33 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981Copyright © 2015 E. William Horne. All Rights Reserved.The Telecom Digest for Jun 29, 2015
| ||||||||||
| This is your country as well as anybody else's country. This country is founded upon the principle of equality. He that is meritorious and virtuous, intellectual and well informed, must stand highest, without regard to color. |
| Andrew Johnson |
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details.
| Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 11:25:53 -0700 From: Don Y <anonymous@invalid.telecom-digest.org> To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Robocalls - the next level Message-ID: <mmmpr9$sv$1@speranza.aioe.org> On 6/26/2015 5:18 PM, tlvp wrote: > Don Y wrote: > > > ... e.g., if no CID, then route > > the call to the bit bucket (don't even take a message from folks who > > don't want to identify themselves!). > > Let's not fall into the trap of imagining that no CID implies > the caller chose to suppress CID -- in my own +1-203 exchange, > CID is never presented for any call from across the oceans > (not from Europe, not from Asia, not from Africa). > > I certainly do not want to block phone calls from the > hotel or car rental company ... or the relative ... I'm > intending to have dealings with on my next trip :-) . That's just an example of why the "one size fits all" approach won't work. Here, for example, "no CID" would be an EXCELLENT criteria to screen calls! Any of our friends who would call with their numbers blocked could choose to "unblock for this call". Our doctors, etc. all produce "valid" CID's. We don't deal with hotels, car rental, overseas, etc. So, a call with no CID is almost guaranteed to be one that we do NOT want to take. [And, if the box is in your control, you could always change those criteria. Typically, "in hindsight" (which brings me back to the "log" issue in my OP)] |
| Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 07:56:36 -0400 From: "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Robocalls - the next level Message-ID: <elmop-BD4581.07563627062015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> In article <mmk30r$4vu$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Don Y <anonymous@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote: > On 6/26/2015 6:44 AM, Pete Cresswell wrote: > > Per Don Y: > >> I've been trying to sort out effective algorithms to implement an > >> "automated attendant" (imagine a machine that screens calls like a > >> "secretary" would). So you aren't even bothered by a phone ringing! > > I hold no hope for gummit solutions. Control has to be at the called > party's end of the line. They can allow loopholes for all sorts of > "special interests; but, if my "secretary" blocks the call from reaching > my desk, are they going to send an armed contingent to FORCE her to > pass the call through to me?? Am I required to even answer the phone > when it rings? E.g., if the CID says "Police Department", there is nothing > to prevent me from letting the phone ring endlessly -- with the wires to > the clapper *cut*! > > And, legislators to require a tunnel through that service for <whatever>. If the discussion and thought processes have gotten to this level, I think it's time to acknowledge that the usefulness of the telephone as we grew up with it has passed. Mourn it, dump it, and move on with alternate means of communication. |
| Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 09:59:53 -0400 From: Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org> To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Robocalls - the next level Message-ID: <auatoa1qqm253vrgaaehko0h891204c0u1@4ax.com> Per Don Y: >*Best* solution is a scheme that allows the callee to bill the caller >for the inconvenience of the call. And, that only is allowed if the >callee has previously registered with a Do Not Call registry. So, >if you've ignored that registry, a savvy callee will "press 9 to >bill caller for this call". Ideally, splitting the proceeds between >the callee and <whatever>! > >Presumably, TPC would need to know a billable entity in such a scheme. > >Then, callers would have to think twice before risking taking a financial hit >from a few tens of thousands of unwanted calls! Perhaps offering incentives >for the callee NOT to "press 9"! > >[Ain't gonna happen] I like it - but one reason it ain't gonna happen is offshore operations that use multiple VOIP relays. Apparently these guys are considered untouchable - at least by the Pennsylvania Att'y General, from whom I have at least a half-dozen lame-sounding letters to that effect. (I have no idea what "multiple VOIP relays" are... but it sounds impressive and seems to impress the so-called enforcers) -- Pete Cresswell |
| Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 21:13:56 -0500 From: gordonb.wl768@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Robocalls - the next level Message-ID: <N5KdnQaFM_h5mxPInZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@posted.internetamerica> > Maybe there's some way that these "legitimate" callers could arrange > with the telcos to get on a universal white-list. But phone companies > don't have a good track record of vetting third parties -- isn't that > how "cramming" became a problem? People who should definitely NOT be on a "universal white list": - Any person running for political office or who has ever run for political office, INCLUDING children who run/ran for student council or class president. (Yes, some of them actually use the telephone to campaign, and I got some odd calls from students around the time the school robocalled to say my daughter was absent from school. I have no daughter, and never did. They got really confused when I hung up, waited a while, then asked them to explain WHICH kid was involved. ) - Anyone with a job in marketing or sales, now or in the past. - Any amateur, professional, or unprofessional[1] fund raiser or fund razer, now or in the past. (fund razer: noun, one who tears down funds, demolishes funds, or levels funds to the ground). This is likely to include school children, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and those who celebrate Halloween by Trick-or-Treating and collecting funds for UNICEF or by pretending to collect funds for UNICEF and actually keeping them. [1] An unprofessional fund raiser is one who uses cuss words if you fail to donate, keeps the money, or lies about where it goes. - Any person who calls or has ever called soliciting funds for a police charity, even if they are now real police officers calling on official police business. (and if I had my way, they would not be real police officers). - Anyone who has received or made more than 3 calls to Mary Kay, Amway, and similar network marketing companies. - Anyone who has made a prank phone call. - Anyone who dialed the same wrong number more than 3 times in a row, after being told 3 times by the person answering that it was a wrong number. - Anyone who has caused through action, inaction or misdesign the caller-id display of a recipient of a call to display an incorrect telephone number. ("BLOCKED" is OK. "UNAVAILABLE" is OK). CEOs of telcos, watch out. This means you. People who mis-program PBXs, this means you. Just about anyone who does anything remotely technical for a telco, this means you. - Any person who has ever asked another person for his/her social security number over the phone. - Any person who has ever given out his/her social security number over the phone. That includes entering it into a https: web form if your internet connection is DSL or dial-up modem. - The Internal Revenue Service, on the grounds that the mere existence of even one legitimate phone call from the IRS encourages massive fraud. They can figure out some way to order copier and toilet paper that does not involve phones. - Any State Lottery, on the grounds that the mere existence of legitimate phone calls from a Lottery encourages massive fraud. - Anyone who has made any of the calls above *as a joke*, or for that matter made any call as a joke. Have I eliminated everyone yet? Oh, I forgot: - Officials and deities of religious organizations where the organization solicits funds or tries to convert people to their religion may not be on the "universal white list". God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and Allah, this means you. Popes, Cardinals, and Bishops, this means you. AntiChrist and Satan, this means you. Gordon L. Burditt |
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom- munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit educational service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
| Contact information: |
Bill Horne Telecom Digest 43 Deerfield Road Sharon MA 02067-2301 339-364-8487 bill at horne dot net |
| Subscribe: | telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom |
| Unsubscribe: | telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom |
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Copyright © 2015 E. William Horne. All rights reserved.
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself. Thank you!
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization.