call blocker device suggestions?

[bill ashford]

Enough is enough. My wife is getting upwards of 10 calls daily where no
one is on the line when she answers. We have caller ID and it shows
numbers never heard of before. For about 4 years, we've both put up
with it but over the last couple of years, the calls have increased.
I'd like to add a phone call block if I can find the right kind. I see
many around the web for sale, but most of these have so-so reviews and
either end up not blocking enough numbers, or cutting off to many. Then
there is a tele device where a caller has to press 1 to reach the person
being called-- I like this, pretty foolproof, but the pricetag seems a
bit high at over $100. We have Verizon but nothing special. I just use
DSL on copper and all wired phones. So whatever is used will have to
work with this existing system. Anyone have ideas? Are there any
number pressing devices cheaper than $100?

Thanks-- bill

[N_Cook]

An answerphone message machine, just set on outgoing message and
speakerphone mode for any incoming call, and tell your friends about it,
so they can ignore it and not hang up, but keep the line open until
someone gets to the phone.

[Bogus]

Use caller ID, when you get one of these calls save caller ID as ID =
"junk call" with a silent ring sound. This has cut our annoying calls
down quite a bit.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <mf8q6h$l0o$3...@dont-email.me>, bill ashford <billa!x...@top.com>
writes:

Mention of Verizon (and $) suggests you are in US, so this probably
won't help, but: in UK, silent calls are illegal, and the originator can
suffer quite a large fine.

They're caused - or so we are told - by autodiallers, machines which
dial numbers at random (or from a list?), when such machines are
operated by a company that doesn't employ quite enough humans, so the
situation can arise where it dials someone but there's no-one to talk to
the victim when the victim answers. They've been made illegal mainly, I
think, due to distress caused to those who think it may instead be a
burglar or similar, checking in advance.

If it isn't already, you could pester your councillor/senator/whatever
to have similar legislation passed there. In the meantime, I presume
there _is_ at least some mechanism for reporting "nuisance callers",
though like here it was probably set up to deal with heavy breathers and
the like. Otherwise, the suggestion of an answerphone set on speaker
sounds like a good compromise for now.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Intelligence isn't complete without the full picture and the full picture is
all about doubt. Otherwise, you go the way of George Bush. - baroness Eliza
Manningham-Buller (former head of MI5), Radio Times 3-9 September 2011.

[G. Ross]

bill ashford wrote: > Enough is enough. My wife is getting upwards of 10 calls daily where no > one is on the line when she answers. We have caller ID and it shows > numbers never heard of before. For about 4 years, we've both put up > with it but over the last couple of years, the calls have increased. > I'd like to add a phone call block if I can find the right kind. I see > many around the web for sale, but most of these have so-so reviews and > either end up not blocking enough numbers, or cutting off to many. Then > there is a tele device where a caller has to press 1 to reach the person > being called-- I like this, pretty foolproof, but the pricetag seems a > bit high at over $100. We have Verizon but nothing special. I just use > DSL on copper and all wired phones. So whatever is used will have to > work with this existing system. Anyone have ideas? Are there any > number pressing devices cheaper than $100? > Thanks-- bill I have been using This Pro Call Blocker for several years and it works as long as a phone number shows up on caller ID. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pro-Call-Blocker-Caller-ID-Screener-NEWEST-VERSION-V2-2-N2-/181572369568?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a468e7ca0 GW Ross It's not an optical illusion, it just looks like one.

[Frank]

On 3/29/2015 8:38 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <mf8q6h$l0o$3...@dont-email.me>, bill ashford <billa!x...@top.com>
> writes:
>> Enough is enough. My wife is getting upwards of 10 calls daily where no
>> one is on the line when she answers. We have caller ID and it shows
>> numbers never heard of before. For about 4 years, we've both put up
>> with it but over the last couple of years, the calls have increased.
>> I'd like to add a phone call block if I can find the right kind. I see
>> many around the web for sale, but most of these have so-so reviews and
>> either end up not blocking enough numbers, or cutting off to many. Then
>> there is a tele device where a caller has to press 1 to reach the person
>> being called-- I like this, pretty foolproof, but the pricetag seems a
>> bit high at over $100. We have Verizon but nothing special. I just use
>> DSL on copper and all wired phones. So whatever is used will have to
>> work with this existing system. Anyone have ideas? Are there any
>> number pressing devices cheaper than $100?
>>
>> Thanks-- bill
>
> Mention of Verizon (and $) suggests you are in US, so this probably
> won't help, but: in UK, silent calls are illegal, and the originator can
> suffer quite a large fine.
>

Apparently very bad in UK too.
Guy there told me he had his number changed it was so bad.

[Frank]

We just don't answer and let call go to voice mail where message is
seldom left.

Probably useless to try to block as numbers are often forged. I've had a
couple of calls that gave my number as the caller.

[Zo]

bill ashford formulated on Sunday :

Hey Bill,

have a look at this one: https://www.phonetray.com/

It's call Phone Tray and I've been using it like, forever (Windows 95
:-)). The features are unbeatable (you can block an entire area code,
but still allow only numbers you want to receive from that area code.

I may add that I'm not in anyway associated with this company, just a
very pleased customer of the product.

Note: They offer a service that automatically adds known telemarkters
to a master list at a small fee, but I don't have a need for anytning
like that so I turned off that service after the free trial expired, to
stop the annoying reminders to renew the subscription.


It's worth a look!

--
Zo

There was a man who entered a local paper's pun contest.
He sent in ten different puns, in the hope that at least one of the
puns would win.
Unfortunately, no pun in ten did

[Big_Al]

I gotta ask, just how does a machine like this 'block' the call. If this unit is tied in parallel to the phone you
have then as the call comes in, it would ring on both your phone and this unit. Or do you plug your phone into it first?

And what about the 4 extensions in the rest of the house?

Just curious, I've thought about something like this too.
I've also seen the nomorobo http://www.nomorobo.com/signup for sign up and http://www.nomorobo.com/ for home page.

[Stormin Mormon]

What advantage is that? The machines will call
the new number, also.

-
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
. www.lds.org
.
.

[G. Ross]

Big_Al wrote: > G. Ross wrote on 3/29/2015 9:06 AM: >> bill ashford wrote: >>> Enough is enough. My wife is getting upwards of 10 calls daily where no >>> one is on the line when she answers. We have caller ID and it shows >>> numbers never heard of before. For about 4 years, we've both put up >>> with it but over the last couple of years, the calls have increased. >>> I'd like to add a phone call block if I can find the right kind. I see >>> many around the web for sale, but most of these have so-so reviews and >>> either end up not blocking enough numbers, or cutting off to many. Then >>> there is a tele device where a caller has to press 1 to reach the person >>> being called-- I like this, pretty foolproof, but the pricetag seems a >>> bit high at over $100. We have Verizon but nothing special. I just use >>> DSL on copper and all wired phones. So whatever is used will have to >>> work with this existing system. Anyone have ideas? Are there any >>> number pressing devices cheaper than $100? >>> Thanks-- bill >> I have been using This Pro Call Blocker for several years and it works as long as a phone number shows up on caller ID. >> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pro-Call-Blocker-Caller-ID-Screener-NEWEST-VERSION-V2-2-N2-/181572369568?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a468e7ca0 > I gotta ask, just how does a machine like this 'block' the call. If this unit is tied in parallel to the phone you > have then as the call comes in, it would ring on both your phone and this unit. Or do you plug your phone into it first? > And what about the 4 extensions in the rest of the house? > Just curious, I've thought about something like this too. > I've also seen the nomorobo http://www.nomorobo.com/signup for sign up and http://www.nomorobo.com/ for home page. It is in parallel with the other phones (I have 5 plus an answering machine). When some call comes in that you want to block, hang up. Then push the button on the blocker to "save" that number. The next time it calls, it will ring once then the blocker will hang up on it. GW Ross It's not an optical illusion, it just looks like one.

[Mayayana]

| in UK, silent calls are illegal, and the originator can
| suffer quite a large fine.
|

| If it isn't already, you could pester your councillor/senator/whatever
| to have similar legislation passed there.

We actually have pretty good protection in the US,
in theory.
A few years ago there was a federal Do-Not-Call
list and also a state version where I could register
a complaint. Advertisers were not allowed to call
registered numbers. Now the state version is closed
and the federal version seems to be a joke, with no
enforcement. I probably get 2-3 junk calls per day.
I gave up complaining about them. I just use an
answering machine with Caller ID.

Citizen protection from corporate exploitation
has gone *way* downhill in the US. I just read
the other day that Google lost an effort in Britan
to stop Safari users from suing over privacy due
to Google bypassing all cookie settings to track
people.
http://bgr.com/2015/03/27/google-lawsuit-safari-cookies/

Apparently they hacked a Safari bug to spy on
people. Google claimed that resulting privacy
lawsuits in Britain should be thrown out because
the people spied on didn't lose any money!
I thought that was a great example of the
difference between European civility and American
corporatocracy. It's classic American thinking:
Anything that makes money can't be wrong.

Our allegedly liberal president Clinton pushed
through NAFTA, which boils down to a free ticket
for American corporations to exploit foregin labor
and avoid American labor costs. Our allegedly liberal
president Obama is now pushing a similar agreement
in Asia.
With friends like that, who needs Republican
oligarchs?

We have a similarly problematic sitution with
telephone service accounts. They're no longer regulated
as a utility for all practical purposes. My own phone
company is raising my rate next month. There's nothing
I can do. I checked into it last time they raised the rate.
They're free to set any rate they like. In theory I could
switch to another company, but that company is Verizon
and the two companies keep their offerings matched.
As with highspeed cable, there isn't any real competition.

With both landlines and cellphones there's no
longer any way to actually find out what the
plans and prices are. There's no set price. It's all
devolved into a flim flam operation, like used cars.
They charge what they think they can get away
with. Here in the colonies we have to depend on the civility
of European law to police "cowboy" American corporations.
It's our only hope. :)

[Mike]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 13:38:15 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> ... They've been made illegal mainly, I

> think, due to distress caused to those who think it may instead be a
> burglar or similar, checking in advance.

Aren't burglars, these days, bright enough to cover their tracks by posing
as cold callers (and not stay silent)?

Mike.

[Klay Anderson]

https://www.nomorobo.com/

[OldGuy]

OK, I see landline solutions but what about cell phone solutions
I am on Sprint. Samsung Galaxy S5 lollypop.
Is there a forum that will cover that if someone here has no good
solution.
Thank you!

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Big_Al]

try comp.mobile.andriod

Seems to be a good amount of traffic in there.

[Meanie]

On 3/29/2015 9:12 AM, Frank wrote:

>
>
> We just don't answer and let call go to voice mail where message is
> seldom left.
>
> Probably useless to try to block as numbers are often forged. I've had a
> couple of calls that gave my number as the caller.

I do something similar as well but on my cellphone since we don't use a
land line anymore.

What I've been doing for years is I left a voice mail message which
clearly states I don't answer my phone unless I recognize the number.
Therefore, leave a message and I will return the call. If you do not
leave a message, you will never reach me. Obviously, I input info for
friends, family, businesses and acquaintances so I know who is calling.
I also registered with the "Do Not Call" registry. Will it stop machine
auto-calls, most likely not since I have seen a number from Florida and
Oregon a few times, but infrequent. Overall, I think it works well and I
don't receive any unwanted calls very often.

[Big_Al]

I just upgraded my old flip phone, pay as you go phone, do nothing phone to a new android based v4.4.2 phone. Really
nice upgrade. I got next to zero calls on that phone, and now on the new phone (same number) I'm starting to get 2 or
so a week. So somewhere in contacting T-Mobile and getting that sim card I needed and moving the plan from pay as you
go to monthly caused an trigger. I suspect I'm going to get more and more junk calls as news travels that I have a new
phone. So much for privacy!

[Tony Hwang]

Hi,
In Canada it's same. So called no call list is useless. They don't
enforce it. I just let answering machine take calls even if we're home.

[Disguised]

Would this help?

Fed up with getting nuisance calls from telemarketers or your
ex-boyfriend? You can automatically block unwanted calls.

- In Samsung's (this will vary slightly, depending on your Android
phone) , open the Phone app and tap Call Settings > Call Rejection >
Auto Reject List.

- In iOS 8, go to Settings > Phone > Blocked, or go to your list of
recent calls, click on the “Info” button next to the number and then
scroll down to "Block this caller".

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 3/29/2015 10:55 AM, OldGuy wrote:
> OK, I see landline solutions but what about cell phone solutions
> I am on Sprint. Samsung Galaxy S5 lollypop.
> Is there a forum that will cover that if someone here has no good solution.
> Thank you!

Not needed here.

Four cell phones in the house and none get unwanted calls. Maybe one in
a year. It is still illegal to call for telemarketing.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per bill ashford:

> I just use
>DSL on copper and all wired phones. So whatever is used will have to
>work with this existing system. Anyone have ideas? Are there any
>number pressing devices cheaper than $100?

I have heard good things about a service called NoMoRobo, but it
requires that you phone service support something called "Simultaneous
Ring". We have the most el-cheapo basic phone service and I am too
cheap to pay more, so I do not have experience.

Another option (which I am toying with) is going over to a VOIP provider
for phone service.

I already have all outgoing, except 800, calls going out on VOIP.

If I were to switch the incoming over, I could use a service provided by
my VOIP provider (CallCentric.com) that prefixes every incoming call
(except those on a GoldList that I maintain) with an announcement like
"Please press 3 to talk with somebody...".

I figure robocallers won't be able to deal with that challenge-response
situation... at least for a few years.
--
Pete Cresswell

[sharkman]

If you have digital voice through Verizon, go to NOMOROBO.com and sign up..
No charge and they are very good in blocking calls.. I've been using them 2
years and
they work great..

--


"bill ashford" <billa!x...@top.com> wrote in message
news:mf8q6h$l0o$3...@dont-email.me...

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per OldGuy:

>OK, I see landline solutions but what about cell phone solutions
>I am on Sprint. Samsung Galaxy S5 lollypop.

I have been using what my phone lists as "Call Control v3.1.18.2" for a
couple of years now and my cell phone telemarketing/robo calls have
dropped by at least 90%.

Just checked Google Play, and it looks like they have changed the name
to "Call Blocker - Blacklist App" viz
<>https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.flexaspect.android.everycallcontrol&hl=en
--
Pete Cresswell

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 08:12:53 -0400, bill ashford <billa!x...@top.com>
wrote:

>Enough is enough. My wife is getting upwards of 10 calls daily where no
>one is on the line when she answers. We have caller ID and it shows
>numbers never heard of before. For about 4 years, we've both put up
>with it but over the last couple of years, the calls have increased.

Something is wrong here. I may get a few "dead air" type of phone
calls, but most of them have a recorded robotic voice that appears
when I say something or when I pickup the line. Telemarketers might
be evil, but they're not stupid. They would not waste the cost of a
call just to deliver "dead air". Certainly not for 4 years of "dead
air". Something is wrong.

My guess(tm) is something is wrong with your Verizon POTS line that is
initiating a ring, but not completing the call. I've seen this with
some electronic phones, where there is sufficient crosstalk in the
wire bundle to pickup some of the ringing voltage from other lines in
the bundle. However, those don't also pass Caller ID numbers and only
ring a few phones in the house, so that's not a likely failure mode.
Unless the provisioning is mangled or the Verizon switch has gone
insane, I can't guess(tm) what might be causing the calls.

I was thinking it might be a fax machine trying to send a fax
repeatedly, but that would be from one phone number and certainly not
for 4 years. You would also hear a tone as the originating fax
machine tries to negotiate the call. Are the numbers shown on the
Caller ID all identical or perhaps similar as from a calling group?

I assume that you've contacted Verizon. Changing your phone number
might be an obvious option that I'm sure they would have suggested. If
the problem persists, it's a hardware or switch problem. If it goes
away, problem solved.

On the other hand, the vague problem description, improbable symptoms,
and odd selection of crossposted newsgroups leads me to suspect that
this is some manner bad joke or time burner. Please assure me this
problem is real by posting some details.

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Susan Bugher]

On 3/29/2015 8:12 AM, bill ashford wrote:

Using a "SIT tone" might help:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_information_tones#Other_uses
"In telephony, a special information tone (SIT) is an in-band international standard signal consisting of three rising tones indicating a call has failed. It usually precedes a recorded announcement describing the problem
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_information_tones#Other_uses
"Because many predictive dialers (used in telemarketing) respond to SITs, consumer devices such as the TeleZapper play an Intercept SIT to trick the telemarketer's equipment into flagging a called number as disconnected.

Alternatively, the above recordings of SITs could be used on a voicemail or answering machine, or played manually on a computer, to achieve a similar effect."

Susan
--

[Paul in Houston TX]

bill ashford wrote:
> Enough is enough. My wife is getting upwards of 10 calls daily where no
> one is on the line when she answers. We have caller ID and it shows
> numbers never heard of before. For about 4 years, we've both put up
> with it but over the last couple of years, the calls have increased.
> I'd like to add a phone call block if I can find the right kind. I see
> many around the web for sale, but most of these have so-so reviews and
> either end up not blocking enough numbers, or cutting off to many. Then
> there is a tele device where a caller has to press 1 to reach the person
> being called-- I like this, pretty foolproof, but the pricetag seems a
> bit high at over $100. We have Verizon but nothing special. I just use
> DSL on copper and all wired phones. So whatever is used will have to
> work with this existing system. Anyone have ideas? Are there any
> number pressing devices cheaper than $100?
>
> Thanks-- bill

Assuming USA, assuming landline.
Add sit.wav to the beginning of your answer message.
It cut robo calls by about 30%. Some robo calls go right
to a recorded message and never hear the sit.wav though.
Or just use sit.wav as an answer message and nothing else.
Doing that not only confuses robo machines but confuses
humans, too, and they hang up.

[gonjah]

On 3/29/2015 8:12 AM, Frank wrote:
> We just don't answer

+1. Have the numbers you care about in "contacts." The phone buzzing can
be annoying but... better than dealing with them...


OP...Get on the do-not-call-list.

[Mark Lloyd]

On 03/29/2015 08:12 AM, Frank wrote:

[snip]

> Probably useless to try to block as numbers are often forged. I've had a
> couple of calls that gave my number as the caller.

I normally don't respond to calls with these on caller ID, since they
are usually junk calls: I do have an answering machine.

1. blocked.

2. NAME is the same as the number.

3. NAME is 'V' plus some number.

4. NAME is excessively ambiguous (such as "IEM", "CSW INC", or "cust
serv" if I don't know the company).

5. city and state (especially with unfamiliar are code).

6. unfamiliar business.

7. charities (they seem to think my money is theirs, and won't shut up
about it).

I've had a few in that 4th category, that were valid calls. I do listen
to the answering machine. Junk callers almost never leave a message.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in
philosophy only ridiculous." [David Hume, Treatise of Human Nature
(1739)]

[Mark Lloyd]

On 03/29/2015 08:40 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

[snip]

>
> What advantage is that? The machines will call
> the new number, also.
>

You'll have to tell some people the new number, and some people will
give it out so the junk callers will get it.


[sig with INCORRECT delimiter snipped]

[Mark Lloyd]

On 03/29/2015 08:48 AM, G. Ross wrote:

[snip]

> It is in parallel with the other phones (I have 5 plus an answering
> machine). When some call comes in that you want to block, hang up. Then
> push the button on the blocker to "save" that number. The next time it
> calls, it will ring once then the blocker will hang up on it.
>

Considering all the junk calls I've received in the last year, that
would be several hundred numbers. Many (most) of those won't be used
again. For this device to be of much use to me, I'd need this year's
list in advance. And then, since many of the numbers would be spoofed,
some important calls may be blocked.

[Mark Lloyd]

On 03/29/2015 09:10 AM, Mayayana wrote:

[snip]

> We actually have pretty good protection in the US,
> in theory.
> A few years ago there was a federal Do-Not-Call
> list and also a state version where I could register
> a complaint. Advertisers were not allowed to call
> registered numbers. Now the state version is closed
> and the federal version seems to be a joke, with no
> enforcement. I probably get 2-3 junk calls per day.
> I gave up complaining about them. I just use an
> answering machine with Caller ID.

When the federal Do-Not-Call list was new, I registered for it, and
forawhile was getting almost no junk calls. Now, I get as many as before.

[here]

> We have a similarly problematic sitution with
> telephone service accounts. They're no longer regulated
> as a utility for all practical purposes. My own phone
> company is raising my rate next month. There's nothing
> I can do. I checked into it last time they raised the rate.
> They're free to set any rate they like. In theory I could
> switch to another company, but that company is Verizon
> and the two companies keep their offerings matched.
> As with highspeed cable, there isn't any real competition.

Here I left the regular phone company (Verizon, formerly GTE) and
switched to cable (Suddenlink, formerly Cox) and saved about 50%. I'm
not sure if that's still true as it's part of a "bundle".

[Leif Neland]

bill ashford frembragte:

I will not reccomend blocking callers with blocked ID.

It could be a technichian (cable/phone guy) who needs to talk to you
(perhaps when he is arrived or he is late), but don't want to be called
back, because all calls should go to customer service.

It could be the emergency doctor calling about a family member; he does
not want to be called back when not on duty, the phone might be the one
the hospital uses to call him 24/7 if need be.

There are a number of legitemate reason not to want to leave your
callerID.

--
https://www.paradiss.dk
Ting til konen eller kæresten.
Eller begge.

[Zaidy036]

On 3/29/2015 9:40 AM, Big_Al wrote:
> G. Ross wrote on 3/29/2015 9:06 AM:

>> bill ashford wrote:
>>> Enough is enough. My wife is getting upwards of 10 calls daily where no
>>> one is on the line when she answers. We have caller ID and it shows
>>> numbers never heard of before. For about 4 years, we've both put up
>>> with it but over the last couple of years, the calls have increased.
>>> I'd like to add a phone call block if I can find the right kind. I see
>>> many around the web for sale, but most of these have so-so reviews and
>>> either end up not blocking enough numbers, or cutting off to many. Then
>>> there is a tele device where a caller has to press 1 to reach the person
>>> being called-- I like this, pretty foolproof, but the pricetag seems a
>>> bit high at over $100. We have Verizon but nothing special. I just use
>>> DSL on copper and all wired phones. So whatever is used will have to
>>> work with this existing system. Anyone have ideas? Are there any
>>> number pressing devices cheaper than $100?
>>>
>>> Thanks-- bill
>>>

>> I have been using This Pro Call Blocker for several years and it works
>> as long as a phone number shows up on caller ID.
>>
>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pro-Call-Blocker-Caller-ID-Screener-NEWEST-VERSION-V2-2-N2-/181572369568?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a468e7ca0
>>
>>
>>
> I gotta ask, just how does a machine like this 'block' the call. If
> this unit is tied in parallel to the phone you have then as the call
> comes in, it would ring on both your phone and this unit. Or do you
> plug your phone into it first?
>
> And what about the 4 extensions in the rest of the house?
>
> Just curious, I've thought about something like this too.
> I've also seen the nomorobo http://www.nomorobo.com/signup for sign up
> and http://www.nomorobo.com/ for home page.
>

NoMoRobo allows one ring thru and then cancels the call for identified
calls of this type.

I have been using it for some time on Cablevision (Optonline).It is free
but only works with certain phone systems so try it if you can.

[Mark Lloyd]

On 03/29/2015 11:47 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

[snip]

> If I were to switch the incoming over, I could use a service provided by
> my VOIP provider (CallCentric.com) that prefixes every incoming call
> (except those on a GoldList that I maintain) with an announcement like
> "Please press 3 to talk with somebody...".
>
> I figure robocallers won't be able to deal with that challenge-response
> situation... at least for a few years.
>

I have had one of those challenge-response things. It didn't do much
better than just an answering machine.

A few of the people who called me would press the button. Most wouldn't,
so I would still need to have the phone ring so I could get the caller
ID and answer (pressing the key for them).

I didn't have an exception list like you did. It would still be a
problem (new important callers who won't press the key).

[Don Y]

Hi Bill,

On 3/29/2015 5:12 AM, bill ashford wrote:
> Enough is enough. My wife is getting upwards of 10 calls daily where no
> one is on the line when she answers.

Often, there is a delay (sometimes a few seconds) while the "dialer"
tries to track down a "human" to speak with you.

> We have caller ID and it shows
> numbers never heard of before.

CID is a useless service. It is too easily spoofed. You need an
authentication method that *you* control, not one that TPC *poorly*
implements!

> For about 4 years, we've both put up
> with it but over the last couple of years, the calls have increased.
> I'd like to add a phone call block if I can find the right kind. I see
> many around the web for sale, but most of these have so-so reviews and
> either end up not blocking enough numbers, or cutting off to many.

See above. Regardless of how "smart" it is, you're still relying on
the information provided by the CID service (or, dealing with "blocked").

> Then
> there is a tele device where a caller has to press 1 to reach the person
> being called-- I like this, pretty foolproof, but the pricetag seems a
> bit high at over $100.

Yes, if *all* it does is require a particular DTMF tone-pair, then
anything above $5 is ridiculous (e.g., DX.com sorts of prices)

> We have Verizon but nothing special. I just use
> DSL on copper and all wired phones. So whatever is used will have to
> work with this existing system. Anyone have ideas? Are there any
> number pressing devices cheaper than $100?

We've adopted a simple solution in the past: answering machine with
"factory default" outgoing message (so no information about our
identities is revealed, why we aren't answering the phone, etc.
Folks who know us don't need that information; folks that don't,
*shouldn't* need it!).

The ringer is also turned off (unless we are expecting a "call back"
from a friend, doctor, etc.). Every day or two, we notice if there
are any messages for us and screen them when we are in the mood.
Machine is digital (aren't they all, nowadays) so *if* a caller was
unsolicited, just pressing ERASE after the first two words is enough to
delete the message and advance to the next. Callers who don't leave
messages cost us nothing (time).

This approach works without incurring the cost of (spoofable and therefore
worthless) CID service. The downside is we don't see messages for hours
or days at a time. OTOH, friends know they can more promptly reach us via
other means.

If all of your callers are made aware of it, you can also eliminate the
outbound message entirely (IME, this makes callers very uneasy -- despite
the fact that they should instinctively *know* that the "beep" means
"leave your message, now"). Or, replace it with the "service disconnected"
message. Some robodialers will detect the pipe tones at the start of the
message and remove your name from their list automatically.

I've been trying to come up with an interactive scheme that would allow
the "attendant" to screen the calls in real time. I.e., quizzing callers
to verify their identities. Presumably, that would eliminate the
"automated" callers who wouldn't be able to comprehend the questions
asked of them:
"Press <random number> to be connected" as any "standardized" number
could easily be handled by a dialer knowing that number a priori

"Press <random number> to be disconnected, and <other number> to be
connected" as a trivial workaround would be to press *all* digits
in a quick burst to defeat the previous option.

"What's <some trivial arithmetic challenge>?" to try the patience of
a human solicitor.
etc.

For frequent callers, I am hoping to use speaker recognition techniques
to make *their* experience less tedious (like your secretary recognizing
your wife's voice and putting her through, automatically)

[Mark Lloyd]

On 03/29/2015 12:34 PM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:

[snip]

> Assuming USA, assuming landline.
> Add sit.wav to the beginning of your answer message.
> It cut robo calls by about 30%. Some robo calls go right
> to a recorded message and never hear the sit.wav though.
> Or just use sit.wav as an answer message and nothing else.
> Doing that not only confuses robo machines but confuses
> humans, too, and they hang up.

And you don't get calls from real people you want or need to talk to.

Anyway, I've been hearing about this use of SIT for a long time now.
Wouldn't the robocaller machines been adapted already?

[Ken Blake]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 13:52:43 -0500, Mark Lloyd <n...@mail.invalid>
wrote:

> On 03/29/2015 09:10 AM, Mayayana wrote:
>

> > We have a similarly problematic sitution with
> > telephone service accounts. They're no longer regulated
> > as a utility for all practical purposes. My own phone
> > company is raising my rate next month. There's nothing
> > I can do. I checked into it last time they raised the rate.
> > They're free to set any rate they like. In theory I could
> > switch to another company, but that company is Verizon
> > and the two companies keep their offerings matched.
> > As with highspeed cable, there isn't any real competition.
>
> Here I left the regular phone company (Verizon, formerly GTE) and
> switched to cable (Suddenlink, formerly Cox) and saved about 50%. I'm
> not sure if that's still true as it's part of a "bundle".

But there are other choices, even less expensive than what you pay.
For example I use PhonePower and pay them about $5 a month.

[Don Y]

On 3/29/2015 12:18 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On 03/29/2015 12:34 PM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Assuming USA, assuming landline.
>> Add sit.wav to the beginning of your answer message.
>> It cut robo calls by about 30%. Some robo calls go right
>> to a recorded message and never hear the sit.wav though.
>> Or just use sit.wav as an answer message and nothing else.
>> Doing that not only confuses robo machines but confuses
>> humans, too, and they hang up.
>
> And you don't get calls from real people you want or need to talk to.

People who *know* you and your practices adapt easily.

Where you get screwed is the folks who contact you only occasionally.
Or, who may "vary" with each contact (e.g., someone calling from
your doctor's office, the public library, a friend who's forgotten
this idiosyncrasy, etc.)

That;s why its better to engage them interactively. Someone
from your doctor's office is more likely to "comply" with some
minor inconvenience in contacting you ("Please press 3")
than they would "remember" the service disconnected message.

> Anyway, I've been hearing about this use of SIT for a long time now. Wouldn't
> the robocaller machines been adapted already?

If you answer on a low ring count, there's no real way they can
differentiate between a genuine message and a spoof. And,
what do they do if they *suspect* it isn't genuine? Remain on the
line and see if the message repeats? Or, if the connection is
dropped?

Ideally, you are "listening" during the outgoing message (announcement)
so legitimate callers can short-circuit the message and get to
the *real* answering machine (or, cause a ring-thru).

While most of these firms are annoying, it really wouldn't be *smart* for
them to persist. If you've gone to these lengths, it's because you are
UNLIKELY to ever accept any of their "offers".

[Paul in Houston TX]

Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On 03/29/2015 12:34 PM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Assuming USA, assuming landline.
>> Add sit.wav to the beginning of your answer message.
>> It cut robo calls by about 30%. Some robo calls go right
>> to a recorded message and never hear the sit.wav though.
>> Or just use sit.wav as an answer message and nothing else.
>> Doing that not only confuses robo machines but confuses
>> humans, too, and they hang up.
>
> And you don't get calls from real people you want or need to talk to.

Correct. Inform the few that you really need or want to talk to.
The rest can hang up. Those that know me can call my cell phone.

> Anyway, I've been hearing about this use of SIT for a long time now.
> Wouldn't the robocaller machines been adapted already?

Yes. Many just start in with their message and the answering
machine starts recording. That includes my dentist's office as I
found out last week. However, it knocked out about 30% or so of
the junk calls and all calls from real live beggars.
I have the answering machine to not ring at all.

[Vic Smith]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 08:12:53 -0400, bill ashford <billa!x...@top.com>

wrote:

>Enough is enough. My wife is getting upwards of 10 calls daily where no

>one is on the line when she answers. We have caller ID and it shows
>numbers never heard of before. For about 4 years, we've both put up

>with it but over the last couple of years, the calls have increased.
>I'd like to add a phone call block if I can find the right kind. I see
>many around the web for sale, but most of these have so-so reviews and

>either end up not blocking enough numbers, or cutting off to many. Then

>there is a tele device where a caller has to press 1 to reach the person
>being called-- I like this, pretty foolproof, but the pricetag seems a

>bit high at over $100. We have Verizon but nothing special. I just use

>DSL on copper and all wired phones. So whatever is used will have to
>work with this existing system. Anyone have ideas? Are there any
>number pressing devices cheaper than $100?
>

>Thanks-- bill

Why would nobody be on the line? Doesn't make sense unless it's
harassment.
Change your phone number.

[Frank]

On 3/29/2015 9:40 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

> What advantage is that? The machines will call
> the new number, also.
>

> -
> .
> Christopher A. Young
> learn more about Jesus
> . www.lds.org
> .
> .
That's right, eventually.
Robo dialers just call everybody.

[Tim Wescott]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 13:23:57 +0100, N_Cook wrote:

> On 29/03/2015 13:12, bill ashford wrote:
>> Enough is enough. My wife is getting upwards of 10 calls daily where
>> no one is on the line when she answers. We have caller ID and it shows
>> numbers never heard of before. For about 4 years, we've both put up
>> with it but over the last couple of years, the calls have increased.
>> I'd like to add a phone call block if I can find the right kind. I see
>> many around the web for sale, but most of these have so-so reviews and
>> either end up not blocking enough numbers, or cutting off to many.
>> Then there is a tele device where a caller has to press 1 to reach the
>> person being called-- I like this, pretty foolproof, but the pricetag
>> seems a bit high at over $100. We have Verizon but nothing special. I
>> just use DSL on copper and all wired phones. So whatever is used will
>> have to work with this existing system. Anyone have ideas? Are there
>> any number pressing devices cheaper than $100?
>>
>> Thanks-- bill
>

> An answerphone message machine, just set on outgoing message and
> speakerphone mode for any incoming call, and tell your friends about it,
> so they can ignore it and not hang up, but keep the line open until
> someone gets to the phone.

+1. Get the kind that plays the incoming caller on a speaker, and listen
for valid calls. The only feature that I'd want to add to such a setup is
a "hangup" button, although most robo-calls detect answering machines and
cut off.

Our current cordless phones also read out the Caller ID. The voice
synthesis is awful, but after a while you get to understand their mangled
version of the names of various friends and family members.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

[Mayayana]

| But there are other choices, even less expensive than what you pay.
| For example I use PhonePower and pay them about $5 a month.
|

That's VoIP. We're talking about real phones.

[Dave Platt]

In article <ySTn02F3I$FVF...@soft255.demon.co.uk>,
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>If it isn't already, you could pester your councillor/senator/whatever
>to have similar legislation passed there.

Such call are, in general, already illegal in the United States, and
have been for some years.

Robo-dialing and the playing of automated announcements are not
permitted. Making marketing calls to people who have registered their
phone number on the "Do Not Call" list is explicitly illegal.

The law has next to no teeth, though. It is rare for the authorities
to actually prosecute cases - it takes a *lot* of complaints to
pressure them into doing the "legwork" needed to trace back these
sorts of calls to the originator(s), and gather the evidence needed to
secure a criminal conviction or a civil fine.

If I recall, the law does give the offended consumer (who receives
such calls) the right of private action - i.e. the right to file a
lawsuit in civil court against the marketer. Unfortunately (as with
junk fakes) it is both difficult and expensive to track down the
offender, collect proof that s/he was the one who called, identify the
business or business owner, file suit, serve the suit, go to court,
make your case, win, get a judgement, and then actually collect.

A lot of these calls come from "boiler room" telemarketing operations,
which can set up and shut down on a moment's notice. By using Voice
over IP they can make calls to anywhere, from anywhere, with excellent
anonymity. And, a fair number of such calls are now originated from
outside the U.S., so applying the TCPA law becomes almost impossible.

> In the meantime, I presume
>there _is_ at least some mechanism for reporting "nuisance callers",
>though like here it was probably set up to deal with heavy breathers and
>the like. Otherwise, the suggestion of an answerphone set on speaker
>sounds like a good compromise for now.

A couple of years ago, I switched my wife's business landline over
from a dedicated hard-line to a voice-over-IP provider. The incoming
call comes to an Asterisk server I run. It has a multi-layer defense
against junk calls:

- Any call which is on our private "blacklist" is immediately
rejected with a "CONGESTION" error.

- Calls from outside our local area codes go to a "Please wait to
be connected" voice message, and then a 10-to-15 second delay
before the phone / answering machine are rung. This gets rid of
a lot of junk calls - they don't hang on the line long enough
to get past the delay.

- I can dial "666" from any of our VoIP phones, and the system will
read back the number of the last call on her line. I can then hit
"6" to add it to the blacklist. If I head a ring-no-answer from
her office I call 666, write down the number, run a quick Web check
to see if there are telemarketing complaints against it, and if so,
call back and "6" it to the blacklist.

I'm strongly tempted to add an automatic Web lookup to the
"telemarketing complaint" web site, while the call is still in
progress (or immediately after) and blacklist numbers that have been
mentioned repeatedly or recently.

Unfortunately, none of the above helps with our main home land-line,
which is still olde-fashioned analog (I don't want to get rid of it as
it's pretty certain to work even during a power failure or Internet
outage).

[Gordon Shumway]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 10:10:13 -0400, "Mayayana"
<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>
>| in UK, silent calls are illegal, and the originator can
>| suffer quite a large fine.
>|

>| If it isn't already, you could pester your councillor/senator/whatever
>| to have similar legislation passed there.
>

> We actually have pretty good protection in the US,
>in theory.
> A few years ago there was a federal Do-Not-Call
>list and also a state version where I could register
>a complaint. Advertisers were not allowed to call
>registered numbers. Now the state version is closed
>and the federal version seems to be a joke, with no
>enforcement. I probably get 2-3 junk calls per day.
>I gave up complaining about them. I just use an
>answering machine with Caller ID.

That was just a small portion of the "Change" that Obummer has given
us that we didn't want.

> Citizen protection from corporate exploitation
>has gone *way* downhill in the US. I just read
>the other day that Google lost an effort in Britan
>to stop Safari users from suing over privacy due
>to Google bypassing all cookie settings to track
>people.
> http://bgr.com/2015/03/27/google-lawsuit-safari-cookies/
>
> Apparently they hacked a Safari bug to spy on
>people. Google claimed that resulting privacy
>lawsuits in Britain should be thrown out because
>the people spied on didn't lose any money!
> I thought that was a great example of the
>difference between European civility and American
>corporatocracy. It's classic American thinking:
>Anything that makes money can't be wrong.
>
> Our allegedly liberal president Clinton pushed
>through NAFTA, which boils down to a free ticket
>for American corporations to exploit foregin labor
>and avoid American labor costs. Our allegedly liberal
>president Obama is now pushing a similar agreement
>in Asia.
> With friends like that, who needs Republican
>oligarchs?

You may not want oligarchs, neither do I, but you probably voted for
the all mighty supreme leader who rules without regard for our
constitution, the will of the people or the safety of our country.

> We have a similarly problematic sitution with
>telephone service accounts. They're no longer regulated
>as a utility for all practical purposes. My own phone
>company is raising my rate next month. There's nothing
>I can do.

Nobody is holding a gun to your head demanding you continue with that
company are they. You are free to choose any provider you wish.

> I checked into it last time they raised the rate.
>They're free to set any rate they like. In theory I could
>switch to another company, but that company is Verizon
>and the two companies keep their offerings matched.
>As with highspeed cable, there isn't any real competition.
>

> With both landlines and cellphones there's no
>longer any way to actually find out what the
>plans and prices are. There's no set price. It's all
>devolved into a flim flam operation, like used cars.
>They charge what they think they can get away
>with. Here in the colonies we have to depend on the civility
>of European law to police "cowboy" American corporations.
>It's our only hope. :)

You poor, poor, helpless child.

[David E. Ross]

You did not read my earlier reply.

A robocall is initiated by a computer, not a person. When you answer,
the computer is supposed to connect you to a live pitchman. Sometimes,
however, the call center is understaffed, which means there is no
available pitchman. If you stay on the line and repeatedly say "Hello",
you might eventually connect to a live person.

--
David E. Ross

Why do we tolerate political leaders who
spend more time belittling hungry children
than they do trying to fix the problem of
hunger? <http://mazon.org/>

[Dave Platt]

In article <ujmghadklb76hjej8...@4ax.com>,

Vic Smith <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:

>>Enough is enough. My wife is getting upwards of 10 calls daily where no
>>one is on the line when she answers.

> Why would nobody be on the line? Doesn't make sense unless it's
>harassment.

Quite a lot of these callers are using predictive or "robo-dialing"
systems. Their computer system calls phone numbers, and tries to
detect the presence of a "human answer" - somebody who picks up and
says "Hello?" or something like that.

Only when the computer detects a human answer, does it start playing
its recorded sales pitch, or ring the call through to a human
telemarketer who reads the pitch. If the computer detects what sounds
like an answering machine message, it just hangs up. If the computer
detects a human answer, but all of the human telemarketers are busy
annoying other consumers, the computer hangs up.

In some other cases, the telemarketers seem to be making short calls
(with no content) in the hope that people will see the "missed call"
indication on their Caller ID system, and call back... at which point
the marketer tries their sales pitch. This may be a somewhat feeble
attempt to avoid the Do Not Call list, because the marketer didn't
*technically* make a sales call to the consumer (just a call with no
message) and the consumer ended up calling the marketer back and is
thus "fair game" for a sales pitch.

>Change your phone number.

Since many of these robo-dialers work their way through whole ranges
of phone numbers, doing so won't help much.

[Mayayana]

| Nobody is holding a gun to your head demanding you continue with that
| company are they. You are free to choose any provider you wish.
|

No. That's the point. As I explained and you apparently
missed, there are two options. They both charge the same
rate. Like most neighborhoods, there's a duopoly that's
functionally a monopoly. (Many people don't even have that
much "choice".)

There was an interesting article this past week about
a software developer who's selling his new house because
he can't get cable service, despite officially having a
choice of several companies. It throws some light on the
effects of the pro-big-business, anti-citizen position you're
espousing:

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/03/new-homeowner-selling-house-because-he-cant-get-comcast-internet/

An interesting detail of that story is that the man lives
in one of 20 states where lobbyists have managed to
get laws passed prohibiting municipal broadband service
being sold to individuals. It so happens that there is a
municipal line running near the man's house, but it's illegal
for them to give him service. That would be "unfair
competition"!

[Ashton Crusher]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 08:12:53 -0400, bill ashford <billa!x...@top.com>

wrote:

>Enough is enough. My wife is getting upwards of 10 calls daily where no

>one is on the line when she answers. We have caller ID and it shows
>numbers never heard of before. For about 4 years, we've both put up
>with it but over the last couple of years, the calls have increased.
>I'd like to add a phone call block if I can find the right kind. I see
>many around the web for sale, but most of these have so-so reviews and
>either end up not blocking enough numbers, or cutting off to many. Then
>there is a tele device where a caller has to press 1 to reach the person
>being called-- I like this, pretty foolproof, but the pricetag seems a
>bit high at over $100. We have Verizon but nothing special. I just use
>DSL on copper and all wired phones. So whatever is used will have to
>work with this existing system. Anyone have ideas? Are there any
>number pressing devices cheaper than $100?
>
>Thanks-- bill

I bought this on Amazon. Works great. $40
Has a white list and black list as well as a screening mode.

SENTRY Dual Mode Call Blocker. Block 100% Robo Calls. Stop All Junk
Calls, Election Calls, Survey Calls. 9999 Number Capacity

[Gordon Shumway]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 21:14:15 -0400, "Mayayana"
<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>| Nobody is holding a gun to your head demanding you continue with that
>| company are they. You are free to choose any provider you wish.
>|
>
> No. That's the point. As I explained and you apparently
>missed, there are two options. They both charge the same
>rate. Like most neighborhoods, there's a duopoly that's
>functionally a monopoly. (Many people don't even have that
>much "choice".)

There are more than those two options as others have pointed out. You
said you didn't want VOIP. Well, that was one choice you made. Another
choice you have is to have no phone at all.

Be that as it may, the market will seek it's own level and the
consumers will continue to pay what is charged until they feel the
price is too high. It's the old supply and demand thing.

Previously you complained about Citizen protection from corporate
exploitation has gone way downhill in the US. Cite some examples of
this exploitation. From the current administration I'm only seeing
exploitation from the government. That will change

[Smarty]

Susan Bugher <sebu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 3/29/2015 8:12 AM, bill ashford wrote:
>
>> Enough is enough. My wife is getting upwards of 10 calls daily where no
>> one is on the line when she answers. We have caller ID and it shows
>> numbers never heard of before. For about 4 years, we've both put up
>> with it but over the last couple of years, the calls have increased.
>> I'd like to add a phone call block if I can find the right kind. I see
>> many around the web for sale, but most of these have so-so reviews and
>> either end up not blocking enough numbers, or cutting off to many. Then
>> there is a tele device where a caller has to press 1 to reach the person
>> being called-- I like this, pretty foolproof, but the pricetag seems a
>> bit high at over $100. We have Verizon but nothing special. I just use
>> DSL on copper and all wired phones. So whatever is used will have to
>> work with this existing system. Anyone have ideas? Are there any
>> number pressing devices cheaper than $100?
>>
>> Thanks-- bill
>

> Using a "SIT tone" might help:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_information_tones#Other_uses
> "In telephony, a special information tone (SIT) is an in-band
> international standard signal consisting of three rising tones indicating
> a call has failed. It usually precedes a recorded announcement describing the problem
> "
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_information_tones#Other_uses
> "Because many predictive dialers (used in telemarketing) respond to SITs,
> consumer devices such as the TeleZapper play an Intercept SIT to trick
> the telemarketer's equipment into flagging a called number as disconnected.
>
> Alternatively, the above recordings of SITs could be used on a voicemail
> or answering machine, or played manually on a computer, to achieve a similar effect."
>
> Susan
> --

Tried this method for a few months with very limited success. Switched to
nomiribo and mostly eliminated my problem. Bought a $90 Teleblocker and
problem totally solved.

[Smarty]

Big_Al <Big...@invalid.com> wrote:
> G. Ross wrote on 3/29/2015 9:06 AM:

>> bill ashford wrote:
>>> Enough is enough. My wife is getting upwards of 10 calls daily where no
>>> one is on the line when she answers. We have caller ID and it shows
>>> numbers never heard of before. For about 4 years, we've both put up
>>> with it but over the last couple of years, the calls have increased.
>>> I'd like to add a phone call block if I can find the right kind. I see
>>> many around the web for sale, but most of these have so-so reviews and
>>> either end up not blocking enough numbers, or cutting off to many. Then
>>> there is a tele device where a caller has to press 1 to reach the person
>>> being called-- I like this, pretty foolproof, but the pricetag seems a
>>> bit high at over $100. We have Verizon but nothing special. I just use
>>> DSL on copper and all wired phones. So whatever is used will have to
>>> work with this existing system. Anyone have ideas? Are there any
>>> number pressing devices cheaper than $100?
>>>
>>> Thanks-- bill
>>>

>> I have been using This Pro Call Blocker for several years and it works
>> as long as a phone number shows up on caller ID.
>>
>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pro-Call-Blocker-Caller-ID-Screener-NEWEST-VERSION-V2-2-N2-/181572369568?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a468e7ca0
>>
>>
> I gotta ask, just how does a machine like this 'block' the call. If
> this unit is tied in parallel to the phone you have then as the call
> comes in, it would ring on both your phone and this unit. Or do you
> plug your phone into it first?
>
> And what about the 4 extensions in the rest of the house?
>
> Just curious, I've thought about something like this too.
> I've also seen the nomorobo http://www.nomorobo.com/signup for sign up and
> http://www.nomorobo.com/ for home page.

Monotonous is excellent and free if your carrier supports simultaneous 2
number ringing AND you can live with a single annoying ring for each
nuisance caller it recognizes.

[Bob]

On 3/29/2015 12:11, Zaidy036 wrote:

> NoMoRobo allows one ring thru and then cancels the call for identified
> calls of this type.

In order to use NoMoRobo your phone service needs to have a "follow-me"
where incoming calls will ring on your phone and other predetermined
phones simultaneously. NoMoRobo keeps a database of "undesired" numbers
and when such a number shows up on your caller ID the call gets answered
by NoMoRobo, so you hear only one ring. It doesn't intercept all
undesirable calls, but it's a good start -- and it's free.

[ChairMan]

Mark Lloyd <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
> On 03/29/2015 08:40 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
>
> [snip]

>>
>> What advantage is that? The machines will call
>> the new number, also.
>>
>

> You'll have to tell some people the new number, and some
> people will
> give it out so the junk callers will get it.
>
>
> [sig with INCORRECT delimiter snipped]

it doesn't matter, they are robocalling. They take a prefix
and area code, the computer starts calling all the possible
combos, logs what number answered and what time.
They sell that data and there you have the birth of a
telemarketer

[HerHusband]

Hi Bill,

> Enough is enough. My wife is getting upwards of 10 calls daily where no
> one is on the line when she answers. We have caller ID and it shows
> numbers never heard of before. For about 4 years, we've both put up
> with it but over the last couple of years, the calls have increased.
> I'd like to add a phone call block if I can find the right kind. I see
> many around the web for sale, but most of these have so-so reviews and
> either end up not blocking enough numbers, or cutting off to many. Then
> there is a tele device where a caller has to press 1 to reach the person
> being called-- I like this, pretty foolproof, but the pricetag seems a
> bit high at over $100. We have Verizon but nothing special. I just use
> DSL on copper and all wired phones. So whatever is used will have to
> work with this existing system. Anyone have ideas? Are there any
> number pressing devices cheaper than $100?

First, add your number to the federal do-not-call registry.

Second, see if your phone service provider provides any kind of phone
blocking services. We use 1-VOIP for our phone service. I block all
callers from 800, 888, and 876 numbers. Family and friends will never use
toll-free numbers, nor do any local businesses we work with (banks,
medical, etc.). I also block a few specific numbers from local callers
(local fundraisers and whatnot).

I can also set up my phone filters to only accept numbers from specific
area codes, but so far that has not been necessary.

Using these two simple steps we have not had a junk call in years.

On the rare occasion I get an unknown call I only say "hello" once. If the
person on the other end doesn't say hello back, it's probably an automated
call. If I get a recording or a person that is obviously a sales call, I
simply hang up. I have more important things to do than waste my time
interacting with a call I didn't want in the first place. Rude? Maybe, but
the unwanted call was rude to start with.

Good luck,

Anthony Watson
www.mountainsoftware.com
www.watsondiy.com

[Vic Smith]

I'm questioning why this would happen "upwards of 10 calls daily."
I get a robocall about once a every two weeks. Charities and
political calls are exempt from the "do not call" list.
Some use robocalling.
I've learned to recognize the soundless delay and simply hang up the
phone. If I'm not quick enough somebody comes on the other end.
The OP is getting '"upwards of 10 calls daily" and doesn't know who is
calling; something is wrong with that from her end.
The "do not call" list has worked for me. In the 10 years or so since
I entered my number unwanted calls are few and far between.
I've told maybe only 2 callers that they've violated the "do not call"
list and they never called again.
This guy's wife is getting thousands more unwanted calls than me.
That's pure harassment in my book. Or bullshit. Shouldn't happen.

[N_Cook]

The message I put on one for someone plagued by junk was just a short
beep, .. . beep every second for the 2 minutes maximum of recorded
outgoing message, no answerphone recording option. That meant it did not
drown out the genuine incoming caller message and the caller knew the
line was live and 2 minutes is plenty of time for the recipient to get
to the phone, if genuine, and they were at home.
The theory being that any intending burglar would think there was a
fault on the line.

[John S]

Check out NoMoRobo.

[Martin Brown]

On 29/03/2015 21:42, Tim Wescott wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 13:23:57 +0100, N_Cook wrote:
>
>> On 29/03/2015 13:12, bill ashford wrote:
>>> Enough is enough. My wife is getting upwards of 10 calls daily where
>>> no one is on the line when she answers. We have caller ID and it shows
>>> numbers never heard of before. For about 4 years, we've both put up
>>> with it but over the last couple of years, the calls have increased.

I don't know if it works with US call farming but answering an unknown
caller with "dead air" can be moderately effective at putting them off.

Over in the UK we have a telephone preference service which allows you
to opt out of all reputable cold calling leaving only the disreputable
ones doing boilerroom scams by VOIP. There is a risk of collateral
damage if someone you know rings you up from an unusal number but once
they speak up you can carry on as normal if you recognise the voice.

>>
>> An answerphone message machine, just set on outgoing message and
>> speakerphone mode for any incoming call, and tell your friends about it,
>> so they can ignore it and not hang up, but keep the line open until
>> someone gets to the phone.
>
> +1. Get the kind that plays the incoming caller on a speaker, and listen
> for valid calls. The only feature that I'd want to add to such a setup is
> a "hangup" button, although most robo-calls detect answering machines and
> cut off.

+1

A surprising number don't. I must make my outgoing answerphone msg a few
seconds longer since otherwise its memory clogs up with tail ends of
sales spiels ending along the lines of "or press 9 to opt out".

> Our current cordless phones also read out the Caller ID. The voice
> synthesis is awful, but after a while you get to understand their mangled
> version of the names of various friends and family members.
>

Mine just shows it on a local LCD.

You get used to the exchange codes of dodgy cold call farms. Is there
any US equivalent of "who calls me" where you can report dodgy cold call
organisations and find out what it is they are selling?

I generally let the answerphone filter incoming calls.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Mark Lloyd:
>When the federal Do-Not-Call list was new, I registered for it, and
>forawhile was getting almost no junk calls. Now, I get as many as before.

My experience has been the same - with two additions:

- In the very beginning, I actually got a few bucks from the
Penna Atty Genera's office: my share of a settlement resulting
from a complaint I filed.

- I now have a stack of lame-sounding letters from the same Penna
Atty General's office to the effect that, since solicitors have
moved offshore and started using VOIP there's nothing they
can do. Which I translate to either "Somebody's paid off somebody,
somewhere, to reduce the budget for these prosecutions." or
"We have an already-limited budget and we have to prioritize."

It's probably #2, but my inner misanthrope likes #1.
--
Pete Cresswell

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Mark Lloyd:

>Anyway, I've been hearing about this use of SIT for a long time now.
>Wouldn't the robocaller machines been adapted already?

Seems to me like the only test would be two phones side-by-side on the
same exchange: one "With" and one "Without" and some record of calls to
each.

Having said that, I have had the SIT tone for "Number not working" in
the beginning of my answering machine announcement for at least 4 years
now and I do not perceive any improvement.

--
Pete Cresswell

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Dave Platt:

>In some other cases, the telemarketers seem to be making short calls
>(with no content) in the hope that people will see the "missed call"
>indication on their Caller ID system, and call back... at which point
>the marketer tries their sales pitch.

Supposedly there was a scam using that strategy: the CallerID number
would be one of those exchanges like the phone sex operators use where
the caller gets charged per minute and a percentage of the charge goes
to the operator.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Col. Edmund Burke]

"bill ashford" <billa!x...@top.com> wrote in message
news:mf8q6h$l0o$3...@dont-email.me...

Bill? Are you having a happy day in spite of the phone?

[David E. Ross]

If the source is indeed off-shore -- that is, in another nation -- what
jurisdiction would the U.S. government or the government of any U.S.
state have in that other nation? Turn that around. If someone in the
U.S. violated a German or French patent, should those nations have the
right to go to Philadelphia and arrest someone, try him, and fine him?

[Vic Smith]

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 10:42:22 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
wrote:

I rarely get non-charity/political calls. I did get a call a couple
weeks ago from a vent cleaning company.
What kind of calls would come from overseas?

[Martin Brown]

Round here most of them. Might be different in the USA.

Cold calls originating in the UK are regulated by an impotent toothless
regulator and the existence of sites like "Who calls me" that names and
shames any transgressors. Typically they are solicitors soliciting and
claims firms drumming up applicants for fake whiplash claims.

However, VOIP allows the cold calling drudges to be located anywhere in
the world where labour is cheap and so bypasses all domestic controls.
Forged CLID is increasingly common too.

Many phones offer blocking known chunks of bad behaviour and some phone
services here allow blocking of individual bad numbers (optional extra).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[s|b]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 08:12:53 -0400, bill ashford wrote:

> Enough is enough. My wife is getting upwards of 10 calls daily where no
> one is on the line when she answers. We have caller ID and it shows
> numbers never heard of before.

You /do/ realize you're crossposting to alt.windows7.general, yes? (Just
checking...)

--
s|b

[Leif Neland]

Dave Platt har bragt dette til verden:

> In some other cases, the telemarketers seem to be making short calls
> (with no content) in the hope that people will see the "missed call"
> indication on their Caller ID system, and call back... at which point
> the marketer tries their sales pitch. This may be a somewhat feeble
> attempt to avoid the Do Not Call list, because the marketer didn't
> *technically* make a sales call to the consumer (just a call with no
> message) and the consumer ended up calling the marketer back and is
> thus "fair game" for a sales pitch.

Some dead-air calls are scammers, trying to get you to call back to an
overseas/overcharged number.
Some calls can cost up to $20/min.

Leif

--
https://www.paradiss.dk
Ting til konen eller kæresten.
Eller begge.

[Mark Lloyd]

On 03/29/2015 11:37 PM, ChairMan wrote:

[snip]

> it doesn't matter, they are robocalling. They take a prefix
> and area code, the computer starts calling all the possible
> combos, logs what number answered and what time.
> They sell that data and there you have the birth of a
> telemarketer

I seem to remember it being illegal to do this (call all possible
combos). Of course, I don't expect it to stop them.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"He is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who
believes what is wrong." --Thomas Jefferson

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 09:40:33 -0400, Big_Al wrote:

> And what about the 4 extensions in the rest of the house?

They stop ringing when the call is blocked, unless they're on a second
phone line (i.e., a different phone number).

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Mark Lloyd]

On 03/30/2015 10:34 AM, Vic Smith wrote:

[snip]

> I rarely get non-charity/political calls. I did get a call a couple
> weeks ago from a vent cleaning company.
> What kind of calls would come from overseas?
>

"Microsoft" scams?

I haven't gotten one of those, maybe since I seldom answer junk calls. I
think if I got one of those calls I'd be suspicious about how someone
knew so much about MY computer.

I have gotten junk calls for home security systems, extended vehicle
"warranties", and credit cards.

As to answering machine messages, most of these callers don't leave
messages, although I have gotten unintelligible sounds (like too many
people talking) and dial tone. The few that do usually DON'T wait for
the beep.

[Mark Lloyd]

On 03/30/2015 12:04 PM, Martin Brown wrote:

[snip]

> However, VOIP allows the cold calling drudges to be located anywhere in
> the world where labour is cheap and so bypasses all domestic controls.
> Forged CLID is increasingly common too.

But not forged very well, so CID is still useful. The junk is often
obvious like "V2345679845". Do you know anyone with that NAME?

> Many phones offer blocking known chunks of bad behaviour and some phone
> services here allow blocking of individual bad numbers (optional extra).
>

I have that (blocking individual numbers) available, and use that when
possible (like for charities).

[Brian Gregory]

On 29/03/2015 13:38, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <mf8q6h$l0o$3...@dont-email.me>, bill ashford <billa!x...@top.com>

> writes:
>> Enough is enough. My wife is getting upwards of 10 calls daily where no
>> one is on the line when she answers. We have caller ID and it shows

>> numbers never heard of before. For about 4 years, we've both put up
>> with it but over the last couple of years, the calls have increased.

>> I'd like to add a phone call block if I can find the right kind. I see
>> many around the web for sale, but most of these have so-so reviews and
>> either end up not blocking enough numbers, or cutting off to many. Then
>> there is a tele device where a caller has to press 1 to reach the person
>> being called-- I like this, pretty foolproof, but the pricetag seems a
>> bit high at over $100. We have Verizon but nothing special. I just use
>> DSL on copper and all wired phones. So whatever is used will have to
>> work with this existing system. Anyone have ideas? Are there any
>> number pressing devices cheaper than $100?
>>
>> Thanks-- bill
>

> Mention of Verizon (and $) suggests you are in US, so this probably
> won't help, but: in UK, silent calls are illegal, and the originator can
> suffer quite a large fine.
>
> They're caused - or so we are told - by autodiallers, machines which
> dial numbers at random (or from a list?), when such machines are
> operated by a company that doesn't employ quite enough humans, so the
> situation can arise where it dials someone but there's no-one to talk to
> the victim when the victim answers. They've been made illegal mainly, I
> think, due to distress caused to those who think it may instead be a
> burglar or similar, checking in advance.
>
> If it isn't already, you could pester your councillor/senator/whatever
> to have similar legislation passed there. In the meantime, I presume
> there _is_ at least some mechanism for reporting "nuisance callers",
> though like here it was probably set up to deal with heavy breathers and
> the like. Otherwise, the suggestion of an answerphone set on speaker
> sounds like a good compromise for now.

It's nice that silent calls are illegal here but since almost all of
them come from overseas it does no real good.

--

Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.

[Mayayana]

| But not forged very well, so CID is still useful. The junk is often
| obvious like "V2345679845". Do you know anyone with that NAME?
|

I've had calls from myself and last week I had a
call from directory assistance. :) Most calls I get
at least seem to be local, but I don't pick up unless
I recognize the caller ID, so I'm not really sure.

I saw an interview recently with the man who started
nomorobo. He said something to the effect that
"if a halfwit like me can easily compile a blacklist
of phone numbers the government could certainly
do it." Good point.

[Robert Baer]

Unfortunately, those calls are illegal here as well.
But 105% of the ones i get are illegally spoofed so the caller ID is
worse than useless.
Nobody with a modicum of "authority" gives a shit, and the FCC has
opted out ages ago.
The so-called "do not call" list is a major joke; one gets MORE calls
if you try it,and changing phone number is of no help unless you want to
change it every week.

[Martin Brown]

On 31/03/2015 00:25, Brian Gregory wrote:
> On 29/03/2015 13:38, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message <mf8q6h$l0o$3...@dont-email.me>, bill ashford <billa!x...@top.com>
>> writes:
>>> Enough is enough. My wife is getting upwards of 10 calls daily where no
>>> one is on the line when she answers. We have caller ID and it shows
>>> numbers never heard of before. For about 4 years, we've both put up
>>> with it but over the last couple of years, the calls have increased.
>>>

>>> Thanks-- bill
>>
>> Mention of Verizon (and $) suggests you are in US, so this probably
>> won't help, but: in UK, silent calls are illegal, and the originator can
>> suffer quite a large fine.
>>
>> They're caused - or so we are told - by autodiallers, machines which
>> dial numbers at random (or from a list?), when such machines are
>> operated by a company that doesn't employ quite enough humans, so the
>> situation can arise where it dials someone but there's no-one to talk to
>> the victim when the victim answers. They've been made illegal mainly, I
>> think, due to distress caused to those who think it may instead be a
>> burglar or similar, checking in advance.

You can play them back by answering with dead air.

It is every bit as disconcerting for the system and/or the sales drudge
to be faced with a completely silent line as it is for the consumer.

>> If it isn't already, you could pester your councillor/senator/whatever
>> to have similar legislation passed there. In the meantime, I presume
>> there _is_ at least some mechanism for reporting "nuisance callers",
>> though like here it was probably set up to deal with heavy breathers and
>> the like. Otherwise, the suggestion of an answerphone set on speaker
>> sounds like a good compromise for now.
>
> It's nice that silent calls are illegal here but since almost all of
> them come from overseas it does no real good.

And our watchdog is still pretty toothless. The odd big fine. eg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22199699

I think the name and shame websites are almost as effective at keeping
the excesses of the cold calling industry under control.

Until a few years ago the fines for this were low enough to be
considered as just another operating expense.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per David E. Ross:

>If the source is indeed off-shore -- that is, in another nation -- what
>jurisdiction would the U.S. government or the government of any U.S.
>state have in that other nation? Turn that around. If someone in the
>U.S. violated a German or French patent, should those nations have the
>right to go to Philadelphia and arrest someone, try him, and fine him?

Knowing absolutely *nothing* about law enforcement, my
totally-uninformed, unencumbered by any knowledge though would be honey
traps:

- Recruit a bunch of people with phones (state employees?) who agree
to participate

- Issue them special-purpose credit card numbers. There are credit
card accounts that will give you a virtual one-time-use credit
card number each time you want to buy something.... so the
control aspect is there.

- When they get a suspect call, they go the whole route.
Sooner-or-later, money changes hands and the ultimate
recipient of the money becomes the target.

If they're in the USA, done deal. Otherwise ? ....
maybe extradition?

Like I said at the start, I know nothing.

But I would bet a week's pay that if those same robocalls were
threatening some highly-placed political figure the perpetrators
would be dead or in jail within a week - maybe within 48 hours
if the figure was high enough.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Phil Hobbs]

And then put your business on it, if you supported the wrong candidate.
No thanks, we've got quite enough of that sort of thing already.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

[John S]

On 3/29/2015 9:55 AM, OldGuy wrote:
> OK, I see landline solutions but what about cell phone solutions
> I am on Sprint. Samsung Galaxy S5 lollypop.
> Is there a forum that will cover that if someone here has no good solution.
> Thank you!
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

When you're at home, put your cell phone on call forwarding to your
landline.

[John S]

On 3/29/2015 11:50 AM, sharkman wrote:
> If you have digital voice through Verizon, go to NOMOROBO.com and sign
> up.. No charge and they are very good in blocking calls.. I've been
> using them 2 years and
> they work great..
>

Verizon digital also has a spot where you can enter up to (10?) phone
numbers to block. You don't even get one ring.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 3/31/2015 2:17 PM, John S wrote:

>
> Verizon digital also has a spot where you can enter up to (10?) phone
> numbers to block. You don't even get one ring.

The works if you want to be rid of an ex-wife or girlfriend. The
telemarketers use different numbers very often and you really don't get
a lot of repeats.

[bill ashford]

On 03/29/2015 10:01 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 08:12:53 -0400, bill ashford <billa!x...@top.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Enough is enough. My wife is getting upwards of 10 calls daily where no
>> one is on the line when she answers. We have caller ID and it shows
>> numbers never heard of before. For about 4 years, we've both put up
>> with it but over the last couple of years, the calls have increased.

>> I'd like to add a phone call block if I can find the right kind. I see
>> many around the web for sale, but most of these have so-so reviews and
>> either end up not blocking enough numbers, or cutting off to many. Then
>> there is a tele device where a caller has to press 1 to reach the person
>> being called-- I like this, pretty foolproof, but the pricetag seems a
>> bit high at over $100. We have Verizon but nothing special. I just use
>> DSL on copper and all wired phones. So whatever is used will have to
>> work with this existing system. Anyone have ideas? Are there any
>> number pressing devices cheaper than $100?
>>
>> Thanks-- bill
>
>

> I bought this on Amazon. Works great. $40
> Has a white list and black list as well as a screening mode.
>
> SENTRY Dual Mode Call Blocker. Block 100% Robo Calls. Stop All Junk
> Calls, Election Calls, Survey Calls. 9999 Number Capacity
>


After reading all of the suggestions here, this unit is what I decided
on except version 2 because it looks like I can add numbers manually. I
still have some questions about it though that perhaps you can answer:

1) Will my caller ID still work? I'm hoping to install the unit in
front of my cordless phone base unit to which a pair of cordless phones
are linked to. The cordless base unit has an announcing caller ID.

2) I'm probably going to run it in "advanced" mode. If so, I'm hoping
the phone won't ring at all unless it is a white listed number. Is that
the case, or does it still have one audible ring? The whole reason I'm
getting something like this is to stop ALL ringing from non-wanted
numbers. An elderly person in the house is constantly awakened by the
spammers, even after one ring, so I'm hoping advanced mode won't let the
ringing through.

To all others here who have provided suggestions: much appreciated but
there have been issues with some of the recommendations. For one, I
don't have any cells or android operating phones, so those apps wouldn't
have helped. Also, the website that screens the unwanted callers is not
available for my area. Verizon block is apparently only available as an
extra monthly charge, which I sure didn't want to add as I just dropped
two unnecessary extras recently. Unfortunately, my cordless Uniden
phones don't have the ability to block calls on their own. So that
meant either changing my number and/or getting a private number which
costs, or upgrading to FIOS which I definitely didn't want to do,
getting rid of Verizon altogether and going with someone else or getting
an inbound device that would do the screening job. I chose the latter
both due to the simplicity, cost and convenience. Now I'll see if I
made the right decision. There was another device I looked at first
called the Teleblocker, which didn't even need caller id, but it is not
being made anymore and I wanted something still manufactured and could
be returned if problems or doesn't work like I want it to.

Thanks to all,
Bill

[bill ashford]

Honestly? Most of my days are not happy ones, tolerable and average and
that's about it. Thanks for asking.

[Ashton Crusher]

On Wed, 01 Apr 2015 09:18:39 -0400, bill ashford <billa!x...@top.com>

Yes, caller ID still works. I have an announcing "base" on my system
too and it says the incoming phone number.

>2) I'm probably going to run it in "advanced" mode. If so, I'm hoping
>the phone won't ring at all unless it is a white listed number. Is that
>the case, or does it still have one audible ring? The whole reason I'm
>getting something like this is to stop ALL ringing from non-wanted
>numbers. An elderly person in the house is constantly awakened by the
>spammers, even after one ring, so I'm hoping advanced mode won't let the
>ringing through.
>

If it's like mine there will be one ring even for blacklisted numbers.
For it to receive and decode the caller ID info it seems like it winds
up having to let one ring thru. However, I'm running mine in parallel
with the rest of my phones. I think you can insert it in series in
which case it might not send anything thru, and hence no ringing,
unless it's actually allowing the call to get thru. It depends a bit
on how you want to set up your answering machine and where you want to
put it and where you have your wires running, etc as to whether it can
be set up parallel versus serially. I didn't want to rearrange a
whole bunch of my phone stuff to do the serial setup so I just stuck
it on an open jack.

[k...@zzz.com]

On Wed, 01 Apr 2015 09:27:23 -0400, bill ashford <billa!x...@top.com>
wrote:

Really? Must suck to be you.

[Paul]

Ashton Crusher wrote:

>
> If it's like mine there will be one ring even for blacklisted numbers.
> For it to receive and decode the caller ID info it seems like it winds
> up having to let one ring thru.

There's a timing diagram here for Caller ID. Packet burst
is after the first ring.

http://courses.cs.tamu.edu/rabi/past-projects/99a/g6/Image2.gif

Gotta love student projects.

http://courses.cs.tamu.edu/rabi/past-projects/99a/g6/final.html

Paul

[Ashton Crusher]

Seems like it would have been better to send the caller ID burst
first. Any idea why they didn't?

[Paul]

Interesting. I didn't know there were variations.

http://www.callerid.com/files/4113/3650/6859/POS_V8_Manual.pdf

"CALLER ID DELIVERY TYPE

Caller ID signaling is sent by the local phone company's central
office in either of 4 different electronic formats.

Bellcore 202 signaling is sent between the first and second ring
in the countries such as the US, Canada, Mexico, Australia and others.

Caller ID is sent *before* the first ring by British Telecom (BT)
in the United Kingdom. Similarly, Caller ID is sent before the
first ring or after a very short ring burst using ETSI signaling
that is prevalent in eastern and northern Europe.

In countries or regions where older central office equipment is
used Caller ID is delivered via DTMF (touch-tones). Contact
CallerID.com for a different version of this unit if Caller ID
is delivered via DTMF signaling.
"

So apparently there is a workable scheme, where the CallerID
is delivered before the ringing voltage.

It's possible the first presentation of Ringing Voltage,
could "open" the CallerID module to listening to the line.
If the CallerID is listening all the time, if there
is a noise burst on the line, you might get random
displays appearing on the LCD display of your
CallerID box. The error checking may not be
fancy enough, to stop all error-filled packets.

Still, if BT can do it, why can't we ? :-)
It would be interesting to see if they
patented their idea :-)

Paul

[Robert Baer]

Martin Brown wrote:
> On 31/03/2015 00:25, Brian Gregory wrote:
>> On 29/03/2015 13:38, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> In message <mf8q6h$l0o$3...@dont-email.me>, bill ashford <billa!x...@top.com>
>>> writes:
>>>> Enough is enough. My wife is getting upwards of 10 calls daily where no
>>>> one is on the line when she answers. We have caller ID and it shows
>>>> numbers never heard of before. For about 4 years, we've both put up
>>>> with it but over the last couple of years, the calls have increased.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks-- bill
>>>
>>> Mention of Verizon (and $) suggests you are in US, so this probably
>>> won't help, but: in UK, silent calls are illegal, and the originator can
>>> suffer quite a large fine.
>>>
>>> They're caused - or so we are told - by autodiallers, machines which
>>> dial numbers at random (or from a list?), when such machines are
>>> operated by a company that doesn't employ quite enough humans, so the
>>> situation can arise where it dials someone but there's no-one to talk to
>>> the victim when the victim answers. They've been made illegal mainly, I
>>> think, due to distress caused to those who think it may instead be a
>>> burglar or similar, checking in advance.
>
> You can play them back by answering with dead air.
>
> It is every bit as disconcerting for the system and/or the sales drudge
> to be faced with a completely silent line as it is for the consumer.

* Totally USELESS; automated calls and spoofed automated calls NEVER
have people behind them.

[Robert Baer]

BUT NoMoRobo is un-available and thus useless if you ain't gottza
mobile phone. I gots a land line to protect...i do not give a sh*t about
a stupid mobile line..

[bill ashford]

Maybe I'll still be in luck then. Although I have the phone line split
3 ways, one for two phones and the last for my DSL/ phone combo, only
one phone combination has ringers turned on, and that's the Uniden base
and cordless phones. So hopefully if the device is serial and first in
line there, no ringing of the phones unless the number is ok.... or so I
hope.

If it doesn't, then I will have to return it and go with the
Teleblocker. That one doesn't need caller ID, but everyone calling has
to enter a 1 or 3, but they get right through if so. I would have gone
with this one first, but no longer manufactured and I didn't want to
chance it.

Thanks again for your help here. I expect the device will be arriving
today.

Bill

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Robert Baer:

>* Totally USELESS; automated calls and spoofed automated calls NEVER
>have people behind them.

Any call that I make on my tablet or cell phone using my VOIP provider
has it's CallerID spoofed to my home number. It's an optional free
service by the VOIP provider.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Mike]

Are you saying that you make automated calls? Otherwise it seems an
irrelevant comment!

Mike.

[Ken Blake]

On Thu, 02 Apr 2015 02:27:09 -0800, Robert Baer
<rober...@localnet.com> wrote:


> BUT NoMoRobo is un-available and thus useless if you ain't gottza
> mobile phone.

Sorry, that is not correct.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Mike:

>Are you saying that you make automated calls? Otherwise it seems an
>irrelevant comment!

Mea Culpa: the "automated" part went right over my head - not even sure
what it means.

I figured it meant that something besides somebody's finger dialed the
call - as in an automated system that dials number-after-number and
notifies a waiting solicitor when it detects a live person on the other
end.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Gordon Shumway]

On Thu, 02 Apr 2015 02:27:09 -0800, Robert Baer
<rober...@localnet.com> wrote:

You should be better educated on a topic before you propagate
incorrect information. Nomorobo definitely DOES work on land lines,
period.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <mficjb$7rj$1...@dont-email.me>, Paul <nos...@needed.com>
writes:
{}

>displays appearing on the LCD display of your

{}
As opposed to the LC display, I presume ... (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Her [Valerie Singleton's] main job on /Blue Peter/ was to stop unpredictable
creatres running amok. And that was just John Noakes.
- Alison Pearson, RT 2014/9/6-12