All in all, I just continue to use the system correctly, because base 10 does not make sense in the context. I have been known to use the suffix MKB (for Marketing) when the defenders of deception are on the prowl, to stress that the onus is on them to invent a new unit marker. We currently now have two unit markers for the same meaning and no marker exists for the way people wish to mis-state capacities.

So I take it that you also do not support the powers-of-ten redefinition of KB, MB, GB and so forth?

Exactly. As implemented, caller ID is not a legitimate function. Apart from reverse charge numbers and emergency service numbers, there is no reason, ever, to transmit the number of the calling line. If you look at how it is implemented, it becomes clear that Caller ID was created for the primary purpose of allowing business to capture phone numbers of callers without consent. For most large businesses, this is also an additional reason for reverse-charge numbers.

If privacy is a concern, require that caller information be accurate, with criminal penalties for failure, and send ONLY THE NAME of the person/organization as a text string. I would not have a problem with my name coming up, but my reasons for keeping my number secret trump your reasons for wanting it, period. If you don't want to talk to me, don't answer if my name shows.

Unless Caller ID is modified to operate this way, everyone complaining about blocked calls is out of order, and should simply drop phone service entirely.