Re: Caller ID info...
In this report...
Report and Order And Notice of Proposed Rulemaking of March 29th, 1994 (CC Docket No. 91-281)
...FCC apparently decides that per-line blocking should be prohibited since people might forget to unblock it when calling 911. John Levine says,
In other words, per-line blocking is a bad idea because subscribers are too dumb to unblock calls when they want to unblock them, although they're not [too] dumb to block calls when they want to block them.
To me the question is, why can't the phone company provide options for blocking-on-all-but-911-calls, and unlisted-except-for-911? More precisely, why can't the FCC allow for this simple possibility? The reasoning seems to be, "since we can't understand why people want this, we must prohibit its even being an option:"
...For the foregoing reasons, we find that a federal per line blocking requirement for interstate CPN based services, including caller ID, is not the best policy choice of those available to recognize the privacy interests of callers. Thus, carriers may not offer per line blocking as a privacy protection mechanism on interstate calls.
"...We find" it "is not the best... thus, carriers may not offer" it. What about what the customers and consumer groups have found and fought for? What is wrong with letting this be decided on a regional, if not provider, if not local, if not personal level? Why must FCC impose least- common-denominator reduction of services?
...with comments due by May 18th.
That's today. I'm faxing this ill-prepared complaint to 202-632-6975.
Comments must reference the docket number (CC Docket No. 91-281).
Send ten copies (yes, 10) to:
Office of the Secretary Federal Communications Commission Washington DC 20554
-fnerd quote me - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - and i dreamed i was flying high up above my eyes could clearly see the statue of liberty sailing away to sea --Paul Simon -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a aKxB8nktcBAeQHabQP/d7yhWgpGZBIoIqII8cY9nG55HYHgvt3niQCVAgUBLMs3K ui6XaCZmKH68fOWYYySKAzPkXyfYKnOlzsIjp2tPEot1Q5A3/n54PBKrUDN9tHVz 3Ch466q9EKUuDulTU6OLsilzmRvQJn0EJhzd4pht6hSnC1R3seYNhUYhoJViCcCG sRjLQs4iVVM= =9wqs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Levine says,
In other words, per-line blocking is a bad idea because subscribers are too dumb to unblock calls when they want to unblock them, although they're not [too] dumb to block calls when they want to block them.
To me the question is, why can't the phone company provide options for blocking-on-all-but-911-calls, and unlisted-except-for-911? More precisely, why can't the FCC allow for this simple possibility?
Steve, in the case of Southwestern Bell ( and, I believe, the other local phone companies as well) per line blocking will not work at all on: 1-700 numbers 1-800 numbers 1-900 numbers 976 numbers 911 (and some other special purpose numbers too). For that matter, the *XX option won't block such calls either. It gets worse...the long distance companies have the _policy_ that when a number appears on your phone bill, the person being billed gets to know who it goes to. So...when you dial an 800 number, not only is it VERY possible they see a display with your number therein, but they can go to their monthly billing and get info about who you are despite having line blocking, call blocking, and non-published number status. Nice, huh? Regards, Dave
participants (2)
-
dwomack＠runner.utsa.edu -
fnerd＠smds.com