaded shareware programs I wrote to
Compuserve and GEnie and some bastard sold my name right off the program's
screen to about a dozen companies including a long distance company, a
MC/Visa vendor, and Egghead software!) I fully expect this to happen with
phone numbers, too, if they become available.
CASE #2: If I order a pizza they might cross-ref it and start sending me
junk mail. As it is, as soon as you call Amex your account is on the
operator's screen. With Amex I don't mind as much, because if they tried
anything nasty they'd have consumer groups filing actions against them.
But little Joe Blow down the street will buy a database for his store's
PC and cross-ref all his callers. Will anyone stop him? Does anyone
stop junk faxes from small companies today?
: So that we can get an idea concerning the magnitude of this problem,
: could you list each and every business you have called in the last
: thirty days?
Wells Fargo Conference Center, Charles Schwab, Brother computer company,
a local pizza place, National Business Lists, American Business Lists,
Arvey Paper, Sybex Publishing, Concord Toyota, Radio Shack, Eber
Electronics, Hewlett Packard, Gaybook yellow pages, Bay Guardian, SF
Weekly, Pacific Bell yellow pages, Nordstrom, Foot Locker, etc. All
except NBL and ABL were local number calls, not 800. Inquiries ranged
from quotes for a business I'm setting up to questions about whether a
store carries my shoe size.
Each and every one could in turn compile junk mail lists based on my
questions about products or services and/or have their salespeople call me
back to pitch me if they had my number.
Hell, 10 years ago when I was in the answering service business we could
not get away from the telemarketing calls. Any time I'd run an ad or give
my phone number when I was inquiring about something or other meant I'd
get 1-5 calls thereafter trying to pitch me something. Back in 1985, mind
you, I once logged 37 calls in one day from telemarketers...and the first
one was at 5:00am (because it was 8:00am on the East Coast). But we
couldn't put our published number on a machine because we'd blow off our
new business. The reason the count was so high was that we had a 1/2
page yellow pages ad. Even so, it got to the point where I had to give
my friends code words because the telemarketers would ask for me by name.
Most of the time I have my home phone on call forwarding to voicemail.
Last Tuesday I didn't do so during the daytime and I had 2 calls from
printing brokers from whom I'd gotten estimates some time ago, and one
from someone who wanted to fix my roof (I live in an apartment). Sure,
all of this is happening without Caller ID, but just think of the abuse
potential once it comes into use.
: Then, finally, explain why it would have
: been impossible for you to dial *67 before making that particular call.
This assumes that *67 would be available. I have only skimmed the FCC
ruling and don't know if there is a provision for requiring this or not.
If it is available universally, I plan to use it.
David A. Kaye
: Yes, it expands the capability to you and to me. Right now, businesses
: are the ONLY telco customers who have this capability. You apparently
: want business to be able to identify callers, but not the common man.
Most telemarketers use DOD (Direct OUTWARD Dial) numbers which do not HAVE
telephone numbers, only circuit numbers. So, a telemarketing call made on
one of these 1-way circuits will not show anything on the Caller-ID box.
The key-jerk answer is "Well, just don't answer calls which don't display
a number." Sure, and miss a potential call from a friend vacationing in
a GTE or Podunk telco service area.
: Wait a minute. You seem to have the concept of CNID backwards. If
: people (the Chronicle, for example) call YOU, they already HAVE your
: number. (They don't actually have your number; it is done randomly.)
Apparently you're not familiar with SFNA's telemarketing. They get lists
of all new installations directly from Pac*Bell, and have for years. The
calls are not random at all. They ask for the householder by name, in
fact. What I am getting at by using the Chron example is not how caller
ID works, but to demonstrate the pervasiveness of telemarketing. But
WAIT, there's more...
CASE #1: If I answer an ad to buy someone's bicycle they may sell my
number to a bicycle store. (I once uploaded shareware programs I wrote to
Compuserve and GEnie and some bastard sold my name right off the program's
screen to about a dozen companies including a long distance company, a
MC/Visa vendor, and Egghead software!) I fully expect this to happen with
phone numbers, too, if they become available.
CASE #2: If I order a pizza they might cross-ref it and start sending me
junk mail. As it is, as soon as you call Amex your account is on the
operator's screen. With Amex I don't mind as much, because if they tried
anything nasty they'd have consumer groups filing actions against them.
But little Joe Blow down the street will buy a database for his store's
PC and cross-ref all his callers. Will anyone stop him? Does anyone
stop junk faxes from small companies today?
: So that we can get an idea concerning the magnitude of this problem,
: could you list each and every business you have called in the last
: thirty days?
Wells Fargo Conference Center, Charles Schwab, Brother computer company,
: Then, finally, explain why it would have
: been impossible for you to dial *67 before making that particular call.
This assumes that *67 would be available. I have only skimmed the FCC
David A. Kaye
: Just prefix your calls to businesses with *67. Then they will not
: get your number.
This assumes that such a provision will be required by the FCC decision.
Have you read it yet? If this is the case then I have no objection.
--
Al Varney
>Ron Schnell (ron...@twitch.mit.edu) wrote:
>
>: Just prefix your calls to businesses with *67. Then they will not
>: get your number.
>
>This assumes that such a provision will be required by the FCC decision.
>Have you read it yet? If this is the case then I have no objection.
Selected lines from the FCC's summary follow, but first 2 notes:
1) The reference to ANI below is not to Calling Party Number -- the
FCC knows the difference.
2) The FCC does not state that "*67" must be the means of marking a call
private -- only that a free per-call means must exist....
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Report No. DC-2571 ACTION IN DOCKET CASE March 8, 1994
CALLER ID TO BE AVAILABLE NATIONWIDE; FCC ADOPTS FEDERAL POLICIES
FOR REGULATION
(CC DOCKET 91-281)
The Commission has adopted a federal model, effective April 12,
1995, for interstate delivery of calling party number based services.
The rules adopted today enable these services to become available
to consumers and businesses nationwide and require free, automatic,
per call blocking to protect privacy interests.
-- Carriers offering CPN delivery services must provide, at no
charge to the caller, an automatic per call blocking mechanism for
interstate callers. Terminating carriers providing calling party based
services, including caller ID, must honor the privacy indicator;
The Commission also adopted rules to limit the use of information
generated by ANI to call set-up, routing, screening, billing and
collection and other services by end users, with exceptions for most
law enforcement and emergency uses and for marketing by the ANI
recipient only. The reuse or sale of ANI would be prohibited absent
affirmative subscriber consent, and carriers would be required to
educate callers regarding ANI services. (ANI based services were
developed in the pre-SS7 signalling environment as the billing
telephone number of the calling party. Because this technology
predates SS7 technology, ANI is not blockable in the same way as the
calling party number in an SS7 network.)
In considering whether to extend its existing rules governing
disclosure of customer proprietary network information (CPNI) to cover
residential and single line business customers as protection of their
privacy interests, the Commission said it would seek comments through
a separate public notice to be considered in the context of the
Computer III Remand Proceeding.
Steven H. Lichter
I stop junk mail by sending anything back with a postage paid enevlope.
It costs them a bit to get it back and I have noticed it does not happen
second time.
The *67 will be part of call id block. I think the benefits are more then
then dangers.
David Lesher
>CALLER ID TO BE AVAILABLE NATIONWIDE; FCC ADOPTS FEDERAL POLICIES
> FOR REGULATION
> (CC DOCKET 91-281)
ISTM there was talk about federal preemption of per-line blocking
presently available in many states.
But I see nothing of that in the above. Has anyone heard any more on
that?
Will the above change the situation in CA, where it is approved by
the PUC, but the telcos are sulking over the rules?
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close...........(v)301 56 LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close)....kibo# 777............pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead..............vr....................20915-1433
John Higdon
>John Higdon (jo...@zygot.ati.com) wrote:
>CASE #1: If I answer an ad to buy someone's bicycle they may sell my
>number to a bicycle store.
And the first time you get a call from this little hypothetical
situation, you say, "not interested" and hang up. You will be taken off
the list faster than you can imagine.
>CASE #2: If I order a pizza they might cross-ref it and start sending me
>junk mail.
How would you know? I get so much junk mail now that my daily mail does
not fit in the box--a lot of it falls on the ground. And that is every
single day. And phone numbers are not addresses. Where would it be
sent? Service address? Billing address? Those are not necessarily the
same.
>But little Joe Blow down the street will buy a database for his store's
>PC and cross-ref all his callers. Will anyone stop him? Does anyone
>stop junk faxes from small companies today?
Litte Joe Blow lacks the resouces to flood yours or anyone else's
mailbox. And CNID will have zero effect on junk faxes. I don't know
about yours, but my fax machine identifies itself to every other
machine it calls. Besides, junk faxes are the result of number
surfing--looking for fax machines through random dialing.
>Most of the time I have my home phone on call forwarding to voicemail.
>Last Tuesday I didn't do so during the daytime and I had 2 calls from
>printing brokers from whom I'd gotten estimates some time ago, and one
>from someone who wanted to fix my roof (I live in an apartment). Sure,
>all of this is happening without Caller ID, but just think of the abuse
>potential once it comes into use.
That is very interesting. I have seventeen lines in my home. Do you
know that I cannot remember the last time that one of them rang with a
telemarketing call? I know there has not been a single one in 1994.
Notice my phone number displayed in the clear at the bottom of this
message. I have done that since the mid-eighties when I became active
on the net. The percentage of "junk" calls that intrude on that line
is virtually unmeasurable.
Oh, I used to get plenty of telemarketing calls. Finally I developed a
policy of saying, "I'm sorry. I do not accept telephone solicitation
offers of any kind. I am sure you will understand. Good Bye." After a
couple of months, the calls all stopped. You see, this same nefarious
network that you are convinced will make your life a living hell
(sounds like it already is without benefit of CNID) also removes "dead
ends" from the list so that clients do not waste valuable telemarketing
time. So you see, you need not deprive everyone the benefits of CNID
solely because of your telemarketing paranoia.
>This assumes that *67 would be available. I have only skimmed the FCC
>ruling and don't know if there is a provision for requiring this or not.
>If it is available universally, I plan to use it.
Yes, *67 will be available. Pick up your phone right now and dial it.
You will get confirmation tone and then dial tone. It was always
intended to be part of the offering in California.
Steven H. Lichter
From what I have heard from people I new regulartory have that the
Federal rules will apply and the PUC may just approve it as written
shorly.
Prof. Feedlebom
: Litte Joe Blow lacks the resouces to flood yours or anyone else's
: mailbox. And CNID will have zero effect on junk faxes. I don't know
Besisdes the point that most small, local businesses use mass-mailings..
addressed to RESIDENT, usually as part of a flyer such as the Pennysaver,
etc. As John pointed out, they do not have the resources to do targeted
mailings.. the average businessperson I know cannot even keep up with the
daily routine, let alone dedicate time to building and using a large
customer database.
: That is very interesting. I have seventeen lines in my home. Do you
: know that I cannot remember the last time that one of them rang with a
: telemarketing call? I know there has not been a single one in 1994.
: Notice my phone number displayed in the clear at the bottom of this
: message. I have done that since the mid-eighties when I became active
: on the net. The percentage of "junk" calls that intrude on that line
: is virtually unmeasurable.
: Oh, I used to get plenty of telemarketing calls. Finally I developed a
: policy of saying, "I'm sorry. I do not accept telephone solicitation
: offers of any kind. I am sure you will understand. Good Bye." After a
: couple of months, the calls all stopped. You see, this same nefarious
: network that you are convinced will make your life a living hell
: (sounds like it already is without benefit of CNID) also removes "dead
: ends" from the list so that clients do not waste valuable telemarketing
: time. So you see, you need not deprive everyone the benefits of CNID
: solely because of your telemarketing paranoia.
Since I started answering my parent's phone line, and informing any
callers that "Mr. Sullivan does not accept unsolicited sales calls.
If you would like to mail him some information, I can be sure he gets
it...", I've seen an exponential decrease in solicitation traffic. The
few calls that remain are from companies we already do business with:
The cable company, the credit union, etc., and these are the freindly,
polite type of telemarketing calls.
The telephone is there for YOUR convenience. You are not obligated to
talk to anyone, you know. Tell 'em what you think, and you'll find they
will stop calling. When I worked in telemarketing, we removed names from
the list when people said they didn't like getting telemarketing calls.
And, the company I worked for did soliciting for everyone from Zayer's
Department Store (a long-since bankrupt storeon the East Coast), to three
of the local cable companies.
Sameer Manek:SysOp
>
> I stop junk mail by sending anything back with a postage paid enevlope.
> It costs them a bit to get it back and I have noticed it does not happen
> second time.
I do that too, except I tend to add things in the envelope they
provide, things that are free to me but add weight and cost them
like extra junk mail that doesn't have a reply envelope.
>
> The *67 will be part of call id block. I think the benefits are more then
> then dangers.
I agree, caller id, has too many advantages to not implement it.
for those who want to remain anonymous and call businesses or prank
calls there is always *67.,
> --
> ***************************************************************
> | -=- Sysop: Apple Elite II -=- an Ogg-Net Hub BBS |
> | (909) 359-5338 12/24/96/14.4 V32/V42bis |
> ***************************************************************
---------------- Sameer Manek::SysOp of the BigBrother BBS -----------------
monitoring people's lives since George Orwell's 1984
Sea...@YesaNeXT.sbay.org "Starlight, starbright, wish I may, wish I
Sea...@YesaNeXT.TheTech.COM might, turn this PC into a NexT"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
puma
>: That is very interesting. I have seventeen lines in my home. Do you
>: know that I cannot remember the last time that one of them rang with a
>: telemarketing call? I know there has not been a single one in 1994.
>: Notice my phone number displayed in the clear at the bottom of this
>: message. I have done that since the mid-eighties when I became active
>: on the net. The percentage of "junk" calls that intrude on that line
>: is virtually unmeasurable.
I've noticed that many telemarketing callers are not using directories.
I have two lines, which happen to have consecutive numbers (I once had
hunting, and back then on the exchange type we had, to hunt the numbers
had to be consecutive). They no longer hunt, and only the first number
is listed. I often receive telemarketing calls *concurrently* on both
lines, multiple callers using an autodialer, one gets one line, next
person gets the second.
When that happens, I connect them to each other. They get very confused
and think there's something wrong at THEIR end... Usually I just wait
for telemarketers to take a breath (how DO they hold it so long?),
tell them no thanks and disconnect.
Lindy Sisk
>
>Give the old biddies a chance and they will be back in court filing
>suits angainst everyone to stop it. Even without it the system will
>not be in place until April 1994.
I'm not sure what you meant - according to my calendar, which could be
wrong, this *IS* April 1994.
--
Linden B. (Lindy) Sisk | Voice: +1-713-975-4491 Ham: AK5N
Consulting System Engineer | Fax: +1-713-975-4590 Bix: lbsisk
Texaco, Inc. 6464 Savoy, MS-6238 | DOD# 0953 CIS: 72047,2645
Houston, TX 77036 | Internet: sis...@texaco.com
Steven H. Lichter
nsa...@quack.kfu.com (Nick Sayer)
writes:
:If caller-id comes, then blocking-blocking won't be far behind. I
:don't really want caller-id, myself. But I do look forward to
:blocking-blocking as a way to screen out a whole class of phone
:calls I am extremely unlikely to wish to answer.
GTE Northwest just started Caller-ID and it was noted that almost
everone that got it also has Call Blocking. Asked the reason and
most said they wanted to know who called them, but did not want
anyone to know their number
Andrew Laurence
>If caller-id comes, then blocking-blocking won't be far behind. I
>don't really want caller-id, myself. But I do look forward to
>blocking-blocking as a way to screen out a whole class of phone
>calls I am extremely unlikely to wish to answer.
Blocking blocking is a bad idea. Sometimes people have a legitimate need
to maintain the privacy of their phone numbers (when answering someone who
responded to your personal ad and you're not yet sure you want to meet
them, for example).
However, I would have no problem with your being able to tell your phone,
"If the person has blocked Caller ID, then I don't want the call to go
through." That way, no one will call you and think their number is being
hidden from you when it isn't, and you still won't get calls from people
you don't want to talk to (presumably).
--
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Andrew Laurence Oakland, California USA |
| laur...@netcom.com Pacific Standard Time (GMT-8) |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
| If wishes were SLIP connections, beggars would run XWindows and |
| MOSAIC. |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
Bohdan Tashchuk
>GTE Northwest just started Caller-ID and it was noted that almost
>everone that got it also has Call Blocking. Asked the reason and
>most said they wanted to know who called them, but did not want
>anyone to know their number
The perfect GTE straight man to my tale of woe about those bozos.
I'm in a suburb of Portland, definitely Great Telefone Experiment country.
A recent bill insert mentioned that my exchange was capable of Caller ID.
The same info is in my phone book. (Of course, this comes many months after
US West started offering the same service here. For some reason the PUC
rejected GTE's initial filing!)
I placed the order and GTE, of course, started billing me two days later.
But, again of course, no caller ID. When I complained they (to their credit)
immediately checked it out. A craft person told me:
"we're not going to be able to offer that service to you"
I suspect that the underlying reason is GTE pinhead management, and so
beyond his control. He did offer an 800 number (obviously out of state!)
for me to call if I REALLY needed the service. He also mentioned that in
that case they would
"need to do some reengineering"
before I could have it.
I got the impression he wanted to help, but that GTE policy was to avoid
spending money on the "reengineering" unless a customer was persistent.
Can anyone think of any reason for the "reengineering"? I know I'm on a
5ESS, but I also know that there is some multiplexer equipment in a vault
a few hundred feet away. I hypothesize that this multiplexer equipment is
what's incapable of passing the Caller ID from the CO to my house. Does
that make sense? In which case would the "reengineering" mean moving me
to a line that goes directly to the CO? The CO isn't that far away, it's
just that development is sprouting up like crazy around here, so the most
economical solution is probably these multiplexers.
I haven't bothered to pursue Caller ID any more.
But I have implemented a limited form of "revenge". I bought 1 share of
their stock. This was possible because I noticed in a recent net posting
that my broker offered such a service for only $5 commission. Apparently
people buy Costco and Disney this way to get discounts.
By the way, if you do this, be sure to have the broker deliver the
certificate to you. If it's held in "street name", GTE only sees the
total number of shares held by the broker as a single shareholder.
I look forward to cashing my dividend check every quarter. I also plan on
using my postage-paid proxy to vote against GTE management every year.
I also want to thank all the other shareholders and subscribers of GTE
for paying more for their phone service so that GTE can send me the annual
report, etc. Maybe I can also try to get something on the proxy:
Resolved: GTE management is primarily composed of pinheads. The
whole lot should be fired, or maybe dragged out back and shot!
If we all complained this way, maybe GTE would notice. Maybe not.
--
Bohdan The Failed Clinton Presidency - America Held Hostage - Day 447
Brian Kantor
of the complaint I made here on CDTT. I received a call from our
account rep, and another from our district repair manager, both of whom
were concerned about seeing that such slipups didn't occur in future.
A subsequent trouble call (made by another person than myself just so
my name wouldn't trigger any flags) was handled promptly and
correctly. I hope that this is an indication of how things will be
handled in future.
Thanks to all (especially those in Pac Bell who took an interest)!
Brian Kantor
UCSD Network Operations (619) 534-6865
UCSD C-024, La Jolla, CA 92093-0124 USA fax: 619 534 1746
br...@ucsd.edu BRIAN@UCSD ucsd!brian
Nick Sayer
don't really want caller-id, myself. But I do look forward to
blocking-blocking as a way to screen out a whole class of phone
calls I am extremely unlikely to wish to answer.
--
Nick Sayer <nsa...@quack.kfu.com> | "People ask me, 'Alexei, what's the best
N6QQQ @ N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM | version of Unix for Intel processors?'
+1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest' | And I say, 'Piss off, you stupid twit!'"
PGP 2.2 key and geek code via finger | -- Alexei Sayle (if he were a Unix hacker)
Brian Kantor
>Just prefix your calls to businesses with *67. Then they will not
>get your number.
Or call them from a PBX, like the one at work. Then all they get is the
number of one of the switch trunk lines, and IT won't answer if they call it.
- Brian
Brian Kantor
with *67 (or whatever the code may be). If none is available, I'll
have to take one of those old demon-dialer boxes and hack on up.
On the other hand, I'd love my 300+ modem lines to record what number
called them in the connection log.
- Brian
Dave Niebuhr
Kantor) wrote:
>I simply want a telephone that can be programmed to prefix all calls
>with *67 (or whatever the code may be). If none is available, I'll
>have to take one of those old demon-dialer boxes and hack on up.
Phones don't have to be programmed to block the number; this is done
at the switch end where the subscriber lets the telco know what status
is wanted: per-call or per-line.
The telco takes it from there.
The *67 is used to reverse the permanent setting: *67 on a per-line
block unblocks it for that call only; vice-versa for per-call.
Dave
Dave Niebuhr Internet: d...@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (preferred)
nie...@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Senior Technical Specialist, Scientific Computing Facility
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 1+(516) 282-3093
FAX 1+(516) 282-7688
barry mishkind
So, in other words, you're the hypocrite of the group. You want to know
everyone that calls you, but you're unwilling to identify yourself to
others?
--
============================================================================
Barry Mishkind
ba...@coyote.datalog.com Tucson, Arizona
Steven H. Lichter
Some Fidonet board is dummping dups of older posts back. Anyone have
any idea?
Alan Brown
|> On the other hand, I'd love my 300+ modem lines to record what number
|> called them in the connection log.
I'd settle for the system telling the modem user
"you are calling from xxx xxxx" as part of the login script.
That gives crackers the shits like nothing else.
--
SCRUM: A collection of 'real men' engaged in an activity, which, if
conducted anywhere other than on a rugby field, would result
in their immediate arrest.
Kevin W. Reed
>In article <2od1r7$i...@network.ucsd.edu> br...@nothing.ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes:
>>I simply want a telephone that can be programmed to prefix all calls
>>with *67 (or whatever the code may be). If none is available, I'll
>>have to take one of those old demon-dialer boxes and hack on up.
>>
>>On the other hand, I'd love my 300+ modem lines to record what number
>>called them in the connection log.
>> - Brian
>So, in other words, you're the hypocrite of the group. You want to know
>everyone that calls you, but you're unwilling to identify yourself to
>others?
Sounds like me. I've got Caller-ID blocking on all my lines (even the
modem ones) but just turned on Caller-ID service to see who is calling me.
Sounds a bit illogical, but if someone wants to give me their name and
number when they call, I'm willing to look at it. Doesn't mean that I
have to give my name and number out.
--
| Kevin W. Reed (kreed) TELESYS DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS (TNET.COM) |
| kr...@TNET.COM 2359 W De Palma Ave, Mesa AZ 85202 |
| System Administrator / Unix BBS Developer BBS/UUCP/DATA 602-649-9099 |
David A. Kaye
: Litte Joe Blow lacks the resouces to flood yours or anyone else's
: mailbox. And CNID will have zero effect on junk faxes. I don't know
: about yours, but my fax machine identifies itself to every other
: machine it calls. Besides, junk faxes are the result of number
: surfing--looking for fax machines through random dialing.
My reference to junk faxes is a reference to the fact that while the big
guys will not abuse the knowledge of the calling party, the small guys
likely will, in the same manner that junk faxes are coming not from the
big companies, but from the little guys. No amoung of regulation seems
to stop these people from making the junk fax calls. Neither will the
protections of law do much to stop them when it comes to having phone
numbers of people.
: That is very interesting. I have seventeen lines in my home. Do you
: know that I cannot remember the last time that one of them rang with a
: telemarketing call?
Obviously you don't answer all these phone lines personally.
David A. Kaye
: I'd settle for the system telling the modem user
: "you are calling from xxx xxxx" as part of the login script.
: That gives crackers the shits like nothing else.
But why? I am on a rather famous BBS network, NirvanaNet, which members
subscribe to the philosophy of allowing open access to anyone without
verification of their name, phone number, or address. Problems? No.
And there are 8 BBSs, all independently run on the network. (The reason
I say it's famous is because it's been written up in the National
Enquirer and seen on one of those tabloid TV shows. The network is a far
mor fascinating read than any verification BBS I've ever seen.
Ender Wiggin
>Phones don't have to be programmed to block the number; this is done
>at the switch end where the subscriber lets the telco know what status
>is wanted: per-call or per-line.
Ah - only if the State regulating body allows this service.
To the best of my knowledge (having asked Southwestern Bell), default
blocking is not avaliable in Oklahoma. Period.
David A. Kaye
: >called them in the connection log.
Why is this? Nosy? What difference does it make who calls you? I don't
understand your interest in getting the private phone numbers of each
person who calls you BBS. Please explain.
Steven H. Lichter
:understand your interest in getting the private phone numbers of each
:person who calls you BBS. Please explain.
BBS has a special need to know who is using his BBS an their phone
number. I have run a BBS since 1987 and during that time I have had users
log on who think that they have the god given right to do and say amnything
that want on the BBS. Weel it is still a private system and the SysOp has
the right to tell anyone who calls what they can and can't do. If that
person does not like it then they don't have to call. A Sysop can be
any reason unless I have to reach that person. Sometimes I do call to
check on the new users and now I have a call back system, no real number
no access, just that simple.
Steven H. Lichter
Mr Kaye
You seem like you have a god given right to do anything you want on
another persons computer system. The SysOp can make any rule or lack
of rules on his/her system. You have the right noto to call the system.
David A. Kaye
: Everyone has the right to know who is bothering them. A person running a
: BBS has a special need to know who is using his BBS an their phone
: number. I have run a BBS since 1987 and during that time I have had users
: log on who think that they have the god given right to do and say amnything
: that want on the BBS.
The BBS network example I used still holds. Too many sysops play god.
One of our local ones wants full name, address, birthdate, height,
weight, age, phone number, make and model of computer (so the sysop can
steal it?) and all kinds of other info. Does it do any good? The BBSs I
mentioned have no verification whatsoever, just the default stuff they
encourage people to fill out with phony names, addresses, etc.
Problems? No. When the phrackers discover there's nothing hidden to
crack, they lose interest and go away.
--
d...@crl.com No more "Tales", no more pledge money. Boycott PBS!
San Francisco B3 f t++ w+ d+ k+ s- e r p; S6/7 g l- z++ o a++ u J++
David A. Kaye
: Mr Kaye
: You seem like you have a god given right to do anything you want on
: another persons computer system. The SysOp can make any rule or lack
: of rules on his/her system. You have the right noto to call the system.
Why did you post this twice? I do notice that while you want to have
everyone's identity, you call the Internet via Freenet, which allows all
kinds of anonymous use. How do we know your name is really Steven H.
Lichter? For all your BBS callers know you could be a child molester
grabbing phone numbers of kids who call your BBS to make dates with
them. As another poster said in this space -- the people who want Caller
ID are the same ones who DON'T want others to know who THEY are.
Steven H. Lichter
Mr. Kaye:
It was posted twice in error.
I use Cleveland Freenet and another Freenet system because it has all
the newsgroups I want to read. Believe me it is my name, I have no
reason to hide, is that yours? You can call my BBS and if you want you
could call L/D information and find a listing for me, how about you.
I don't ask a lot of questions to get on the system, just what is
needed to know a little about the user and their interest in computers,
not much else.
en...@enge.almaden.ibm.com
This is also going to be true in California. PacBell, GTE, Contel, etc
told the PUC that they would not install CallerID if there was per-line
blocking. The PUC held a bunch of hearings and said that per-line
blocking ability was mandatory. The telcos then declined to offer the
service.
Roy Engehausen
en...@almaden.ibm.com
Steven H. Lichter
Roy Engehausen:
Stated that the PUC put to many restrictions on CID, well the FCC has
taken over regulation and from what it looks like the system will go
n as planned with single calle block, it does mot take effect until
April 1995 but could happen sooner if the PUC acts. Call and write
demanding CID now.
David A. Kaye
: What a sense of entitlement here! I would say that anyone who sets up a
: free BBS and maintains it for the use of the public IS God in a very
: real sense. You, as a user, are free to not use his system.
I don't intend to. I also give money to support the BBSs I call. But we
have to get into the reason *why* so many people play sysop to begin with.
Some do it for conversation. Some do it to explore the technology. But
some do it to play god. And what I was getting at was that he may be
deluding himself to think he's playing BBS for some other reason than to
play god. The use of Caller ID on his BBS is clearly NOT a security
issue, since I know of about 10 BBSs (and this is just locally) where NO
verification of any sort is asked. I will be happy to provide some phone
numbers of same to those who feel that "security" is any real need at all.
Call these BBSs and you'll find them to be very happy environments.
: multi-year experience has proven that when callers know that their
: number is being captured, they become MUCH more truthful.
Okay, turn the USA into another Singapore. People will be more "honest"
under the threat of flogging. Ban chewing gum; put moisture detectors in
elevators to set off alarms when anyone spits in them. Singapore does it.
John Higdon
>The BBS network example I used still holds. Too many sysops play god.
What a sense of entitlement here! I would say that anyone who sets up a
free BBS and maintains it for the use of the public IS God in a very
real sense. You, as a user, are free to not use his system.
I have never operated a BBS, and maybe it is a good thing. As someone
who has had a moderately well-connected system for a number of years, I
have frequently given UUCP and even shell logins to people that are
personally known to me. Most of these people appreciate the FREE
service and take it or leave it as appropriate.
>One of our local ones wants full name, address, birthdate, height,
>weight, age, phone number, make and model of computer (so the sysop can
>steal it?) and all kinds of other info. Does it do any good? The BBSs I
>mentioned have no verification whatsoever, just the default stuff they
>encourage people to fill out with phony names, addresses, etc.
And some BBSes do verify these things and kick people off who have
falsified information. Given the current climate of cyberspace
witch-hunting, anyone doing any less than complete verification of
users is sky-diving without checking his chute. Regardless of the
conjecture and arm.chair.theories that abound in this forum, practical,
multi-year experience has proven that when callers know that their
number is being captured, they become MUCH more truthful.
>Problems? No. When the phrackers discover there's nothing hidden to
>crack, they lose interest and go away.
My fear of providing computer service to strangers is less regarding
phrackers than it is regarding people who just might be using the
system for illegal activity, real or perceived.
--
John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX:
jo...@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407
Nick Sayer
>nsa...@quack.kfu.com (Nick Sayer) writes:
>>If caller-id comes, then blocking-blocking won't be far behind. I
>>don't really want caller-id, myself. But I do look forward to
>>blocking-blocking as a way to screen out a whole class of phone
>>calls I am extremely unlikely to wish to answer.
>Blocking blocking is a bad idea.
That's your opinion. Mine differs.
> Sometimes people have a legitimate need
>to maintain the privacy of their phone numbers (when answering someone who
>responded to your personal ad and you're not yet sure you want to meet
>them, for example).
Then I won't place any personal adds. Problem solved.
>However, I would have no problem with your being able to tell your phone,
>"If the person has blocked Caller ID, then I don't want the call to go
>through."
Duh. That's what blocking-blocking is, dude!
> That way, no one will call you and think their number is being
>hidden from you when it isn't, and you still won't get calls from people
>you don't want to talk to (presumably).
Now I see the source of your opinion. It is not based on a definition
for block-blocking that is.... unique, to say the least.
John Higdon
>Okay, turn the USA into another Singapore. People will be more "honest"
>under the threat of flogging. Ban chewing gum; put moisture detectors in
>elevators to set off alarms when anyone spits in them. Singapore does it.
Hmmm... Interesting comparison. However, I think that Singapore is very
nice place, with clean facilities that actually work (unlike the US
which is mostly a defective sewer--at least in the cities.)
But I really do fail to see what chewing gum, moisture detectors,
flogging, etc., has to do with a caller's telephonic identity being
revealed to a callee. When someone calls someone else, he wants
something. The called person did not initiate the action; the caller
did. The caller is the controller of the action. In every other aspect
of your life, the person doing the requesting or demanding is not
allowed anonymity. Why ONLY on the telephone??
BTW, mentioning Singapore in this inappropriate context is known as the
"Hitler invocation". If you don't have a real argument or a significant
point, just bring up Hitler and compare your debate opponent to him.
Don Davis
nsa...@quack.kfu.com (Nick Sayer) writes:
>If caller-id comes, then blocking-blocking won't be far behind. I
>don't really want caller-id, myself. But I do look forward to
>blocking-blocking as a way to screen out a whole class of phone
>calls I am extremely unlikely to wish to answer.
Okay, so you'll be using blocking-blocking-screening...but it won't be
long before someone proposes blocking-blocking-screening-foiling, the
service which provides (whatever it takes) to send your end *some*
kind of useless "ident" to get past your shields^H^H^H^H^H^Hscreening.
"Incoming cloaked call on line four!"
"Shields up!"
"Wait! They're sending a friendly hail -- should we let them through?"
Ahhhh, technology...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Davis | Internet: dgdhome!dda...@meaddata.com | Tel: 513-235-0096
Don Davis
We're getting Caller*ID next month here in Dayton, and I've been pondering
this topic. I understand that there are areas where the phone company
handles blocking-blocking, maybe for an additional fee. They may also
offer selected number blocking, where you can add the number of the last
caller to your "blocked list" even if it was blocked (you don't get to
find out the number, but the telco computers know it). There is, however,
an upper limit on the number of entries in the "blocked list" and it is
*not* large (somewhere in the 10-20 range, I believe). Grrrrr...
Anyhow, there's this outfit in Atlanta called Zeus Phonestuff (really,
that's their name), and they sell a small box that
1. suppresses the first ring (doesn't let it go through to the attached
telephone instrument)
2. will deliver the Caller*ID info to your computer
3. will accept a command from your computer as to whether or not to
let subsequent rings go through to the telephone instrument.
With some fairly simple database software (which they *do* provide),
you can block *all* ID-blocked calls, and/or a list of numbers limited
only by the storage available on your PC.
Note: I have not yet reviewed their software. The comments above are
derived from my discussion with them before I placed my order. I have
received the units, they look nice, but I haven't gotten around to setting
things up yet. I'll probably do my own software, anyhow, since I want to
do speech synthesis to announce calls...but that's another story.
In case anyone is interested, their number is 404-263-7111 / 800-240-4637.
Also, I don't work for them, and I have no idea how their product compares
to whatever else might be out there on the market.
Sameer Manek:SysOp
> In article <2opjbv$q...@crl.crl.com> d...@crl.com (David A. Kaye) writes:
>
> >Okay, turn the USA into another Singapore. People will be more "honest"
> >under the threat of flogging. Ban chewing gum; put moisture detectors in
> >elevators to set off alarms when anyone spits in them. Singapore does it.
>
> BTW, mentioning Singapore in this inappropriate context is known as the
> "Hitler invocation". If you don't have a real argument or a significant
> point, just bring up Hitler and compare your debate opponent to him.
>
Oh you mean like this?
I personally agree with most of the comments you had on caller id,
John, its like walking up to someone in a mall after your friend
has already told you that person's name and start talking to them.
(canter & segal == hitler) but refusing to tell them your name.
there is only one reason not to have caller id, and that is if your
up to no good (mischief like crank calling), having an option to
disable caller id should be included also though for the occasional
legitimate reasons to disable caller id. (IE calling a business where
you don't want to be added to some telemarker sales list)
The caller knows what number they dialed, but the callee never knows
who is calling them, unless the caller makes that information public.
---------------- Sameer Manek::SysOp of the BigBrother BBS -----------------
monitoring people's lives since George Orwell's 1984
Sea...@YesaNeXT.sbay.org "Starlight, starbright, wish I may, wish I
Sea...@YesaNeXT.TheTech.COM might, turn this PC into a NexT"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Stein
>long before someone proposes blocking-blocking-screening-foiling, the
>service which provides (whatever it takes) to send your end *some*
>kind of useless "ident" to get past your shields^H^H^H^H^H^Hscreening.
This leads naturally to *real* caller id!
The caller sends some self-choosen value with the call setup
request. This would identify the caller (and sometimes the
purpose), not the phone number the caller happened to be using.
This information could be anything. I would expect real
business calls where you already had a business relationship
would include some tokens the entities in the relationship
had established as "account numbers" for the relationship.
So your bank calling about your account would provide the bank
name/id, their account # for you, your name/id, your account #
for them. Add in some encryption/authentication codes and what
more could you want?
Jeff Driever
>In TELECOM-TECH Digest, Issue: 226 Volume: 2 br...@nothing.ucsd.edu (Brian
>Kantor) wrote:
>
>>I simply want a telephone that can be programmed to prefix all calls
>>with *67 (or whatever the code may be). If none is available, I'll
>>have to take one of those old demon-dialer boxes and hack on up.
>
>Phones don't have to be programmed to block the number; this is done
>at the switch end where the subscriber lets the telco know what status
>is wanted: per-call or per-line.
>
Except that it is my understanding that there is a PER-MONTH surcharge for
per-line blocking, whereas one can dial *67 to block calls 'til your fingers
turn blue for free.
Personally, I would rather spend $30 extra (or whatever) on some technology
built-in to the telephone on my desk than to pay the local money-grubbing
monopolistic telco $2/month for the rest of my natural life.
Just my $.02.
--Jeff
Alan Brown
|> Alan Brown (al...@papaioea.manawatu.planet.co.nz) wrote:
|>
|> : I'd settle for the system telling the modem user
|> : "you are calling from xxx xxxx" as part of the login script.
|> : That gives crackers the shits like nothing else.
|>
|> But why? I am on a rather famous BBS network, NirvanaNet, which members
Simple. Most crackers will not try anything if they're aware that the system
'knows' where they're calling from.
With that sort of added security, I can afford to be a little less paranoid
about who logs in, particularly when the police break my door down because
someone posted kiddie porn under a false ID.
--
AB
Kevin W. Reed
>In article <940412130...@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov> d...@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) writes:
>>In TELECOM-TECH Digest, Issue: 226 Volume: 2 br...@nothing.ucsd.edu (Brian
>>Kantor) wrote:
>>
>>>I simply want a telephone that can be programmed to prefix all calls
>>>with *67 (or whatever the code may be). If none is available, I'll
>>>have to take one of those old demon-dialer boxes and hack on up.
>>
>>Phones don't have to be programmed to block the number; this is done
>>at the switch end where the subscriber lets the telco know what status
>>is wanted: per-call or per-line.
>>
>Except that it is my understanding that there is a PER-MONTH surcharge for
>per-line blocking, whereas one can dial *67 to block calls 'til your fingers
>turn blue for free.
I think that depends on where you are.
In Phoenix, call blocking is free. You can turn on call blocking each phone
call with a *## or you call U.S. West and tell them you want your numbers to
be blocked all the time. There is no per-month charge.
Recently we received notice that they now have the reverse for those who
have call blocking on all the time. By entering in a *## code, you can
for that call turn Caller-ID information back on.
This is to allow you to broadcast your number to people you want to know
who is calling.
Can't remember what code they are using though...It is apparently not *67.
--
Kevin
David A. Kaye
Distribution: world
Alan Brown (al...@papaioea.manawatu.planet.co.nz) wrote:
: |> But why? I am on a rather famous BBS network, NirvanaNet, which members
: Simple. Most crackers will not try anything if they're aware that the system
: 'knows' where they're calling from.
But my point was exactly the opposite. There is a network of BBSs which
membership is based on precepts such as no verification, encouraging
pseudonyms, instant access with no waiting period. They simply don't
have a problem with this. And the fact that the BBSs in their network
list their numbers on just about every BBS list extant, and that they've
been featured in the "National Enquirer" and on some tabloid TV show
should have caused the phracking problems to blow through the roof -- yet
this has NOT been the case. So, the argument for Caller-ID to prevent
phracking is totally disproven. Why don't Caller-ID proponents simply
admit that they're nosy?
--
d...@crl.com PBS: Gives us "More Tales" or give us back our money!
Alan Brown
|> this has NOT been the case. So, the argument for Caller-ID to prevent
|> phracking is totally disproven. Why don't Caller-ID proponents simply
|> admit that they're nosy?
I operate in the fringes of the South Pacific, and pay in excess of US$5000
per year for my internet connection. I cannot carry these costs myself, and
have user fees which are reasonably low (US$40/year).
In the last 12 months there have been 6 attempts at breaking system security
to get "free" access. Never mind that the costs would have to be borne
by all other users on the system.
I do not live in a benign environment such as the USA, where telecommunication
costs are low and the government subsidises Internet in many hidden ways.
I have no way of sidestepping costs if a phreaker manages to run up $20,000
in unauthorised ftp. Therefore I have a choice of being paranoid about
security or being bankrupt. Systems which ran on trust here in the past have
either shut down or severely curtailed net access to users because of abuse,
so I am NOT blowing smokerings.
--
AB
al...@manawatu.planet.co.nz == al...@manawatu.gen.nz <> bro...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Nick Sayer
>admit that they're nosy?
Is it "nosy" if I have a peephole in my door (knocker-ID)?
You can put your thumb over the peephole (knocker-ID-block), but I
have a photocell on the other side of the peephole that turns off the
doorbell when the peephole is dark (knocker-ID-block-blocking). :-)
--
Nick Sayer <nsa...@quack.kfu.com> |
N6QQQ @ N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM | "I am not a number! I am a free man!"
+1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest' |
PGP 2.2 key and geek code via finger | -- Number 6
Guru Gnosis Sahib
: I have never operated a BBS, and maybe it is a good thing. As someone
: who has had a moderately well-connected system for a number of years, I
: have frequently given UUCP and even shell logins to people that are
: personally known to me. Most of these people appreciate the FREE
: service and take it or leave it as appropriate.
I have operated a BBS for a little over a year now, and have been cosysopping
for at least 3-4 years now on half a dozen different boards. I ask users for
some information, but explain right in the login that it's for statistical
purposes (read: my curiosity) only and that new users are free to enter
whatever they wish. I give all users access to Internet mail, Usenet news,
file areas, online games, and a shell login as well (a restricted one though).
And as you said, most appreciate the free service and take it or leave it as
appropriate.
: falsified information. Given the current climate of cyberspace
: witch-hunting, anyone doing any less than complete verification of
: users is sky-diving without checking his chute. Regardless of the
Umm... why??? My system's an unlikely target for the (very rare)
people of the Canter & Siegel type since I'm not directly on 'Net and
don't carry even close to a full feed. There is very little a user can
do to harm me and even less they can do to harm other users. And there
are not too many illegal things you can do on a BBS... If a user attempts
to hack my system and succeeds, I give them better access for their efforts,
which always gains an instant ally.
: conjecture and arm.chair.theories that abound in this forum, practical,
: multi-year experience has proven that when callers know that their
: number is being captured, they become MUCH more truthful.
Definitely true... but what if you don't _care_ if the info is real or not?
I know from experience (personal and otherwise) that paranoid security
and pointless restrictions annoy users, and _encourage_ hacking/crashing
attempts. Unlike some sysops, I don't run my BBS because I enjoy the
power trip, I run it because...well, it's fun, I can't quantify any better
than that. I do know that unless I annoy my users, they are extremely
unlikely to do something to purposefully annoy me.
Now, I understand quite well that my approach will not work for everybody,
and that it may be viewed as naive. But for me, it has worked quite nicely.
Shameless plug: call (+358-0) 498-797 and check it out.
Just my 0.012 marks...
-- _
Guru Gnosis Sahib \ E PLUBURIS / "...and the fully armed warheads are,
ro...@brahman.nullnet.fi \ UNIX / of course, merely a courtesy detail."
GB/CS d- -p+ c++++ !l u++ e* m--- s+++/- !n h+ f+ g+ w+++ t- r y*
Bob Wilkins n6fri
the CPUC will only allow CLID to be implemented with the *67 block
feature as the default. While I want CLID, I will not pay for the service
to receive just a couple of entries a day of the many that would have
been logged. PAC*BELL and GTE must have felt the same way, why offer a
service that no one would subscribe. How do we turn this around in light
of the FCC ruling?
I'm nosey and want my CLID to work right. If my callers don't want me to
know their numbers, I can respect their choice to block. I bet that is a
rare occurence.
Bob
--
Bob Wilkins work bwil...@cave.org
Berkeley, California home rwil...@ccnet.com
94701-0710 play n6fri@n6eeg.#nocal.ca.usa.noam
Steven H. Lichter
(Bob Wilkins writes:
:How does the FCC order relate to California? It is my understanding that
:feature as the default. While I want CLID, I will not pay for the service
:to receive just a couple of entries a day of the many that would have
:been logged. PAC*BELL and GTE must have felt the same way, why offer a
:service that no one would subscribe. How do we turn this around in light
:of the FCC ruling?
:I'm nosey and want my CLID to work right. If my callers don't want me to
:know their numbers, I can respect their choice to block. I bet that is a
:rare occurence.
hands of the states in order to make CID standard across the country.
As of last Monday neither the telephone companies nore the PUC in
California have any idea what effect it will have or when the CID
features will be activated.
I would guess that the PUC will just pass it on as the Federal Regulations
read and tariffs will be filled.
The above statements maybe mine and have nothing to do with my employer
Steven H. Lichter