Though CNID is poorly designed for use by residential phone users in screening calls, it is quite useful for businesses in collecting marketing data.
Phone companies could, if they wanted to, design services and equipment that would be more useful to residential phone users than CNID is for enhancing the privacy of call recipients, and less helpful to businesses for collecting marketing data.
The latter approach has the additional advantage of truly identifying callers, not just calling telephones, making it much more reliable for call-screening than CNID is.
In proposing CNID, phone companies are clearly pandering to the needs of their business customers and neglecting those of their residential customers.
* In California Jeff Johnson recommended that the CNID service be redesigned so the caller's identity and not the number of the calling line would be transferred to the call recipient.
They also pointed out that Call Trace would be preferable to CNID for handling harassing calls.
In a case with harrowing testimony on the effects CNID can have on women's safety, the PUC proposed a new Random False Identity Service to protect domestic violence shelters and volunteers.
The CNIDS sample was not adequately weighted by Nielsen for the U.S.
The publicly reported CNIDS estimates of Internet and Web use (see Table 2) did not incorporate a check for logical consistency of responses.
As the CNIDS was conducted in August 1995, the March 1995 CPS provides the best available estimate of the joint distribution of gender, age, and education in the U.S.