From: dwomack@runner.utsa.edu (David L Womack)
Date: Wed, 18 May 94 16:27:51 PDT
To: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham)
Subject: Re: Caller ID info...
In-Reply-To: <9405182140.AA12850@smds.com>
Message-ID: <9405182327.AA03715@runner.utsa.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> 
> 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