33 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Copyright © 2015 E. William Horne. All Rights Reserved.
The Telecom Digest for Jun 28, 2015
|It is to deny, what the history of the world tells us is true, to suppose that men of ambition and talents will not continue to spring up amongst us. And, when they do, they will as naturally seek the gratification of their ruling passion, as others have so done before them. The question then, is, can that gratification be found in supporting and maintaining an edifice that has been erected by others?|
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details.
|Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 20:18:55 -0400 From: tlvp <tPlOvUBpErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Robocalls - the next level Message-ID: <BLU437-SMTP1070C33515D6F5FD182F212DBAC0@phx.gbl> Don Y wrote: > ... e.g., if no CID, then route > the call to the bit bucket (don't even take a message from folks who > don't want to identify themselves!). Let's not fall into the trap of imagining that no CID implies the caller chose to suppress CID -- in my own +1-203 exchange, CID is never presented for any call from across the oceans (not from Europe, not from Asia, not from Africa). I certainly do not want to block phone calls from the hotel or car rental company ... or the relative ... I'm intending to have dealings with on my next trip :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp|
|Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 20:09:37 -0400 From: tlvp <tPlOvUBpErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Robocalls - the next level Message-ID: <558DE9C1.email@example.com> Bill Horne wrote: > * Blacklists aren't viable, since CID is so easy to forge. Whitelists aren't viable either, for exactly the same reason (I've answered a Timeshare robocaller because it had spoofed the familiar Chase Online 1-800 Customer Service number as its CLID). Cheers, -- tlvp|
|Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 21:22:46 -0500 From: Dave Garland <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Robocalls - the next level Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On 6/26/2015 2:22 AM, Don Y wrote: > On 6/25/2015 10:05 PM, Bill Horne wrote: >> On 6/25/2015 5:24 PM, Don Y wrote: >> >>> I've been trying to sort out effective algorithms to implement an >>> "automated attendant" (imagine a machine that screens calls like >>> a "secretary" would). So you aren't even bothered by a phone ringing! >> >> There are several obstacles to designing "smart" telephone answering >> machines. [Moderator snip] > Note that the action you (your attendant) takes can vary with the > "identity" (or, CLASS of identities) of the caller. E.g., I don't > expect calls from an employer/client on the weekend, after hours or > when I am on vacation -- it can wait until I'm back on the clock! I > might accept calls from certain friends in the late evening but not > other friends. I'll probably accept a call from certain neighbors > even in the wee hours of the morning ("Hi Don, Bob has had a heart > attack. I'm going with him in the ambulance to the hospital. Can you > come over and watch the kids?"). And, would definitely accept a call > from a spouse regardless of the time of day, my current activities, > location, etc. Google Voice (which will forward calls to one or another of your real telephones) does a lot of those things. Including screening calls (when you pick up, Google can voice prompt the caller to give his name. Based on that, you can press keys to control what happens next (take call, take call & record, send to VM, send to VM and listen). And do various things depending on CID, time of day, what number you want the call forwarded to, etc. Whether or not you want to share your calls with Google is a completely different question. My VoIP can do some of these things, based on CID.|
|Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 17:42:08 -0400 From: Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Robocalls - the next level Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Per Barry Margolin: >The problem is that there are some robocallers you DO want to let >through. Not me. If the choice is between having to answer a half-dozen robocalls per day and missing one or two "Important" robocalls per month, I'll do without the "Important" robocalls. But I take your point. That being the case, it sounds like the field has narrowed down to NoMoRobo and whatever other services crowd-source the function. I have been using CallControl (another crowd-source-driven service) on my Android phone and it has cut the robocalls to almost nil - maybe one every couple of months. -- Pete Cresswell|
|Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:52:23 -0700 From: Don Y <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Robocalls - the next level Message-ID: <email@example.com> On 6/26/2015 9:47 AM, Barry Margolin wrote: > In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote: > >> Per Don Y: >>> I've been trying to sort out effective algorithms to implement an >>> "automated attendant" (imagine a machine that screens calls like a >>> "secretary" would). So you aren't even bothered by a phone ringing! > > You could add numbers to a white-list. But if you default to blocking, > how will you ever get the first call from them, so that you learn the > number to add? Humans can respond to a challenge-response, but if the > first contact is from a bot, it will never get through. You have conflicting goals: not wanting to be bothered by calls that you don't want to take; yet not knowing, a priori, which calls might come in that you should have taken (hence the review of the "log") > Maybe there's some way that these "legitimate" callers could arrange > with the telcos to get on a universal white-list. But phone companies > don't have a good track record of vetting third parties -- isn't that > how "cramming" became a problem? That probably requires legislation. Then you get the special interests sticking their foot in the door. Best solution is a scheme that allows the callee to bill the caller for the inconvenience of the call. And, that only is allowed if the callee has previously registered with a Do Not Call registry. So, if you've ignored that registry, a savvy callee will "press 9 to bill caller for this call". Ideally, splitting the proceeds between the callee and <whatever>! Presumably, TPC would need to know a billable entity in such a scheme. Then, callers would have to think twice before risking taking a financial hit from a few tens of thousands of unwanted calls! Perhaps offering incentives for the callee NOT to "press 9"! [Ain't gonna happen]|
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom- munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit educational service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
bill at horne dot net
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Copyright © 2015 E. William Horne. All rights reserved.
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself. Thank you!
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization.