1994-05-18 - Re: Caller ID info…

Header Data

From: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham)
To: johnl@iecc.com
Message Hash: fc64c86e7cb01c359636682fa99db73952db8e962d310019e88c91dd51b05028
Message ID: <9405182140.AA12850@smds.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-05-18 22:42:10 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 18 May 94 15:42:10 PDT

Raw message

From: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham)
Date: Wed, 18 May 94 15:42:10 PDT
To: johnl@iecc.com
Subject: Re: Caller ID info...
Message-ID: <9405182140.AA12850@smds.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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-----





Thread