TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Dumb Question About "Do Not Call"

Re: Dumb Question About "Do Not Call"

Steven Lichter (
Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:25:18 GMT

Randall wrote:

> Three times a day, every day, the phone rings and a female robot voice
> says "Hello, this is not a sales call. This is about an important
> business matter. Again, this is /not/ a sales call, this is an
> Important Business Matter!"

> Then the damn thing hangs up.

> There is no CLID info with the calls -- they come through as "Unknown"
> or "Unavailable" -- despite the fact that this line is /supposed/ to
> reject anonymous calls.

> Been going on for three weeks or so.

> Three calls, every day.

> If I'm here when it rings and I see "Unknown" or "Anonymous", I just
> pick the receiver up and set it back down. They'll call back.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is no such thing as a dumb
> question around here, Randall. Just ask many of our users. With
> my tin-foil hat and diseased brain, I am likely to say almost
> anything as I bring discredit and shame to the entire net.

> The 'reject anonymous calls' condition only applies if the caller
> _deliberatly_ inserted *67 to withhold his number. That condition will
> not work if the failure to deliver ID is due to a telco shortcoming,
> such as the type of switch used by the sending telco, etc. The 'reject
> anonymous' condition relies on the sending telco specifically saying
> 'do not say who is calling'. In your case the sending telco is not
> saying that, it just does not know who the caller is or else the
> details somehow got lost in the switching matrix on the way. But it
> did not _deny_ or _hide_ anything at the caller's request.

> You still have a way around it however. Subscribe through your telco
> to *60 (I think that is called 'reject these callers' in many places).
> *60 answers you and says 'enter the number to be rejected' or words to
> that effect and from that point on _that_ caller gets a message saying
> you are not taking calls at this time.

> Now I heard your next question already: if you do not know _who_ is
> calling, how are you supposed to block them? Good question. The *60
> recording also tells you 'to reject the last call you received,
> whether or not you know the number, press (some) key.' I think around
> here it is '01' or something. You press whatever you were told, and
> the Operator-Bot responds, "Thank you! That number is a _private_
> entry." But none the less it has been blocked. Your telco has a 'local
> cache' of the last call you placed/received and it uses that entry to
> do the blocking. If your telco offers 'return last call' service (*68
> I think) then you can also use that service to return the last call
> and find out what the 'important business matter' is all about. Both
> 'return last call' and 'reject this caller' service are sold by most
> telcos these days. PAT]

Or you have one of those Radio Shack CID boxes that allow you to program
numbers into it to block.

The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2005 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But Steven, recall that the man's caller
ID box reported 'unavailable'. Radio Shack's Caller ID number blocker
would not be able to help with that ... _what_ number to block? I
think the man is going to have to rely on telco's magical cache of
'block last number even if you don't know who called you' arrangment.

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Larry McShane: "Million Dollar per Day Fine"
Go to Previous message: Ron Chapman: "Re: Missing ABN Amro Tape With Two Million Names Found"
May be in reply to: Randall: "Dumb Question About "Do Not Call""
Next in thread: Steve Sobol: "Re: Dumb Question About "Do Not Call""
TELECOM Digest: Home Page