Charles P. Bowles (cpbowles@gte.net)
Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:43:40 -0600
Opinion from Charlie Bowles from TMIA Wide Area Messaging (WAM) Committee -
Unlisting directory entries and blocking CNID are distinct, because systems
that administrate them and the services customers order are separate and
disconnected. Directory listings are in Directory company systems. CNID
blocking is in telco systems. The two may, but often don't connect
directly.
It's possible that an end-user customer who wants to unlist their number
will also want to block CNID (e.g. consider a Battered Women's Shelter).
Others will list numbers, but then block CNID (e.g. police station DID,
etc.).
Caveat: this is primarily a telco service provider issue. Enterprises,
ISPs, and other less-regulated providers would likely not care about this
issue as much.
Without benefit of counsel, my opinion from past WAM discussions is that the
telco providers will want to offer customers an ability to block the
delivery of their numbers (CNID blocking). To provide parity with current
operations, blocking should be either "per-message" or "always," by customer
input. By letting customers decide, we won't worry about CNID vs Unlisting.
It would be our requirement to inform them that blocking numbers would deny
them extended messaging services, such as reply, call-back, and spoken
name. On the other hand, we might provide spoken name, but not numbers.
This, of course, raises the issue of SPAM. Advertisers would use blocking
to block tracing, though internet tracing may be an option. But a legal
argument between blocking SPAM and allowing customers to block would be
settled in favor customer rights and against SPAM blocking.
Service Providers are interested in knowing what vendors could do about
these issues before making any final decisions.
> Actually, I don't know what happens to Caller-id when the number is
> unlisted.
> Does anyone in the telephony world know what gets sent on caller-id when
the
> phone number is unlisted?
>
> In theory, I agree that 'listing' and sender anonymity are two distinct
> issues. Still I'm interested in knowing what the 'expected' behavior (by
> the consumers) when a user buys unlisted phone numbers. Do they give up
> that anonymity when using VPIM enabled systems?
>
> Byung Choung
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Graham Klyne [mailto:gk-lists@dial.pipex.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 1:32 AM
> To: Byung Hee Choung
> Cc: vpim@lists.neystadt.org
> Subject: Re: [VPIM] sender and unlisted phone numbers.
>
>
> At 03:32 PM 12/1/00 -0800, Byung Hee Choung wrote:
> >Reading through draft-ietf-vpim-vpimv2r2-01.txt I had a question.
> >
> >In the sender field, I think VPIM format expects that it will contain the
> >phone number of the sending user. How have systems dealt with sending
> >phone numbers of users who have 'unlisted' phone numbers? Is it expected
> >that a 'pseudo' phone number will be used, in which case a reply back to
> >the send will not be supported?
>
> How does this differ from a caller-ID normally being sent for a phone
call,
> even if the caller is unlisted? I think "listing" and sender anonymity
are
> two distinct issues.
>
> #g
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Graham Klyne Content Technologies Ltd.
> Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
> <Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Dec 10 2000 - 19:44:52 IST