> In the case of California those funny folks called the PUC have hated
>> Caller ID since its inception (remember, they were the nut cases that
>> sued the FCC to stop the implementation of Caller ID). So, if Pacific
>> Telephone, a unit of AT&T, nay Pacific Bell, nay SBC, nay AT&T wanted
>> to charge $40 a month for Caller ID, the PUC would approve it. It is
>> like a cigerette tax to those folks.
> The only issue is that caller-ID is mostly useless these days because
> there are so many ways to obfuscate ones number. What I find more
> amusing is that Bell knew how to do CLID back in 1972. Just took some
> time to roll it out.
Thought that is certainly technically possible, my personal experience has been zero bogus number deliveries. I suspect that would be true in the vast majority of residential cases.
And, if we don't recognize the number we don't answer the phone; rather let it go to the answering machine.
On balance Caller ID has been very useful to the vast majority of those who subscribe to it.
As to CLID in 1972, how would have have been accomplished throughout the network without CCIS or SS7? And, if it had been done when CCIS was in use, it seems it would have tied up a lot of resources.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In order to let it go to the answering machine or voice mail, one first needs to know *WHO IS CALLING*, and while my caller ID display is several yards away from where I am sitting, a cordless phone is right at hand. So, should I get myself up (brain aneurysms cause some slow downs, you know) or should I just reach over and pick up the phone? I guess I could invest in a few more caller ID devices, and have one near at hand and in view of every phone. PAT]