weave@brahms.udel.edu (Ken Weaverling) (11/26/90)
Here in northern Delaware, we have had CLASS calling in most exchanges for a few years now. Return*Call was great at first, but is slowly losing its effectiveness with cranks as more and more people realize how it works. About a year ago, my girl friend had an encounter with Return*Call biting her back. It went like this ... My girl friend gets a crank phone call, the typical heavy breathing type. She immedialely Return*Calls it. A lady answers. My girl friend shouts into the phone "I know who you are and what you are up to, so you better stop it now" and then hangs up the phone. (A typical Return*Call bluff. You don't know who they are, but it works effectively until word gets around how Return*Call works ...) A minute later, our phone rings again. My girl friend answers and it is this woman again, who obviously Return*Called us. She stated that she knew who we were (bluff again) and if the crank phone calls don't stop, she was going to call the police. We sat around puzzled for a moment, then finally figured out that there must be several extensions in their house and the original crank call must have originated, perhaps, with a child, and the child's Mother answered our Return*Call. I then did a Return*Call myself to her to try and explain the situation to her. When she answered, she was at the boiling point. I tried explaining but I don't think she heard a word. She hollered that she had had enough, was going to hang up, initiate a call trace, and then call the police. At that point, I realized I should have probably just let it go after her first call, but by this time it was too late. We just sat back and waited for the police to contact us. However, this never happened, thankfully. So, the morale is, "Those that live by Return*Call can get bitten by it too!" --or-- "Those that never had class to begin with, shouldn't try and get it from the phone company."
den0@midway.uchicago.edu (funky chicken) (11/27/90)
In article <14952@accuvax.nwu.edu> weave@brahms.udel.edu (Ken Weaverling) describes how his girl friend had "Return*called" a crank call, yelling at the caller, only to have that person return the call and act as if she were the crank caller. He concludes: >We sat around puzzled for a moment, then finally figured out that >there must be several extensions in their house and the original crank >call must have originated, perhaps, with a child, and the child's >Mother answered our Return*Call. Or else the real crank caller was at another number and was forwarding calls to another one of his/her victims. Matt Funkchick [Moderator's Note: This raises a good point. When a call reaches you via forwarding through some other number, does 'return call' go to the forwarded number or the original caller? Likewise for Call Screening and Caller-ID: *whose* ID gets passed for the purpose of callback and/or screening, etc? PAT]
forrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) (11/27/90)
In article <14984@accuvax.nwu.edu> TELECOM Moderator writes: >[Moderator's Note: This raises a good point. When a call reaches you >via forwarding through some other number, does 'return call' go to the >forwarded number or the original caller? Likewise for Call Screening >and Caller-ID: *whose* ID gets passed for the purpose of callback >and/or screening, etc? PAT] I got involved in a conversation with my Pacific Bell friend last week about just this issue. He's working on implementing all the new SS7 stuff on the DMS-100's. Apparently, they consider the person actually placing the call to be the "Caller" with respect to "Caller ID." It doesn't matter if there are several "hops" of forwarding - the original number will display. Also, we talked about how this works with ISDN. There will be display sets which can display both the calling number and the called number. So, a secretary, upon receiving a call, can tell not only the number of the calling party, but the number they called (very useful in the case where the call no-answer transferred to the secretary, and where there are several numbers that no-answer transfer to the same place). Of course, I just had to ask the question: "What if there are several hops of no-answer transfer or call forwarding?" In this case, the original calling number and the original called number will be displayed, regardless of any subsequent transfers. This gives the answerer complete information: who is calling, and who they think they called.
bote@uunet.uu.net (John Boteler) (11/29/90)
PAT writes: > This raises a good point. When a call reaches you > via forwarding through some other number, does 'return call' go to the > forwarded number or the original caller? Likewise for Call Screening > and Caller-ID: *whose* ID gets passed for the purpose of callback > and/or screening, etc? [ Author's Note: As discussed previously, Calling Line ID is what the name says it is: the ID of the line calling you is displayed and used for CLASS treatment. Forwarding Line ID is another spec yet to be offered as far as I know. If you *69 the sucker, it goes back to the caller, not the forwarder. ] John Boteler bote@csense {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling
yazz@prodnet.la.locus.com (Bob Yasi) (12/05/90)
I believe there remains a point to be made in the call-back-the- annoyance-caller-but-he-used-call-forwarding-so-now-what-happens saga. If A is the annoyer he can 1) fwd to B, then 2) call up and annoy C. If C returns the call with call*return, is the annoyer's call forwarding ignored, ringing A's phone? If not, and the return*call to A is forwarded to B, the spleen-venting victims could *69 each other all day! This could be what happened to the original poster of this dilemma. Bob Yazz -- yazz@lccsd.sd.Locus.com [Moderator's Note: They'll need to fix it so that *69 overrides call forwarding. PAT]
dwp@cci632.cci.com (Dana Paxson) (12/08/90)
One of the first things I do when I see an array of features supplied in a system is ask myself: What collisions or 'cross- products' of features yield newly emergent effects? It seems to me in the rush to tantalize with new services and collect new revenues, the telephone companies are rushing some not-well- thought-out combinations to market. The call-forwarding plus call-return combination should have been better analyzed before setting them out for the already-dazed subscriber. A nuisance caller who has unsupervised access to a telephone providing call forwarding can set call forward on that phone to target someone, then dial through the forwarded phone with a nuisance call. This example is a kind of inverse of the one discussed earlier. Disabling of call-forward when executing a call-return in this situation simply leaves the unsuspecting owner of the forwarded phone with an irate victim confronting him/her. It is a complicated situation to resolve in any case unless the call forwarding is somehow 'visible' to the recipient of the call. Dana Paxson Computer Consoles, Inc. 97 Humboldt Street Rochester, NY 14609 716 654-2588 dwp@cci632.com
gauthier@ug.cs.dal.ca (Paul Gauthier) (12/08/90)
People keep mentioning *69 as the code which invokes return
call. Has anyone noticed the possible sick humor this number could
cause. You would be 'reciprocating' a call, so to speak. :-)
From the warped mind of,
PG
gauthier@ug.cs.dal.ca
tyrant@dalac.bitnet
tyrant@ac.dal.ca
[Moderator's Note: I agree that was a very warped thing to say. PAT]