[Telecom] Annoyance Calls

All the FTC does is gather statistics on these telephonic invasions. If you push them hard enough they will advise you that federal law permits you to file a lawsuit agains the violator.

In snipped-for-privacy@and-this-too.mishmash.com writes: [snip]

Why wait? Do that _now_, along with cc's to the various PUC/PSCs.

- I had a vaguely similar series of hassle calls from a law firm in Utah using a robot dialer, claiming they were looking for mumble mumble, and that if I wasn't mumble mumble, I should jump through hoops and waste plenty of time calling them back, getting v-mail, demands for ID, etc.

I wrote letters to the Utah AG. End of story.

FCC has jurisdiction here. The scam is that you get dinged fifty cents or so for each call to your toll-free number and the originating telco gets a piece of that.

Is it possible those numbers are spoofed?

Why can't _your_ carrier help you? Aren't they responsible to do so as your telephone service provider? My local carrier has an office specifically to deal with serious harrassment calls. The number is reported by dialing 1157 immediately after the call is received. I think that's a standard service, and I believe it uses the ANI, not Caller-ID, so is more accurate.

sample description:

"Call Trace automatically initiates a trace of the last call you received. You can use this feature to trace unlawful or threatening calls that alarm, frighten, or harass you. The trace results include the calling and called number and the date and the time of the call. The results are sent to the Verizon Unlawful Call Center and are stored for future action.

Your phone is already equipped for Call Trace; there is no charge for the connection. Charges and fees for using Call Trace may vary.

Note If you are threatened with bodily harm or an explosive device, use Call Trace and immediately contact your local police department.

All calling features are subject to availability and compatibility restrictions."

for full description and instructions please see:

another carrier's description:

[a google search on "Call Trace 57" yields many results.]

The problem is: I don't know who the violator is.

And can I file against them in New Mexico when they are on the opposite end of Texas from me?

Regards,

Fred

And who would that carrier be? In my case, I have DSL from Qwest, but all my phone service is from voip.ms (well, aside from the prepay T-mobile cellphone that's my backup), there is no landline. (And I know one person whose entire phone service comes from "Magic Jack", via a neighbor's insecure wifi access point.) I just looked in the ATA configuration, and don't see any appropriate code to dial for call trace (though I might just be missing it, there are some fairly cryptic settings). *57 turns call waiting off. Oh, and voip.ms is located in Montreal, not the US (though they do have some servers here).

Interestingly enough, *77 is "Block ANC Act Code". I wonder if that does what it sounds like. I suppose it might depend on my upstream vendor. Anybody know an ANC readback number I could test it with?

Dave

Experiences with *57 seem to vary on a state-by-state basis. My ex was receiving harassing calls and hangups while I was out of town. (I did not let on that I was also receiving similar calls at work and at one particular job site because I did not want to involve my employer and client.) Can't remember whether the request had to originate with the police department, but she did have to agree to press charges. That requirement lead to a couple weeks delay because she feared the calls be coming from her 90-mumble year old grandmother. I finally convinced her that any prosecutor would make a compassionate exception, if that turned out to be the case.

*57 registered on the second attempt.

Me: "So who was it?" Her: "All they said was that she should not be receiving harassing calls from that particular number and it would not be happening again."

As I recall there is a charge for each trace you make, plus the local carrier won't do anything about it unless there is a police report.

Of course they are spoofed, but that doesn't change the problem.

Because to do so would actually cost the carrier money. Since they aren't regulated and they aren't selling a tariffed service, there is no outside force to cause them to do this. Since they already have more customers than they really want, the threat of a customer leaving won't cause them to do it. Actually hiring customer service people to deal with problems would cost too much money.

You have just discovered the big difference between Verizon and the VOIP providers. Verizon has an Unlawful Call Center because the FCC and the PUC force them to have it. The VOIP providers do not have this pressure on them.

--scott

I once filed a complaint with the FCC about a coin box in Longmont, Colo., that would not let me use another carrier. There was no number posted on the phone and nothing on it to name the owneer.

The FCC replied this was a state matter. So I wrote the Colorado commission and got a reply they could do nothing without the telephone number. (I had described the location carefully.)

This was before the days of cell phones.

Wes Leatherock snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com snipped-for-privacy@aol.com

I have just discovered that Southwestern Bell refuses to stop one of its own customers from making annoyance calls.

That's what I've discovered.

Fred

Now in THAT case, a letter to the PUC should be effective. SWBell doesn't care, but the PUC will.

--scott

I'm confused. How do we know that SW Bell is handling the originating phone calls for this harassment? Assuming that the Caller ID is accurate or you have the ANI, suppose it was a number ported to another source, eg a VOIP provider?

I got another call from those jerks in Harlingen, TX.

The number was: (956)421-4967 .

I've blocked them, too.

I called them back and I keep getting an autodialer over and over. So I've put them on hold. They think they are calling different numbers but they are on a dead line for all practical purposes. Fortunately, I have flat rate long distance.

This is beyond ridiculous.

Fred

A quick google shows:

Texas Fruit & Berry

Address: 222 E Van Buren Ave Harlingen, TX, 78550-6823 Phone: 956-421-4967 Fax: 956-787-0916

at:

An odd sort of company to be doing phone spam unless perhaps the company name is descriptive of the proprietors rather than the products.

Oh, wait, this place says TF&B is "CLOSED".

Ah, well, appears that TF&B may have been sued out of existence and now some telemarketing droids are using the number.

ObTelecom: I wonder if s[cp]ammers and telemarketers watch the bankruptcy news and specifically apply for numbers widely reported as belonging to legit companies.

Sometimes in situations like this a business is closed but the space and phones remain intact for a while until it is liquidated. Depending on the landlord, that can take quite a while. (We've looked at various commercial space and often the prior defunct tentant's stuff was left behind. In a low-rent district, that could be for a long time.)

I'm just speculating here: Is it possible this business is closed but it's phones remain in service? Perhaps their system is broken and sending out false calls, but no one is around to fix it. It could take a few months before the service is disconnected for non-payment of bill.

There used to be, and may still be, quite a few places in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (a semi-tropical area that grows many fruits the year round) that specialized in mail order sales especially in parts of the year when those fruits were out of season.

I do not know if Texas Fruit & Berry was such a company, but many mail order companies make annoying calls. I do not know if that is or was Texas Fruit & Berry's business, but it is not implausible.

Wes Leatherock snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com snipped-for-privacy@aol.com