TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to snipped-for-privacy@Backhome.org:
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's what they call it here also,
> and what Illinois Bell called it in Chicago. And the limit is ten
> numbers, which I think _should_ be enough if you use it in a judicious
> fashion; in other words, only on the worst, most hopeless cases. You
> should not rush to do *60 everytime some drunk in a bar somewhere
> calls you; only for the really persistent and sort of stupid callers.
> It's hard for me to imagine you have _that many_ total jerks in your
> life to deal with. And bear in mind, all the problems with the
> service (such as out of LATA in the case of Southwestern Bell) and
> people sending bogus ID (again, Southwestern Bell) and people who
> walk around from one pay phone to another. I still maintain though
> that for the 'average phone user' it pretty much does what the
> original correspondent requested, especially if used in conjunction
> with *77 (reject all 'anonymous' [deliberatly blocked ID] callers).
> Although I am no longer with SBC -- I find Prairie Steam much
> better and far less expensive -- I still get both those features
> (*60 and *77) through Prairie Stream now. PAT]
I left SBC in California and went with my local cable company when wireline LNP became available several years ago. But, then SBC began offering Privacy Manager and the cable company did not (and still does not, apparently because Privacy Manager requires a dominant presence in the network that the cable company simply does not have.)
Privacy manager, in conjunction with talking Caller ID does the trick for us. I find most nuisance calls have no Caller ID delivered, which anonymous call rejection will not reject; Privacy Manager does, yet gives the caller a chance to identify him/her self with a voice announcement. If a Caller ID comes through that we don't recognize we let it go to voice mail.