SBC behaving like sleazy telemarketer
John Serafin
used predictive dialing. And the sales rep denied they use PPPoE.
Hrmmph!
--
John P. Serafin | Operating a bicycle is more like driving than riding.
jps at pobox com | Operating an automobile is more like riding than driving.
Ken Ashe
>
>SBC called me during dinner tonight, trying to sell me DSL. And they
>used predictive dialing. And the sales rep denied they use PPPoE.
OK, I'll bite. Is predictive dialing the crap they use to predict a rep
will be available to talk to me when I answer, but is wrong 85% of the time?
John Serafin
John Higdon
> SBC called me during dinner tonight, trying to sell me DSL. And they
> used predictive dialing. And the sales rep denied they use PPPoE.
Isn't the term "sleazy telemarketer" from the Department of Redundancy
Department?
--
John Higdon | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 | Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
Cheap, provincial San Franciscans can call: 415 428-COWS
Bruce G. Karnacki
time, say, "Hello", there's no answer, I say "Hello" again, and there's still no
answer? Once in a while, after the second 'hello', I get some guy who can't
pronounce my first name, let alone my last name.
The frequency of this type of call has increased geometrically over the last month
at my house. How can I successfully stop it? I try to keep as low a profile as
possible, but privacy 'aint what it used to be.
Bruce Karnacki
David Arnstein
Bruce G. Karnacki <karn...@parc.xerox.com> wrote:
>The frequency of this type of call has increased geometrically over the
>last month
>at my house. How can I successfully stop it?
You could try using the "telezapper." Now sold by Radio Shack and
Amazon.com. You can read some user comments on Amazon.com.
I know this is off-topic, but any comments on the telezapper from this
ng would be appreciated. I'm thinking about buying it.
--
David Arnstein
arnstei...@pobox.com
Mary
Don't quote me on it but, it seems as if Bruce G. Karnacki (aka
karn...@parc.xerox.com) wrote on 3/1/02 8:28 AM:
> The frequency of this type of call has increased geometrically over the last
> month at my house. How can I successfully stop it?
When I'm clued in to the type of call by the silence on the other end and
then, finally, their "Hello" I don't say anything. They usually say hello
again (or several times). I finally, rudely tell them, "I *already said*
hello!" That gets the call off to a nice start. They know where it's going
from there.
I have also used the following when the newspapers call trying to get me to
subscribe:
Telemarketer: I'm calling from the Chronercury News...
Me: My lawyer told me not to talk to reporters about the murder...
...shocked silence...
There's a script at www.junkbusters.com/telemarketing.html to keep by your
phone I'm not affiliated with them and haven't tried it yet. I just don't
answer my phone anymore.
</delurk>
Mary
--
Screw up your courage! You've screwed up everything else.
mscon...@mac.com
John Higdon
> I know this is off-topic, but any comments on the telezapper from this
> ng would be appreciated. I'm thinking about buying it.
Save your money.
John R Pierce
><delurk>
>
>Don't quote me on it but, it seems as if Bruce G. Karnacki (aka
>karn...@parc.xerox.com) wrote on 3/1/02 8:28 AM:
>
>> The frequency of this type of call has increased geometrically over the last
>> month at my house. How can I successfully stop it?
>
>When I'm clued in to the type of call by the silence on the other end and
>then, finally, their "Hello" I don't say anything. They usually say hello
>again (or several times). I finally, rudely tell them, "I *already said*
>hello!" That gets the call off to a nice start. They know where it's going
>from there.
my usual approach is to A) ask them politely for their business name and
mailing address, then B) inform them that I will *NEVER* do *ANY* business
with any company that makes unsolicited telephone calls, and C) request
they add me to their 'NEVER CALL' list.
Wee Willy
moment of lucidity wrote in news:3C7FAC45...@parc.xerox.com:
> The frequency of this type of call has increased geometrically over
> the last month at my house. How can I successfully stop it?
Just add this wav file to the begining of your answering machine's outgoing
message / voicemail.
http://www.flash.net/~carlton2/telemark.htm
Regards,
WW
--
"There are no passengers on spaceship earth. We are all crew."
Marshall McLuhan
ab...@mix.com
> > I know this is off-topic, but any comments on the telezapper from this
> > ng would be appreciated. I'm thinking about buying it.
> Save your money.
Especially since these jerks are apparently keeping the guy who
did it first and for half the price from selling his. But sending
Special Information Tones definitely does work as far as dumping
calls goes - I've been doing that for quite a while now and my junk
calls have gone way down. Get the file mentioned in this thread
and use that instead.....
Billy Y..
John Higdon
I don't know what makes people think predictive dialers are fooled by SIT.
Predictive dialers look at answer supervision (at least the ones I have
written do), not audio patterns. Furthermore, even if the SIT were
recognized and noted, the telemarketers would not stop calling the number,
because eventually it WOULD be a working number. (Hint: they already know it
is a working number when your answering machine supervises upon answer.)
But I guess this sort of thing is like a folk remedy; people think they feel
better when they take it. If doing this sort of thing makes you believe you
are getting fewer junk calls, by all means do it.
Just don't pay too much money for some snake oil device.
(Helpful hint...if you really want to discourage telemarketers, have a fax
modem answer your line. But then start looking for calls from junk fax
servers!)
John Higdon
> I haven't had any problems with telemarketers since I had the privacy
> manager service added. Of course, it's kind of sad that you have to
> pay more money to get some privacy.
But that's an effective solution. You get what you pay for.
Sad, but true: Those with money have always had the upper hand in
maintaining privacy.
Ken Ashe
My daughter has one and says it's great. Her husband is home a lot of
days and was getting ten or twenty calls a day. It's down to a trickle now. I
did see them at RS the other day. As usual with anything in which I have the
slightest interest, there was no price tag on the rack. I gather they run $50.
I wonder if it'll be much more than three months before the telejerketers dope
out that holding a few seconds extra on the line will still allow them to piss
me off.
M. Danek
hanging up on them. Works great so far.
--
Own a Telecom Company for Free!
http://danek.net
"John R Pierce" <sp...@is.invalid> wrote in message
news:3mgv7usa1b10ninj5...@news.lmi.net...
Ken Ashe
spam...@no-spam.radiomonopoly.com says...
>
>in article hGCf8.919$en5....@typhoon.sonic.net, John Serafin wrote:
>
>> SBC called me during dinner tonight, trying to sell me DSL. And they
>> used predictive dialing. And the sales rep denied they use PPPoE.
>
>Isn't the term "sleazy telemarketer" from the Department of Redundancy
>Department?
>
Yes, it is. Certainly. For a fact. In truth. No doubt about it. Uh-huh.
Yep. And -- it's tautalogical, too, as well, besides.
John Higdon
wrote:
> I can't believe you guys are being so nice. A while ago I just started
> hanging up on them. Works great so far.
Yes, it is quite effective. It even drastically reduces the number of calls
after a short time, doesn't cost $50, and requires no muss and no fuss.
But some people need the psychological soothing of a "device" that somehow
outsmarts the big, bad telemarketers (as if those telemarketers and the
people who create their machines have been caught completely unarmed and
unaware). But then, someone is always selling snake oil at fifty bucks a
pop.
I have no trouble saying "not interested" and dropping the receiver in the
cradle. And guess what! After a couple of weeks, the junk calls have
practically dropped to zero.
And I still have my fifty bucks.
Paul Grohe
in the newsgroup ba.internet,
arns...@panix.com (David Arnstein)
from North Coast Nest And Noodle Inn posted:
Don't "buy" it - you can do it for free.
All it does is play the three-tone "Out Of Service" SIT cadence
("boo-boo-beeb") when you pick up your phone.
I can't recall the exact frequencies and durations, but WAV's of
it are available on the web. Google should find them easily.
Does it work? Maybe. I suspect the newer dialer systems get their
connection signals directly from the telco, but older "war
dialer", international or less sophisticated systems may be
fooled.
I placed the tones on my answering machine over a year ago and it
*seemed* to help. It took a few months, but the usual 5 calls/day
dropped off to a few per week through most of last year and into
this year.
I have no *proof* that it actually worked - but it *seemed* to.
YMMV. Perhaps it is the placebo effect? 9/11? Recession? It did
seem to work for the ditzy teenagers that kept calling for
"Carlos". I guess they can understand "boo boo beep" better than
"This is not Carlos' number anymore".
I still have the tones on my machine, but in the last month the
calls have returned with vengence. I get a call in the morning
(~9am), one or more during the day (~3-7pm), and occasionally one
just before 9pm.
Election campaigns perhaps?
Oh, well. I just let the machine answer. The cheapest solution.
Cheers,
Paul Grohe
The Ranger
>>"How can I reduce those telemarketing calls?"
[Snip-O'-Matic employed]
>Oh, well. I just let the machine answer. The cheapest solution.
That's always been our solution, too. Sure fam-damn-ly and friends accuse us
of "screening calls" if they're called right back -- but I've got broad
shoulders and can live with their inconvenience. Calls from telemarketers
since we've implemented this plan: 1 / month (that damned
painter-in-the-area jerk).
I know which option we'll stick with -- and put that US$50 towards a movie
or dinner out.
The Ranger
ab...@mix.com
> I don't know what makes people think predictive dialers are fooled by SIT.
Well, the callers are disconnecting as soon as the tones
are sent, and I get fewer calls back after that, so it works
ok for me...
> Predictive dialers look at answer supervision (at least the ones I have
> written do), not audio patterns.
Well gee, I guess not everyone is using yours eh? Not to
mention if I was writing that crap I don't think I'd want
to be admitting it here in ba.internet....
Billy Y..
John Higdon
> John Higdon <spam...@no-spam.radiomonopoly.com> writes:
>
>> I don't know what makes people think predictive dialers are fooled by SIT.
>
> Well, the callers are disconnecting as soon as the tones
> are sent, and I get fewer calls back after that, so it works
> ok for me...
I have found that when I eat spinach rather than green beans my
telemarketing calls seem to diminish. But now that I've given that secret
away, how am I going to make money with it?
John Higdon
> Does it work? Maybe. I suspect the newer dialer systems get their
> connection signals directly from the telco, but older "war
> dialer", international or less sophisticated systems may be
> fooled.
Yes, the newer systems are not fooled by SIT. And if that practice becomes
widespread, it will help my business immensely. :-) But folks ought to be
aware that using SIT has other side effects. Many private payphones
recognize SIT to determine non-call-completion. Sounds great until you
understand that transmit audio is disallowed from the payphone until the
phone believes supervision has occurred. Some of those disconnects you
smugly think were telemarketers might have been someone trying to call you
from the side of the highway.
Some long distance companies use the tones in a similar manner, or as a belt
and suspenders approach to answer supervision...again preventing forward
audio transmission. It does, in most cases, mess with GC and stats
reporting. While this may be of no never mind to you, I have known of
situations where telco has asked the customer to cut it out.
> I placed the tones on my answering machine over a year ago and it
> *seemed* to help. It took a few months, but the usual 5 calls/day
> dropped off to a few per week through most of last year and into
> this year.
I managed to accomplish a reduction in calls that exceeds your result by
simply saying "not interested" and hanging up on every telemarketer...and by
eating spinach rather than green beans. (I'm not sure which part of the
regimen was the more effective.)
> I still have the tones on my machine, but in the last month the
> calls have returned with vengence. I get a call in the morning
> (~9am), one or more during the day (~3-7pm), and occasionally one
> just before 9pm.
Spinach, man, spinach!
> Oh, well. I just let the machine answer. The cheapest solution.
Indeed.
Cathy Stevenson
<mscon...@mac.com> wrote:
> <delurk>
>
> Don't quote me on it but, it seems as if Bruce G. Karnacki (aka
> karn...@parc.xerox.com) wrote on 3/1/02 8:28 AM:
>
> > The frequency of this type of call has increased geometrically over the last
> > month at my house. How can I successfully stop it?
>
> When I'm clued in to the type of call by the silence on the other end and
> then, finally, their "Hello" I don't say anything. They usually say hello
> again (or several times). I finally, rudely tell them, "I *already said*
> hello!" That gets the call off to a nice start. They know where it's going
> from there.
>
> I have also used the following when the newspapers call trying to get me to
> subscribe:
>
> Telemarketer: I'm calling from the Chronercury News...
>
> Me: My lawyer told me not to talk to reporters about the murder...
>
> ...shocked silence...
Another ploy that I find enjoyable: "And how are you today?"
"Oh, I'm so glad you asked; no one seems to care anymore. I just found
out I have pancreatic cancer and only two months to live".
The variety of responses is in itself entertaining.
Cathy
--
"there's a dance or two in the old dame yet." - mehitabel
C.Stevenson, M.D.
cats...@bayarea.net
Marty Fouts
Cathy Stevenson <cats...@bayarea.net> writes:
I am still fond of the old suggestion of asking them to give you their
home number so you can call them back at your convenience.
Kenneth Crudup
>When I'm clued in to the type of call by the silence on the other end and
>then, finally, their "Hello" I don't say anything. They usually say hello
>again (or several times). I finally, rudely tell them, "I *already said*
>hello!" That gets the call off to a nice start. They know where it's going
>from there.
In my case:
<CLICK>
I don't see why so many people have a problem with just HTFU.
-Kenny, who hangs up if I hear dead silence anyway
--
Kenneth R. Crudup Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Washington, D.C.
Home1: P.O. Box #914 Silver Spring, MD 20910-0914 ke...@panix.com
Home2: 38010 Village Cmn. #217 Fremont, CA 94536-7525 (510) 745-0101
John Higdon
> In article <B8A4F26D.6756%mscon...@mac.com>, Mary <mscon...@mac.com> says:
>
>> When I'm clued in to the type of call by the silence on the other end and
>> then, finally, their "Hello" I don't say anything. They usually say hello
>> again (or several times). I finally, rudely tell them, "I *already said*
>> hello!" That gets the call off to a nice start. They know where it's going
>> from there.
>
> In my case:
>
> <CLICK>
>
> I don't see why so many people have a problem with just HTFU.
Excellent tactic. If I pick up the phone and there is silence at the other
end, it is almost always a predictive dialer waiting for a pitchman to
become available. They get one "hello" and then I hang up.
The downside, however, is that with most systems the call is rescheduled for
"callback"...usually within the same day. You do the telemarketer slime more
damage by staying on the line and then saying "not interested" when the
pitchman comes on the line and mispronouces your name and then hanging up.
This can actually knock your number out of that particular database. You
also tie up the time of the pitchman.
I use both tactics, depending upon my immediate time constraints.
Cathy Stevenson
<ke...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <B8A4F26D.6756%mscon...@mac.com>, Mary <mscon...@mac.com> says:
>
> >When I'm clued in to the type of call by the silence on the other end and
> >then, finally, their "Hello" I don't say anything. They usually say hello
> >again (or several times). I finally, rudely tell them, "I *already said*
> >hello!" That gets the call off to a nice start. They know where it's going
> >from there.
>
> In my case:
>
> <CLICK>
>
> I don't see why so many people have a problem with just HTFU.
>
> -Kenny, who hangs up if I hear dead silence anyway
I have no problem with that. But I sometimes enjoy making the caller
squirm. What I do depends on what's going on at my house, etc.
Kenneth Crudup
John Higdon <spam...@no-spam.radiomonopoly.com> says:
>pitchman comes on the line and mispronouces your name
To a *(wo)man*. "CREW-dupp". It ain't that hard.
-Kenny
John Higdon
> I have no problem with that. But I sometimes enjoy making the caller
> squirm. What I do depends on what's going on at my house, etc.
A number of years ago, I got a call from the SJ Mercury News (or rather the
contractor they were using for telemarketing). I politely said that I
already subscribed and that I wasn't interested in subscribing twice. For
some reason, the person went postal and ended up calling many, many times in
succession, calling me obscene names and using all manner of foul language.
That was the first and only time I have EVER had a telemarketer call me
right back, let alone do it repeatedly to yell epithets.
This was the beginning of my crusade against the San Jose Mercury News'
telemarketing effort which resulted in the contractor being replaced and me
being free of calls from the paper for many years now.
Jamie Fox
"Bruce G. Karnacki" <karn...@parc.xerox.com> wrote in message
>
> The frequency of this type of call has increased geometrically over the
last month
profile as
> possible, but privacy 'aint what it used to be.
>
What about caller-id? I don't pick up the phone if I don't recognize the
number. They can leave a message if they want, they usually don't. It
seems like when we first moved to this number six months ago caller ID
recorded a lot more calls than it does now (it still shows when a call came
in if it can't show the number), I don't think we've had an unrecognized
call in several days. The only thorn in the system is it's blocked from
where my girlfriend works, despite the fact she works for an innocuous
community .org. She is none too happy to be getting dumped to my voicemail
all the time (I do the same thing on my cell-phone to shut out the steady
drone of sales & recruiter calls). I guess it's time for a blackberry - oh
wait, it'll just get spammed too.
Jamie
Clark Martin
"M. Danek" <m_d...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>I can't believe you guys are being so nice. A while ago I just started
>hanging up on them. Works great so far.
I prefer to put them on hold. It's amazing how long some of them can
talk with no one listening.
--
Clark Martin
Redwood City, CA, USA Macintosh / Internet Consulting
"I'm a designated driver on the Information Super Highway"
mag...@rahul.net
<cuhul...@yahoo.com> created:
>Paul Grohe suggested:
>>>"How can I reduce those telemarketing calls?"
>[Snip-O'-Matic employed]
>>Oh, well. I just let the machine answer. The cheapest solution.
>
>That's always been our solution, too. Sure fam-damn-ly and friends accuse us
>of "screening calls" if they're called right back -- but I've got broad
>shoulders and can live with their inconvenience.
If anyone accuses me of "screening calls" I say "Damn Right I'm
screening calls! It's my phone, I pay the bill, and I can do
anything I want with it." But most of my friends and family know
me better than to even raise the issue.
A spine, that's all it takes.
jc
The Ranger
>>>>"How can I reduce those telemarketing calls?"
>>[Snip-O'-Matic employed]
>>>Oh, well. I just let the machine answer. The cheapest
>>>solution.
>>That's always been our solution, too. Sure fam-damn-ly
>>and friends accuse us of "screening calls" if they're called
>>right back -- but I've got broad shoulders and can live with
>>their inconvenience.
>If anyone accuses me of "screening calls" I say "Damn Right
>I'm screening calls! It's my phone, I pay the bill, and I can do
>anything I want with it." But most of my friends and family know
>me better than to even raise the issue.
>
>A spine, that's all it takes.
... and a smile. One should always take advantage of the opportunities
provided to poke fun at family (and friends).
The Ranger
Paul Grohe
in the newsgroup ba.internet,
John Higdon <spam...@no-spam.radiomonopoly.com>
from Green Hills and Cows posted:
> in article etv08u8rgtnumeno9...@4ax.com, Paul Grohe wrote:
> Yes, the newer systems are not fooled by SIT. And if that practice becomes
> widespread, it will help my business immensely. :-) But folks ought to be
> aware that using SIT has other side effects. Many private payphones
> recognize SIT to determine non-call-completion. Sounds great until you
> understand that transmit audio is disallowed from the payphone until the
> phone believes supervision has occurred. Some of those disconnects you
> smugly think were telemarketers might have been someone trying to call you
> from the side of the highway.
Then they call my cellphone, or they press the <shhhh!> key to
stop the outgoing message. I left enough of a delay to be able to
stop the outgoing message.
The only side effect that I actually worried about were the
"friendly" auto-dialers, such as the doctors office "reminder"
calls. Since we have received more than one - I suppose the phone
number of record has not been flagged as "bad'.
> Some long distance companies use the tones in a similar manner, or as a belt
> and suspenders approach to answer supervision...again preventing forward
> audio transmission. It does, in most cases, mess with GC and stats
> reporting. While this may be of no never mind to you, I have known of
> situations where telco has asked the customer to cut it out.
*If* Pac*Bell, and only Pac*Bell, has a legitimate problem with
the tones, they are welcome to leave a message telling me to cut
it out and I will (after I verify it was really them).
> > I placed the tones on my answering machine over a year ago and it
> > *seemed* to help. It took a few months, but the usual 5 calls/day
> > dropped off to a few per week through most of last year and into
> > this year.
>
> I managed to accomplish a reduction in calls that exceeds your result by
> simply saying "not interested" and hanging up on every telemarketer...and by
> eating spinach rather than green beans. (I'm not sure which part of the
> regimen was the more effective.)
I can't say "not interested" if I'm not home..and I'll be dammed
if I will burn a minute of airtime on them to forward the calls
to my cellphone.
There was a time we DID tell them "not interested", and asked to
be put on their do-not-call-list. After the n'th time, you just
don't answer any more - tired of the games played each time you
ask to be taken off the list. The calls did not stop, and even
seemed to get worse.
I swear, as soon as line was connected in our new home - the junk
calls started within hours. Roofers, gardeners, windows, HVAC,
carpet cleaners, mortgage, insurance, credit cards, department
store cards, etc, etc - even Pac Bell themselves. And ours is a
(ha!) unlisted number.
> > I still have the tones on my machine, but in the last month the
> > calls have returned with vengence. I get a call in the morning
> > (~9am), one or more during the day (~3-7pm), and occasionally one
> > just before 9pm.
>
> Spinach, man, spinach!
It's not nice to scream with your mouth full.
> > Oh, well. I just let the machine answer. The cheapest solution.
>
> Indeed.
Yup.
Cheers,
Paul Grohe
Clark Martin
mag...@rahul.net wrote:
If they take issue you can always point out that you did indeed answer
theirs right away.
Philip J. Koenig
writes...
> John Higdon <spam...@no-spam.radiomonopoly.com> writes:
>
> > > I know this is off-topic, but any comments on the telezapper from this
> > > ng would be appreciated. I'm thinking about buying it.
>
>
> Especially since these jerks are apparently keeping the guy who
> did it first and for half the price from selling his. But sending
> Special Information Tones definitely does work as far as dumping
> calls goes - I've been doing that for quite a while now and my junk
> calls have gone way down. Get the file mentioned in this thread
> and use that instead.....
>
FYI: Mike Sandman will sell you one of his boxes if you ask
nicely and persist. I just think they're keeping a low-profile
about it, and still say on the webpage that they're not selling
them.
I had a long convo w/ someone there about that and related stuff.
I just concluded that their device and the other ones that play
SIT tones wouldn't help my junkfax problem because it requires
intervention either on the caller or the recipient side to complete
the call, among other things.
--
Philip J. Koenig The Electric Kahuna Organization [anti-spammed]
----------------Computers & Communications for the New Millennium-------------
* To send email, remove numbers and spaces: pjkunet64 @ ekahuna27 . com *
* Email Blacklists: stop using innocent users as pawns. *
* Simple answers are for simple minds. Try a new way of looking at things. *
Philip J. Koenig
(Paul Grohe) writes...
> I swear, as soon as line was connected in our new home - the junk
> calls started within hours. Roofers, gardeners, windows, HVAC,
> carpet cleaners, mortgage, insurance, credit cards, department
> store cards, etc, etc - even Pac Bell themselves. And ours is a
> (ha!) unlisted number.
I hear that the telcos themselves market your information to
3rd parties, so you may just have been betrayed by the phone
company itself.
Philip J. Koenig
jami...@bigfoot.com (Jamie Fox) writes...
Have your girlfriend try pressing *82 before dialing your
number, and see if it unblocks the caller-ID.
Philip J. Koenig
spam.radiomonopoly.com (John Higdon) writes...
> in article a5oncd$llf$1...@reader2.panix.com, ab...@MIX.COM wrote:
>
> > John Higdon <spam...@no-spam.radiomonopoly.com> writes:
> >
> >>> I know this is off-topic, but any comments on the telezapper from this
> >>> ng would be appreciated. I'm thinking about buying it.
> >
> >> Save your money.
> >
> > Especially since these jerks are apparently keeping the guy who
> > did it first and for half the price from selling his. But sending
> > Special Information Tones definitely does work as far as dumping
> > calls goes - I've been doing that for quite a while now and my junk
> > calls have gone way down. Get the file mentioned in this thread
> > and use that instead.....
>
> recognized and noted, the telemarketers would not stop calling the number,
> because eventually it WOULD be a working number. (Hint: they already know it
> is a working number when your answering machine supervises upon answer.)
>
> But I guess this sort of thing is like a folk remedy; people think they feel
> better when they take it. If doing this sort of thing makes you believe you
> are getting fewer junk calls, by all means do it.
>
> Just don't pay too much money for some snake oil device.
>
> (Helpful hint...if you really want to discourage telemarketers, have a fax
> modem answer your line. But then start looking for calls from junk fax
> servers!)
I was looking into some kind of device like that to see if it
would help my junk fax problem. The nicest one I found was at
www.callmenot.com. It plays the SIT tone, but it also does
a lot of other things. Here's what happens on an incoming
call, as far as I can tell:
1) device picks up phone, plays SIT tone. (leave your phone
ringers off so they don't make any noise at this point)
2) device plays message "if you're a telemarketer please place
this # on your do-not-call list and hang up now, if not
please press '1' to ring through. (they claim if telemarketers
press 1 they are in violation of the law and you can prosecute
them)
3) Once caller presses '1', a ringer in the *device* rings, letting
you know that a legit caller is on the line - so then you pick
up the phone.
I decided that box wasn't going to solve my junkfax problem, but
it looks helpful for people who have problems with telemarketers
and who don't feel like talking to them.
I'm taking a different tact with the junkfaxes. I came to the
conclusion that for whatever reason, 99% of the junkfaxers do NOT
enable the FAX CNG tones identifying the call as coming from a fax
machine. (maybe to maintain a low-profile if they get a non-fax
number)
Therefore I bought a fax switch which I can configure to switch
calls to the fax only when it hears a CNG tone. I haven't received
the box yet, but I'm hoping it will fend off the junkfaxes.
John Higdon
wrote:
> 1) device picks up phone, plays SIT tone. (leave your phone
> ringers off so they don't make any noise at this point)
> 2) device plays message "if you're a telemarketer please place
> this # on your do-not-call list and hang up now, if not
> please press '1' to ring through. (they claim if telemarketers
> press 1 they are in violation of the law and you can prosecute
> them)
> 3) Once caller presses '1', a ringer in the *device* rings, letting
> you know that a legit caller is on the line - so then you pick
> up the phone.
Except for the SIT and certain other aspects, this sounds like a hardware
implementation of PacBell's "privacy manager". "Privacy Manager" goes one
step farther: if no valid CNID is present, it gives the caller two choices.
1) Enter the authorization number given previously by the call recipient or
2) speak your name, which is then played for the call recipient who is given
the opportunity to accept or decline the call. My sister has this and it
almost seems more trouble than just hanging up on the telemarketer.
> I'm taking a different tact with the junkfaxes. I came to the
> conclusion that for whatever reason, 99% of the junkfaxers do NOT
> enable the FAX CNG tones identifying the call as coming from a fax
> machine. (maybe to maintain a low-profile if they get a non-fax
> number)
I tried that once, but got a high complaint rate from legitimate
faxers...mainly fax modem users.
For what it is worth, I have been aggressively pursuing the "fax removal"
procedures for each and every junk fax as of late. I was getting four and
five junk faxes A DAY. Within the past month, after following the procedure
for removal on each and every fax, there is only one junk fax that I
continue to get: something called "StockWatch" which only contains a dead
Hotmail address for removal. I'm not sure how to proceed with that, since
there is absolutely no other contact information and a web search turned up
nothing. It looks like the purpose of the fax is to hype stocks, so there
isn't even any way to contact anyone to buy something.
David Arnstein
Philip J. Koenig <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
>I decided that box wasn't going to solve my junkfax problem, but
>it looks helpful for people who have problems with telemarketers
>and who don't feel like talking to them.
>
>I'm taking a different tact with the junkfaxes. I came to the
>conclusion that for whatever reason, 99% of the junkfaxers do NOT
>enable the FAX CNG tones identifying the call as coming from a fax
>machine. (maybe to maintain a low-profile if they get a non-fax
>number)
Did you get a Command Communications ComSwitch? This is part of my
junk fax solution.
I get very few legitimate incoming faxes, so the following kit works
well for me:
1. Voice answering machine.
2. ComSwitch fax switch
3. Olitec fax buffer/answering machine.
In my rig, the answering machine answers every call. If CNG tones
occur, the ComSwitch breaks the connection to the answering machine,
and opens a connection to the Olitec machine. The Olitec machine
receives the fax, in this case.
Unfortunately, the Olitec machine is a failure as an answering
machine. But it is a decent fax buffer, and it can use a 16 MByte
smart card. That's a lot of faxes. When I want to look at the faxes,
I connect the Olitec to my peecee and use the (primitive) Olitec
software to view the faxes, and print some of them if I feel like it.
I get a ton of junk faxes, so I don't know if you would consider this
to be a solution to the junk fax problem. But at least I don't waste
paper and toner. When I'm not expecting any legitimate faxes, I don't
touch the Olitec for days.
--
David Arnstein
arnstei...@pobox.com
Graham Freeman
My mother and I are each going to sue that StockWatch bastard. I forget
who it is, and I don't have my file handy, but when I get to my home office
I'll be sure to follow up here.
--
Graham Freeman
http://www.calteg.org/
John R Pierce
>for removal on each and every fax, there is only one junk fax that I
>continue to get: something called "StockWatch" which only contains a dead
>Hotmail address for removal. I'm not sure how to proceed with that, since
>there is absolutely no other contact information and a web search turned up
>nothing. It looks like the purpose of the fax is to hype stocks, so there
>isn't even any way to contact anyone to buy something.
send documented complaints to the SEC at least.
enfor...@sec.gov is the complaint address I have on file here
somewheres.
Philip J. Koenig
spam.radiomonopoly.com (John Higdon) writes...
> in article MPG.16f17057f...@corp.supernews.com, Philip J. Koenig
> wrote:
>
> > 1) device picks up phone, plays SIT tone. (leave your phone
> > ringers off so they don't make any noise at this point)
> > 2) device plays message "if you're a telemarketer please place
> > this # on your do-not-call list and hang up now, if not
> > please press '1' to ring through. (they claim if telemarketers
> > press 1 they are in violation of the law and you can prosecute
> > them)
> > 3) Once caller presses '1', a ringer in the *device* rings, letting
> > you know that a legit caller is on the line - so then you pick
> > up the phone.
>
> Except for the SIT and certain other aspects, this sounds like a hardware
> implementation of PacBell's "privacy manager". "Privacy Manager" goes one
> step farther: if no valid CNID is present, it gives the caller two choices.
> 1) Enter the authorization number given previously by the call recipient or
> 2) speak your name, which is then played for the call recipient who is given
> the opportunity to accept or decline the call. My sister has this and it
> almost seems more trouble than just hanging up on the telemarketer.
Pacbell owns the telco infrastructure so they have a giant advantage
because they can intercept the call before your phone ever rings.
This gives them the ability to do lots of things that end-users can't
do with plug-in devices, like sending calls to voicemail if you're on
the phone.
Nevertheless I thought the callmenot box was a significant improvement
over the 'telezapper' kinds of boxes.
> > I'm taking a different tact with the junkfaxes. I came to the
> > conclusion that for whatever reason, 99% of the junkfaxers do NOT
> > enable the FAX CNG tones identifying the call as coming from a fax
> > machine. (maybe to maintain a low-profile if they get a non-fax
> > number)
>
> I tried that once, but got a high complaint rate from legitimate
> faxers...mainly fax modem users.
Luckily I don't think I'll have that problem. I don't know why you
had problems with faxmodem users, because I've never seen a faxmodem
that didn't generate CNG tones. (in the bad old days some faxmodems
were just poorly implemented, but this isn't much of a problem these
days. I used to have interoperability problems with certain fax
MACHINES, particularly Sharp-branded ones which didn't seem to like
to talk to a lot of faxmodems at the time. The usual problems
manifested themselves during page transitions. The fax protocol
essentially treats separate pages almost like they're separate fax
transmissions, and the re-negotiations at each page transition
sometimes fail.)
> For what it is worth, I have been aggressively pursuing the "fax removal"
> procedures for each and every junk fax as of late. I was getting four and
> five junk faxes A DAY. Within the past month, after following the procedure
> for removal on each and every fax, there is only one junk fax that I
> continue to get: something called "StockWatch" which only contains a dead
> Hotmail address for removal. I'm not sure how to proceed with that, since
> there is absolutely no other contact information and a web search turned up
> nothing. It looks like the purpose of the fax is to hype stocks, so there
> isn't even any way to contact anyone to buy something.
Interesting. This seems in direct contrast to your philosophy
about email spam-list removal. So you're saying that in your
experience, all these junkfaxers are honoring these requests.
Good to know, however it's a shame we have to go through this crap
in the first place, particularly when the practice of junkfaxing
is technically ILLEGAL. No one I know wants to go to the hassle
of actually taking these idiots to court.. which I'm sure they bank
on. I wonder if getting a bunch of people together and jointly
going after some of these twits would be useful.
Philip J. Koenig
Arnstein) writes...
> In article <MPG.16f17057f...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Philip J. Koenig <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
> >I decided that box wasn't going to solve my junkfax problem, but
> >it looks helpful for people who have problems with telemarketers
> >and who don't feel like talking to them.
> >
> >I'm taking a different tact with the junkfaxes. I came to the
> >conclusion that for whatever reason, 99% of the junkfaxers do NOT
> >enable the FAX CNG tones identifying the call as coming from a fax
> >machine. (maybe to maintain a low-profile if they get a non-fax
> >number)
>
> Did you get a Command Communications ComSwitch? This is part of my
> junk fax solution.
Heh. Exactly what I bought: a ComSwitch 7500. I had good previous
experience with them. (unlike some other fax switches)
Further below.
> I get very few legitimate incoming faxes, so the following kit works
> well for me:
>
> 1. Voice answering machine.
> 2. ComSwitch fax switch
> 3. Olitec fax buffer/answering machine.
>
> In my rig, the answering machine answers every call. If CNG tones
> occur, the ComSwitch breaks the connection to the answering machine,
> and opens a connection to the Olitec machine. The Olitec machine
> receives the fax, in this case.
>
> Unfortunately, the Olitec machine is a failure as an answering
> machine. But it is a decent fax buffer, and it can use a 16 MByte
> smart card. That's a lot of faxes. When I want to look at the faxes,
> I connect the Olitec to my peecee and use the (primitive) Olitec
> software to view the faxes, and print some of them if I feel like it.
>
> I get a ton of junk faxes, so I don't know if you would consider this
> to be a solution to the junk fax problem. But at least I don't waste
> paper and toner. When I'm not expecting any legitimate faxes, I don't
> touch the Olitec for days.
Well I don't have to share the line with an answering machine
so its a lot simpler for me. I just wish that SBC would get
off their *ss and offer distinctive ringing, so I could make
better use of this not-frequently-used line for multiple
devices. (It's available all over the country, I expect they
don't offer it here because us rich Californians are all-too-
willing to just buy extra phone lines)
John Higdon
wrote:
> Interesting. This seems in direct contrast to your philosophy
> about email spam-list removal. So you're saying that in your
> experience, all these junkfaxers are honoring these requests.
It was worth a try...and, unlike my experience with spam, seems to work for
the most part. Junk fax reception appears to decline after following
"remove" procedures. HOWEVER...it should not be necessary to continually
call interactive voice systems, send fax messages, and send emails just to
keep crap from tying up one's fax machine. Furthermore, for all I know, the
clock could be ticking for a major onslaught of junk fax now that it has
been confirmed that someone actually reads what is received by my fax
number.
> Good to know, however it's a shame we have to go through this crap
> in the first place, particularly when the practice of junkfaxing
> is technically ILLEGAL. No one I know wants to go to the hassle
> of actually taking these idiots to court.. which I'm sure they bank
> on. I wonder if getting a bunch of people together and jointly
> going after some of these twits would be useful.
I would really like to nail the "StockWatch" creeps, but short of sending in
a sample fax to some agency, I don't know how to proceed.
The junk fax problem is really widespread, however. I know of some companies
with hundreds of fax numbers that routinely get hit with many junk faxes a
day on each number.
Ken Ashe
See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid says...
>
>In article <kc668uk5b2mk1ahb0...@4ax.com>, gr...@galaxy.nsc.com
>(Paul Grohe) writes...
>
>> I swear, as soon as line was connected in our new home - the junk
>> calls started within hours. Roofers, gardeners, windows, HVAC,
>> carpet cleaners, mortgage, insurance, credit cards, department
>> store cards, etc, etc - even Pac Bell themselves. And ours is a
>> (ha!) unlisted number.
Nothing is unlisted to a device that can count from 000-0000 to
999-9999 (plus area code) minus anything starting with 911.
Jeffrey Siegal
> >> I swear, as soon as line was connected in our new home - the junk
> >> calls started within hours. Roofers, gardeners, windows, HVAC,
> >> carpet cleaners, mortgage, insurance, credit cards, department
> >> store cards, etc, etc - even Pac Bell themselves. And ours is a
> >> (ha!) unlisted number.
>
> Nothing is unlisted to a device that can count from 000-0000 to
> 999-9999 (plus area code) minus anything starting with 911.
I don't believe that's where most of the junk faxes are coming from,
because I have two lines, consecutively numbered, one of which has a fax
and gets lots of junk faxes, and the other gets essentially no calls at
all.
John Higdon
> I don't believe that's where most of the junk faxes are coming from,
> because I have two lines, consecutively numbered, one of which has a fax
> and gets lots of junk faxes, and the other gets essentially no calls at
> all.
Junk faxers scan groups of numbers for fax modems or machines and record the
results. If a human or answering machine answers, the scanner immediately
disconnects. If you get an "out-of-area" "hangup" or "no one there" call, it
was most likely a junk fax scanner looking for fax machines.
Lines that don't answer with fax modems or machines are put on hiatus and
re-tested by the junk faxer's machine again in the future. Lines that show
as not in service are re-tested more often.
mag...@rahul.net
<gr...@galaxy.nsc.com> created:
>I swear, as soon as line was connected in our new home - the junk
>calls started within hours. Roofers, gardeners, windows, HVAC,
>carpet cleaners, mortgage, insurance, credit cards, department
>store cards, etc, etc - even Pac Bell themselves. And ours is a
>(ha!) unlisted number.
Does any business have this number (like a mortgage company)?
Does anyone who calls use your name, or the name of the previous
owner of the number? Around here, numbers only sit idle for 90
days before they can be reissued.
jc
Jeffrey Siegal
> > I don't believe that's where most of the junk faxes are coming from,
> > because I have two lines, consecutively numbered, one of which has a fax
> > and gets lots of junk faxes, and the other gets essentially no calls at
> > all.
>
> Junk faxers scan groups of numbers for fax modems or machines and record the
> results. If a human or answering machine answers, the scanner immediately
> disconnects. If you get an "out-of-area" "hangup" or "no one there" call, it
> was most likely a junk fax scanner looking for fax machines.
That's the thing -- I really do get almost *no* calls on the other
line. I don't ever remember getting a hangup. I don't even get the
newspaper salespeople who seem to call everyeone, for whatever reason.
Not that I'm complaining...
Certainly, someone figured out that the line is a fax line at some point
(it was never advertised as such), but I think some kind of database of
fax numbers has been sold and resold. There is no way that all these
junk faxes I'm getting now are coming from people who got the number by
scanning, because there just isn't that much scanning.
Philip J. Koenig
(mag...@rahul.net) writes...
That last point is a real problem these days. Lots of people
I know get new numbers and all sorts of trash calls looking
for the former owner.
Cammy Jo Feltman
John R Pierce <sp...@is.invalid> wrote:
> my usual approach is to A) ask them politely for their business name and
> mailing address, then B) inform them that I will *NEVER* do *ANY* business
> with any company that makes unsolicited telephone calls, and C) request
> they add me to their 'NEVER CALL' list.
Mine is simpler: When I hear a voice that is obviously a telemarketer, I
usually don't say a word, I simply hang up.
It's not written anywhere that I have to be polite. Certainly they're
not being polite in the first place and it's far less stressful to
simply hang up, than it is to actually speak to them.
I have nothing to say to any of them, so I simply say nothing.
If I'm needing amusement at the moment, I'll listen to their spiel and
then say nothing. The "Hello? Hello?" can be a hoot. Sort of a prank
call in reverse.
I see telemarketers in much the same light as I see religious zealots at
the door. Either an annoyance that I ignore, or fodder for whatever
practical, if harmless joke I can play on them.
Remember, they contacted *me.*
Cam
John Higdon
> Certainly, someone figured out that the line is a fax line at some point
> (it was never advertised as such), but I think some kind of database of
> fax numbers has been sold and resold. There is no way that all these
> junk faxes I'm getting now are coming from people who got the number by
> scanning, because there just isn't that much scanning.
Junk faxers share data.
John Higdon
wrote:
> That last point is a real problem these days. Lots of people
> I know get new numbers and all sorts of trash calls looking
> for the former owner.
Last year I got a new phone number for a line I intended to use for some
utility purposes. The moment it was connected, it started ringing non-stop
with calls for previous owners, including collection calls; hangups;
telemarketing calls of every description; and weird data calls. On any given
day it rang at least ten times and on some days it would ring several times
an hour. After two months, when the junk traffic continued unabated, I got
rid of it.
Of course, there are those occasional calls on numbers that I have had since
the sixties that ask for So-and-so. When I tell them they have the wrong
number I get endless variations of "Did you just get this number?", "Did you
just move in?", "Do you know where So-and-so might have gone?" Sometimes
they call back repeatedly hoping for a different result. Sometimes after one
of those sessions I get, "This is the Pacific Bell operator; is this
264-XXXX?" "Yes, it is." "Is there a So-and-so there?" "No." "How long have
you had this number?" "Just south of thirty-five years." "Excuse the ring."
David
Anything like this being put together in CA?
"John Higdon" <spam...@no-spam.radiomonopoly.com> wrote in message
news:B8A55182.5B6C5%spam...@no-spam.radiomonopoly.com...
Denis McKeon
>http://www.texasnocall.com/
>
>Anything like this being put together in CA?
Various state-level movements, various levels of success:
http://www.stopjunkcalls.com/csj_dncl1.html
--
Denis McKeon
Denis McKeon
...
>Of course, there are those occasional calls on numbers that I have had since
>the sixties that ask for So-and-so. When I tell them they have the wrong
>number I get endless variations of "Did you just get this number?", "Did you
>just move in?", "Do you know where So-and-so might have gone?" Sometimes
>they call back repeatedly hoping for a different result.
My usual "wrong number" routine is:
caller: Is <foo> there?
me: What number are you trying to reach?
caller: <reads back number>
me: That's not this number.
option: Perhaps you misdialed?
<hang up>
or
me: That's this number, but there's nobody here by that name.
option: Who were you trying to reach again? [in case the caller is
completely mangling the pronunciation of a name.]
Getting the caller to read the number back leaves the onus on them to
rectify the situation, and tends to discourage the caller from
re-dialing the same wrong number again, or just pressing a redial button.
Just getting people to slow down & think helps: is that scribble a 1 or
a 4, a 4 or a 9, etc., and: did that cute person they just met really
give out their home number - or make one up?
The churn rate in wireless voice numbers may contribute to a high wrong
number rate for initial calls due to mis-transcription, but wireless phones
should decrease mis-dials if people have phones with CNID and memory.
--
Denis McKeon
Philip J. Koenig
lsm...@mailandnews.com (Cammy Jo Feltman) writes...
The last line is the important one, and I agree with the whole post.
I don't see any reason why I have to spend inordinate amounts of
energy to be polite to someone who makes unsolicited calls or visits
to my house. Rejection comes with the territory. (I've done mild
cold-call telemarketing for a couple of very short periods in my
life. A good salesperson doesn't let rejections under their skin,
they just move on to the next one. Otherwise you'd burnout in no
time.)
On the other hand I was at a client the other day who operates a small
business and some stupid telemarketer calls them, she says "no thanks,
goodbye", then he CALLS BACK, whereupon the call is handed to hubby
who gets to listen to him ARGUE with them about why they hung up on
him.
This incident underlines the importance of having the person identify
their company before any conversation takes place, so in the event
they become stupid you can take them to court for harassing you. That
bonehead the other day sounds like a good candidate.
Philip J. Koenig
writes...
> In <Ihbi8.11760$Ni.5...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> David wrote:
> >http://www.texasnocall.com/
> >
> >Anything like this being put together in CA?
>
> Various state-level movements, various levels of success:
>
> http://www.stopjunkcalls.com/csj_dncl1.html
That looks most excellent - although I still maintain that, like
spam, the recipients of such crap should not be required to spend
time and money to be left in peace and quiet. (especially when
we are talking about an activity, in the case of junk faxes, which
is supposedly "illegal")
Speaking of, I wonder if the above pertains to junk faxes?
Ken Ashe
See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid says...
>
>On the other hand I was at a client the other day who operates a small
>business and some stupid telemarketer calls them, she says "no thanks,
>goodbye", then he CALLS BACK, whereupon the call is handed to hubby
>who gets to listen to him ARGUE with them about why they hung up on
>him.
I just love it when they call back to discuss my attitude. Some don't
gather I'd just been warming up on the prior call.
John Higdon
A second call from the telemarketer to berate you for saying "no" or even
hanging up is a harassment call. At that point, you need to get the person's
name and the name of the telemarking contract company placing the calls.
I had a San Jose Mercury News junk caller phone me back four times in five
minutes to tell me he didn't like my attitude. He refused to give me his
name or any other information, so I walked the organization at the SJMN.
This was AFTER I had made it very, very clear -- in writing -- that I was to
never be called again on any of the dozens of numbers that I provided. I
gave them the number called and the exact times. The long and the short of
it was that this contractor was dismissed by the SJMN.
This was several years ago, and I have never been called by the SJMN since
that time (except to get my permission to print letters!).