eagan@phoenix.UUCP (07/09/84)
I am sick and tired of receiving junk phone calls. Often we get a call from the same junk company 3X in 1 week! Is there any way to eliminate this type of nuisance? Would getting an unlisted number do the trick, or do these bothersome people get numbers from places like credit card companies, etc? About the only way we handle these calls right now is to let our answering machine answer calls between 5:30pm-7:00pm week nights, but we have received calls later at night, and even on weekends.
joj@pyuxo.UUCP (J Jasutis) (07/10/84)
When I was in Florida in June there was a lot of discussion about a proposed law that would allow individuals to get a special mark next to their name in the phone book indicating that they did not want phone solicitations. Any company that called anyway would be liable for prosectution. The proposal was getting a lot of popular support but I don't know of its chances of passing or whether any other state was looking into this. I realize this doesn't help you solve your problem but, I thought it was interesting. jo pyuxo!joj
seifert@ihuxl.UUCP (D.A. Seifert) (07/10/84)
re: special mark in phone book
sounds like a good idea. wonder if they could weasel out of it by
claiming they got your name/number from some other source. (hope not!)
maybe I'll buy stock in companies that make answering machines.
--
_____
/_____\ "Get out there and keep moving forward!"
/_______\ - Leo Franchi
|___| Snoopy
____|___|_____ ihnp4!ihuxl!seifertwjm@whuxl.UUCP (MITCHELL) (07/10/84)
<chomp> I've also heard that New York was considering a similar option for tagging names in phone books BTW New York Telephone does offer its customers several ways to deter those #$%^^&%$#% telephone soliciters: You can have your address left out of the directory listing, e.g. Smith, John ................976-3838 You can have your name and phone number left out of the "reverse" directories that list names and numbers by address. You can get an unlisted (non-published) number. While the first two are free, there is a charge for the unlisted number. However, these are only deterrents and will not stop the #$%^%&'s that merely dial every phone number in sequence .... 976-3838, 3839, 3840, etc. Bill Mitchell (whuxl!wjm)
eac@drutx.UUCP (07/10/84)
The proposed law in Florida sounds like a great idea. Just yesterday when I said that getting my number "unpublished" (available via information only, not in the phone book) reduced the number of junk calls, I received one right after work. This is a little off the point--but women should remember that if they are listed, a lot of kooks will phone up unless you use initials. I made this mistake one year since I was listed as Elizabeth Cvetic instead of simply E. Cvetic. What is the world coming to??? Betsy Cvetic ihnp4!drutx!eac
amg@pyuxn.UUCP (Alan M. Gross) (07/10/84)
What I do with junk phone calls is somewhat passive-aggressive, but
what else can one do when someone invades his/her privacy in this way?
I take their most valuable commodity...time. Sometimes I just put
the phone down and go back to what I was doing. Other times I say "hold
on a minute..." and go back to what I was doing. Eventually the
caller gets the hint, hangs up, and I have to hang up the phone.
Meanwhile, I've avoided listening to them and feel I've gotten
back at the caller in some way.
--
Alan M. Gross
{ariel,burl,clyde,floyd,
gamma,harpo,ihnp4,mhuxl}!pyuxn!amgpiety@hplabs.UUCP (Bob Piety) (07/11/84)
Eliminating junk phone cals is easy.... get an unlisted number, then be very careful about giving it out. When writing checks, filling out applications, etc, I tell 'em NO PHONE, when asked for a number. Sometimes the clerks get obnoxious and ask for a work number. I tell them I don't work-- I'm independently wealthy. Sometimes a foolish clerk still demands a number upon which I tell them 123-4567 or 555-1234. Anyway, the bottom line is: NO JUNK PHONE CALLS! And sometimes a little fun (and irritation) from clerks. Bob (415)555-1212
bp@peora.UUCP (Bob Philhower) (07/12/84)
< WATSON, come here, I want you > > I am sick and tired of receiving junk phone calls. Often we get a call > from the same junk company 3X in 1 week! Is there any way to eliminate > this type of nuisance? TM Southern Bell has just introduced a bunch of new services for the Orlando area which might eventually solve your problem of junk calls from 1 company. SM (They eventually will be available nationwide.) The TOUCHSTAR services (just one feature) allows one to punch *60 (1160 for rotary) after receiving SM an annoying phone call. This CALL BLOCK feature holds up to three numbers (within your local area for now). Future calls from these numbers to you will be instead routed to a message saying that the call had been blocked... (TOUCHSTAR and CALL BLOCK are service marks of BellSouth corporation.) -- Now where did I put that towel? bob {allegra, cornell, houxz, floyd}|vax135|petsd|peora|bp
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (07/12/84)
Unfortunately, this doesn't always help. I had two lines, only one of which was in the directory and I would still get junk calls on the second. We also have a "Hot Line" and another unlisted line at the firehouse that I am a member of and we get both automated and real people junk calls on both lines. -Ron
mag@whuxle.UUCP (Gray Mike) (07/13/84)
>Perhaps someone from AT&T and/or Bell can elaborate on the rationale for >a system where someone (or some *thing*) can call and tie up a person's >phone for as long a they like. I've heard of instances where a person >was called from a pay phone and then the caller just let the pay phone >hang by its cord, thus tying up the person's phone until they could get >the phone company to do something. > >It seems to me that this is a very bad feature (read: not just annoying >but potentially dangerous). Consider someone who lives in a very >isolated area where the phone may be the only recourse in an emergency. >Now suppose that such a machine calls, ties up the line and then breaks >(or for that matter a person calls, maliciously or otherwise). Now if >a life threatening event occurs and the person cannot use the phone, is >the phone company liable? > >Is there a good (or other) reason for this potentially dangerous arrangement? >Why can't (or isn't) the system set up so that the connection is dropped if >*either* end hangs up? I'm not an expert in switching, but I can give some information. Yes, it is a problem feature, and switches stopped being designed that way 30 or more years ago. On most Crossbar and all Bell electronic switches, the called party (i.e. you) will receive dial tone after 10 seconds on-hook. The calling party, however, will receive dial tone after about 1 second on hook. This feature is deliberate. It allows a called party to switch extensions without needing someone else to hang up the other phone. Sometimes you get 5 seconds to change, but usually it's 10. The calling party, on the other hand, is assumed to have already selected the extension they want to speak from, so they get dial tone immediately. This also allows them to make a rapid sequence of calls. On certain older switches, such as Panel and Step-by-step (vintage 1920s) the switches only look for call completion signaling from the *calling* end of the call, meaning that yes, indeed, someone (or something) can prevent release of your line. That was the state of the art at the time. When these switches were designed, there were no computers making unwanted calls. There were *very* few malicious calls. People still remembered to hang up the phone. So-called directly controlled switches(step and panel) still switch a bit less than 20% of Bell System lines. They are replaced with electronic switches as they wear out. Replacement is expensive. Modification to fix the problem is nearly as expensive as replacement. The money to run the phone companies comes from the ratepayers. When a phone company wants to make large, unusual capital expenditures, they must get approval from the *local* public utilities commission. I suggest that you complain to them about the problems of 1) unsolicited phone calls, and 2) switches that will not allow the called party to terminate a call in progress. I hope that this answers your questions. It may be that you are not allowing a full, *uninterrupted* 10 seconds on hook to cut off a computer calling you. If you keep on flashing the switchhook to see if it is still there, the switch will start timing the 10 seconds again. Michael Gray AT&T Bell Labs Whippany, N. J. P. S. I think it quite unlikely that emergency use and a hung phone will occur at the same time. Certainly much less likely than that the phone would be out of service due to say, lightning striking a distribution cable or a truck hitting it. It would be a better use of your time to worry about a 747 falling out of the sky and hitting you. :-) I sincerely doubt that a court would hold a phone company liable for such a situation, since they are *always* trying to upgrade switches and service (to improve revenue), and the PUCs just won't let them. Anyway, the problem will vanish (at least on Bell lines) in another 10 or 20 years.
dws@mit-eddie.UUCP (Don Saklad) (07/16/84)
Why does three way calling and call waiting fail with some telephone exchanges local to mine? Sometimes the signal from the incoming call disconnects my original call to or from some local exchanges in this same area of the city. And adding a call doesn't work when again the original call is to or from some local exchanges. I've been unable to file a trouble report since the operator seems not to understand a description of this bug in the New England Telephone and Telegraph Company system.
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (07/16/84)
It was my impression that the justification for charging for having an unlisted number was that the telco incurred more "information" calls as a result of people not finding your name & number in the book. This was prior to the current practice of charging callers for "information" calls, which I believe is now just about universal. This latter should eliminate the costs the telcos used to justify charging the holder of an unlisted number, right? So how do they now justify charging you for NOT doing something; that is, for not printing your name & number in the telephone books? Will
andrew@inmet.UUCP (07/17/84)
#R:phoenix:-78500:inmet:22100014:000:561
inmet!andrew Jul 14 10:31:00 1984
We also have an unlisted number. When we bought our house, we gave it to
the mortgage company - after all, they have a right to know it - without
giving it a second thought. They apparantly sold it or otherwise divulged
it, because we got millions of junk calls hawking everything from heating
oil (it's an electric house) to additional insurance, burglar alarms, etc.
Next time, I'll give it out only under the condition that it not be
distributed to anyone not directly connected with the bank.
Andrew W. Rogers ...{harpo|ihnp4|ima|esquire}!inmet!andrewpag@hao.UUCP (Peter Gross) (07/18/84)
I used to be bothered by a high incidence of junk phone calls until I got an unlisted number. The frequency has since dropped to near zero. You still get random hits on rare occasions. --peter gross hao!pag
essachs@ihuxl.UUCP (Ed Sachs) (07/18/84)
=================================================================== Re: Charges by teclos for unlisted/unpublished numbers: The charge has nothing to do with cost of providing service (or in this case non-service). It has to do with the fact that some people are willing to pay extra for it. (Why would anyone think that price has to reflect cost?) -- Ed Sachs AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihuxl!essachs
lrd@drusd.UUCP (DuBroffLR) (07/18/84)
"So how do they now justify charging you for NOT doing something; that is, for not printing your name & number in the telephone books?" Well, when they don't put your name in the book, they have to move all the names that follow yours up one line. This is an expensive operation! By rights, they should charge Aardvark much more for an unlisted number than they charge Zebra!
dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (07/19/84)
In article <3313@brl-tgr.ARPA> wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin) writes:
~| It was my impression that the justification for charging for having an
~| unlisted number was that the telco incurred more "information" calls
~| as a result of people not finding your name & number in the book. This
~| was prior to the current practice of charging callers for "information"
~| calls, which I believe is now just about universal.
Yes, but we only get charged for calls to directory assistance when
the number is in the phone book (i.e., no charge if they can't find
the number, or if it's a new listing). So charging for directory
assistance doesn't reduce the cost of people calling for unlisted numbers.
Anyway, if you know a number should be in the book, and you know it's
not a new listing, why bother calling d.a. at all?
~| This latter should
~| eliminate the costs the telcos used to justify charging the holder of
~| an unlisted number, right?
I'd always assumed the charge was related to the cost of keeping a
separate list of people who should be billed but not listed. (Or
of keeping a field associated with every billed name to indicate
whether they should be listed or not.) There's definitely a cost
associated with storing that extra information for millions of people,
even if the variable cost of storing the "unlisted" bit for a particular
user is virtually nil.
Dave Sherman
Toronto
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!dave
or
David_Sherman%Wayne-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-Multics.ARPAwmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (07/23/84)
> From: dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) > > Yes, but we only get charged for calls to directory assistance when > the number is in the phone book (i.e., no charge if they can't find > the number, or if it's a new listing). So charging for directory > assistance doesn't reduce the cost of people calling for unlisted numbers. If this is true, my point was certainly not justified. However, I cannot agree that this is right. Such a distinction (between calls for numbers which CAN be looked up, and D.A. calls for numbers which cannot be found otherwise) has never been made here in St. Louis, MO (Southwestern Bell territory). Also, soon after the practice of charging for D.A. calls was instituted, I inquired about this specific point in a discussion on the ARPANET TELECOM Digest (on USENET as "fa.telecom"), and was told by several seemingly-knowledgeable people that no such distinction was made, and that it wasn't possible to so discriminate in the billing for D.A. calls. Maybe things have changed since then; this was at least a year ago, and probably farther back than that. I hope so! It shouldn't be hard for the telcos to have a button the D.A. operator hits to indicate that the call in progress is "not chargeable", or for there to be some sort of procedure to distinguish between cases where the caller really needs D.A., and when he is just too lazy to use the book. However, even if this is the case, it isn't universal. As far as I have determined, here in SW Bell-land, after your monthly free D.A. allowance is used, you are charged for every D.A. call made, without exception. I solicit postings from anyone who knows the details of this matter, or who has info on such distinctions made by other BOC's. Will Martin
dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (07/27/84)
Obviously, I was wrong as regard charges in (at least part of) the
U.S. for directory assistance. However, I was correct insofar as
Bell Canada (Ontario and Quebec) is concerned.
We pay a 60-cent charge for calls to directory assistance when
the number requested is in the current phone book. There is no
charge if the number is not found, or if it is a new listing.
Until two months ago, residential phones were allowed three free
such calls a month; now all are charged for.
Dave Sherman
Toronto
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!dave