Flooded with unwanted solicitor calls [Telecom]

Those tones might work, but I have heard that many times they don't. A couple of yars ago around election time I got a bunch. When I informed just one of them that the next time I get another call, I will vote for the other party because they have not called me, the calls stopped right then. You also have the right to tell them to put you on their do not call list and they must comply, if they do not then the law will apply.

wrote

I know in the age of "voice mail" this is probably blasphemy but........ an even simpler device is an Answering Machine.

The caller simply has to speak some recognizable words, like their name, for you to pick up the handset and talk.........and coupled with caller ID, the people you REALLY know don't even have to know you are screening your calls.

K.I.S.S. ;-)

Simple is not always better: any solution that requires call recipients to manually screen their calls is a bad choice IMNSHO. The only thing we're all given in equal measure is time, and screening calls takes more time than I'm willing to spend.

I don't have a screening device yet, but there's one in my future: they give lower income and middle income telephone users a privilege now enjoyed only by those who can afford human intervention, i.e., those who can afford answering services, butlers, or some other human to save them precious time.

Besides, one of my pet peeves is that someone I never knew put _me_ in charge of making the lives of everyone who calls me easier: the sellers of voice mail and answering machines somehow convinced most of us that we should pay extra money for the privilege of managing someone else's schedule. I don't have time for that, either, and I don't pay for call waiting or voice mail: if someone gets a busy signal from my phone, then that _is_ a message: it means "I'm busy. Call back later!". If _they_ want to talk to _me_, it's _their_ job to make it happen, not mine.

Bill Horne Temporary Moderator

Please put [Telecom] at the end of your subject line, or I may never see your post! Thanks!

We have a new address for email submissions: telecomdigestmoderator atsign telecom-digest.org. This is only for those who submit posts via email: if you use a newsreader or a web interface to contribute to the digest, you don't need to change anything.

Thanks for your response.

The problem with the political calls were that they were all recorded, not live. (No, I don't rate enough for McCain, Obama, Billy, Hillary, Georgie, my governor, senators, etc. to call me personally).

As such, they was no one to tell not to call.

A second problem (and we'll see this soon) is that 3rd party groups become active campaigners for their desired candidate. So I'd get calls from various groups that were all separate from each other; and they were recorded.

A third problem is flat out lying. I got recorded calls from "the union". What freakin' union? How does one stop that? (The 1169 gave "111-111-1111".)

"Not exactly."

Politicians, charities -- but *NOT* those calling _on_behalf_of_ a charity --, and legitimate Market Research / survey operators are exempt from the requirement to keep an in-house do-not-call list.

If Lisa doesn't want marketing calls from people 'she does business with', all she has to do is tell _them_ not to call her -- they *are* required by law to respect such requests.

The 'wrong number' automated reminder calls are not proscribed by the TCPA statute. However they can arguably be construed as 'harassing', and may be actionable on that basis. Note: if the reminders are related to a medical situation, the 'caller' _may_ be facing =criminal= liability under HIPPA, for unauthorized disclosure. A phone call to the party originating those calls, reminding them of _that_ possibility, does tend to get _immediate_ attention. Sometimes it is necessary to get 'the word' to a 'sensitive' department -- people like 'corporate communications' and/or 'legal' -- before the internal rockets get launched. :)

P.S.

If something is "required by law", then as a citizen reporting a complaint should be easy.

The phone co offers Call Trace (1157?), but that is ONLY to be used for very serious abusive calls, such as a physical threat. Further, the phone co (at least in my state) does NOTHING until there are at least five incidents reported. Using call trace is a high fee each time.

I got an obscene phone call late one night and used Call Trace, and they weren't very interested.

IMHO, I should be able to use Call Trace to report any solicitation call that is in violation of the law. In addition, such legal calls that are so frequent they become a nuisance (such as on election day). The phone co and govt officials should aggressively go after the originator--after all, they have the call record right there. (I would have my own record of when I notified them not to call me, provided they even accept such a request.)

As our moderator mentioned earlier, we citizens shouldn't have to be the ones to do all the work to make this stuff stop.

Been there done that. Don't work.

Ok, so the company has 'violated' the law. What are my options? Well, I could call the company and scream like hell. Been there, done that, don't work. I then have a choice of:

2) Taking my business elsewhere: This won't work because: a) All companies do the same crap. Companies know quite well that the extra business gained from such calls, legal or not, will exceed that of customers who are pissed and leave. Let's remember that we have far fewer companies out there competing thanks to mega mergers. b) Ties are too tight. If it is my primary bank, I have chosen that bank due to the best combination of fees, interest rates, and convenience that serve my needs. To make a switch will mean to get a worse deal. It's simply not worth the trouble. The bank won't care if they lose me. If it was my pharmacy, switching prescription files, payment files, etc., is a nuisance, plus the convenience factor. I can walk to them now and don't want to give that up. [Side note, my town once had two independent pharmacies. Then the big chains came in, and the independents went out of business. Then one of the chains bought the other chain out, so now there's only one.] c) Ties are too loose: If it was a business I dealt with once, I probably wouldn't have any need to deal with them again anyway; that is, I don't have any business to take elsewhere.

To clarify my statement about such calls in error . . .

I was the party they were trying to reach. The error was in that their "reminder" as inaccurate; I had already did--several days before--what they were reminding me to do.

I just hear someone saying (after reading this response), "well, YOU'RE too lazy to fight back and you deserve to get all these calls!" Nonsense. My reply to that is:

Most of the morons running for office have no idea these kind of calls are being made since they are done by marketing companies or volunteers who have no idea they are making people mad or really don't give a dam. If everyone who got the call flooded the election office about the calls maybe something would be done, but I don't think so, just look at the attack ads. I'm voting for my cat for all offices this year.

Let's have a write-in campaign for me. When you step into the booth, and the smell is too much to bear, just write in "Bill Horne, Sharon, MA" as your choice for president. I'll report the results, of course.

If elected, I promise to tell the truth and work hard.

Bill Horne Temporary Moderator

Please put [Telecom] at the end of your subject line, or I may never see your post! Thanks!

We have a new address for email submissions: telecomdigestmoderator atsign telecom-digest.org. This is only for those who submit posts via email: if you use a newsreader or a web interface to contribute to the digest, you don't need to change anything.

Perhaps that's the simplest first step: government asking (and, if necessary, requiring) that telcos enforce reasonable caller-ID restrictions on companies with digital network access. Since practically all networks in urban areas large enough to support call centers are digital, this should at least eliminate most faked caller ID and perhaps also reduce 'number not available.' Of course, there's also off-shore call centers, but the journey of a thousand miles begins with just one step...

This is an excellent idea.

Aren't almost all central office switches and tandem trunks digital these days, using modern digital signalling techniques?

However, govt regulations intended to "protect the newcomers and promote competition" may prohibit such enforcement efforts. I can just hear all the non-Baby Bell companies (both local, long distance, and cellular) scream in protest if such enforcement was demanded. The VOIP people protested about being forced to support 911 protocols; they simply didn't want to spend the money.

It is rather curious that machine generated solicitor calls don't have a caller-ID. (Machine generated is where you pick up the phone, say hello, hear silence for a moment, then hear the noise of the 'boiler room', and finally a human comes on and asks to speak to use, mispronouncing your name. The automatic dialers only bring a human into the call when a real person answers the phone. (I think on principle such things should be illegal.)

Apparently the machine-generated solicitor calls, of whatever nature, is a big business and they have a powerful lobbying effort to block reforms as suggested here.

As an aside, you folks have heard my rantings on this subject. Would anyone care to provide an opposing argument? Is there something I'm missing?

Yup. it *IS* trivially easy to do.

Not surprising -- you're reporting to the *WRONG* place. The phone company is -not- responsible for enforcing the TCPA.

Your opinion, _and_ roughly $5, will get you a cup of Starbucks. [Vente White Chocolate Mocoa, please - bh]

BY LAW, the phone company is *NOT* responsible [for] that enforcement.

I certainly agree. Once I got on the federal do-not-call list I noticed a great improvement. However in the last year or so there is some sleazy credit card operator who calls me frequently, always using a nonsense company name (e.g. "Credit Card Services" or "Account Services"). Once I waited through the recording to talk to a human, but he was very rude and would not tell me the real name of the company.

Then every spring I get a bunch of calls from contractors wanting to sell me windows (or a contractor operating under a variety of names). These have a live person calling, and I have reminded her that I am on the do-not-call list and that seems to be effective. (I report them to the FTC anyway.)

I have noticed that large call centers may have their home office in a different area code, like our mail order pharmacy, they are located in Arizona, but the Call centers are in Mew Mexico and Colorado, but their home office is in Ohio, and that is the area code that shows up when they do call. If you check the phone number in a search, you get nothing other then it is a JOE BLOW telephone and screen door company. Also a lot of companies as most of you know are behind very large Centrex systems that look for the cheapest out going trunk and also generate all the data needed to complete and go direct in to the Network without going into the local dial network until they terminate and until the rules are changed they will be able to generate any number they want.

Most companies generate a good number, but some don't for one reason or another, collectors for one, and some use what are called Toll Free number that will say 800/888/866 service anf a number that just rings. The FCC and State regulators would have to make major changes to the rules and you know that will not happen.

I get these sometimes also from businesses. I just tell them to put me on their do not call list. It isn't my problem they don't have anyone on to listen to the request.

However, I don't do a good job of logging the DNC request to keep track of further violations...

I disagree. I was not kidding about racing from the bathroom to answer the phone--when I was expecting an important call. I don't think I have to describe in the detail the nuisance that entails. I think it's obvious that is not an opportune time to listen to a message then log it.

Nor do I think it's acceptable to be disturbed from a nap for such calls.

I must strongly disagree with the statement "reporting to the wrong place".

That is for reporting harassment calls. I'm being harrassed. Sure sounds to me like the right place.

More importantly, most of the business and government world is moving toward single-point customer interface. In cities, 311 is being set up for citizens to call their government about anything. 911 was set up years ago to eliminate three separate numbers for police, fire, and rescue. Well-run companies have their customer service personnel, who have computers, able to accept complaints about anything, and the company worries about getting it to the right place, not the customer. Companies and governments with lousy reputations force customers to dial separate numbers for assistance and waste their time dialing around all over the place.

That's part of the point of this discussion, that not only are these calls annoying, but it is hard to do something about them.

So I take it you think there's nothing wrong with the present situation?

Let's be clear, in my opinion the present situation stinks. There should be no exemption to govt maintained DO NOT CALL lists. Once on, the request should be permanent. (Many people do not know the lists expire after a few years).

Well then CHANGE the law so it is. The phone co is certainly better equipped to do so. Or perhaps the phone co is busy making too much money from this?

Oh, c'mon. The FBI does NOT get involved in stuff like this, even if an interstate crime; they only deal in big stuff. As stated before, you need a high volume of calls to MANY victims for the Feds to get involved.

What is frustrating for us consumers about high volume telephone call centers is how inflexible many can be.

You mentioned a mail order pharmacy. A co-worker is going through hell from one of those right now--her prescriptions require refrigeration and next day delivery. But the pharmacy keeps sending them out incorrectly and the icepack is melted by the time it arrives several days later.

One time I found on my doorstep a package of medicine intended for someone else and wrongly delivered to me. I had a heck of a time trying to call either the shipper or supplier since I was not a customer and had no account number to key in and there was no way to reach a human.

Earlier I mentioned how _all_ banks do the same schtick and why switching vendors won't help. Last last night I got an example of that. However, this time a real phone number showed up and when I called it it was their offices, though a non working number for the company. Anyway, it turned out the bank was conducting a "30 second" survey on their customer service. So I told them it was totally unsatisfactory because they were bothering me.

So true.

I am curious as to who objects to those changes and for what reasons.

If the caller ID is correct and does point to a company, no matter in which jurisdiction and no matter how unresponsive, it does give the victim a telco account to attach to a lawsuit. This is much better than faked caller ID or 'out of area.' In short, I don't really care what area code a caller ID number is from, as long as it really belongs to the calling company and can be used to track back to them.

I understood Centrex to mean PBX-like functionality hosted at your telco's CO, which should be eminently traceable. I suppose the VoIP equivalent could be a lot more flexible.

There are two aspects to that comment: first, I've seen with many long distance carriers, where a call to me through them reports not the caller's number but the number of the trunk used by the LD carrier to connect to the ILEC. In this case my telco could identify the LD carrier, but not the caller. This is not (AFAIK) a deliberate effort to deceive. The other issue is whether VoIP providers will permit users to insert their own caller ID, as subscribers with ISDN PRIs can. This is where I expect the government to ask, and then tell, the telcos to verify that the submitted number is attached the account in question before accepting/propagating the call setup request.

We can always ask, especially since we're not asking to ban telemarketing, just to require that the sprit and letter of existing regulations not be circumvented by falsified caller ID.

\\ We have never had any problems with the pharmacy sending it the wrong was, most of the time it is sent UPS second day air and the prescription is well packed in a cold shipping container with chemical ice, sometimes the ice is melted, but still cold enough to protect everything, once it was send out on a Friday and got delivered on Monday, but again ll was ok, that should not have happened. The only problem I have had with them is a prescription was entered wrong and got canceled and became the prescription from hell, taking 45 days to get filled.

Large business and the telephone companies, since it will cost millions of dollars to add the additional equipment to make it work. Before I retired from GTE (Verizon) I was a CO Equipment Installer for 30 plus years and one of my very last jobs was installing the needed hardware to make the local switches hon in to the SS7 network and pass the data through. Putting it in the GTD5 switch was not a problem ast all, but getting it to work in the Nortel DMS was a real pain, it required major hardware updates as well as the software changes to to the switch; each switch was set to an A and B so there would always be backup, the A would go to the Toll Center that handled the switch and the B would go to another distant center in case something happened to the main one.

Many times the Centrex is located on site and as I said goes direct into the network. I have a friend that calls me from work, he is a researcher for an University and their site is located on a large defense contractors site and piggy backs on their large Centrex; when he calls me on my Sprint Cell phone I get his number just fine, so the SS7 is being passed through, but when he calls me on my home phone; at&t for some reason it hits my Call Manager sine no CID is passed; at first I thought that the CID was blocked at his end, but as I said CID got through to my call phone. Both the Switches are at&t, I have not been able to get through to anyone that understands the problem at at&t. Soome years ago when I was out of state on a contract job, the hotel used a CELEC carrier who used a DMS switch that would not pass the data through; in another post I said I had installed the hard and software on both the DMS and GTD5, I was not able to make them understand, byt got hold of a manager who met me at their switch and let me take a look at the configuration, I found the problem, explained it to him, got a maintainer over to the area with the problem, then fixed it, all that twas needed was a simple jumper. Got a thank you dinner and a job offer which I said no to. This was a rather big CELEC and if I said the name anyone would know them.

No more bowel-movementus interruptus for me, thanks :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp