Searching \ for 'Looking for information - telemarketing rejection' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=looking+information
Search entire site for: 'Looking for information - telemarketing rejection'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'Looking for information - telemarketing rejection'
1998\11\05@121828 by Harold Hallikainen

picon face
On Wed, 4 Nov 1998 22:20:55 -0500 John Hansen <spam_OUThansenTakeThisOuTspamAIT.FREDONIA.EDU>
writes:

>I've been looking into this as well.  My theory is that most of the=
> automated calling services these days have about one second of silence
after you
>pick  up the phone, but before you are connected to the salesperson.

       I don't think the delay is intentional or reliable.  I believe
it's the call distributing system detecting an answer (possibly using a
signal from the central office?), then passing the call to the next
available telemarketer.  I believe the call distributing system
anticipates call durations and dials out based on that anticipated
duration.  If it works out just right, a telemarketer is handed the call
just as he/she finishes a previous call and as the person receiving the
call gets the receiver to his/her ear.  If the person receiving the call
answers a little earlier than expected, or the telemarketers take a
little longer than expected to complete the call, there is a short delay
before a telemarketer is available to have the call handed to.
       So, there is generally a delay from zero to several seconds.  I
use the detected silence to quickly hang up when answering calls.  The
other great device to deter telemarketing calls is to just turn off all
the ringers and let an answering machine handle the call.  If you hear
someone leaving a message that you'd like to talk with, pick up the
phone!

Harold


Harold Hallikainen
.....haroldKILLspamspam@spam@hallikainen.com
Hallikainen & Friends, Inc.
See the FCC Rules at http://hallikainen.com/FccRules and comments filed
in LPFM proceeding at http://hallikainen.com/lpfm

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

1998\11\05@140849 by shadedemon

picon face
My favorite is to keep a tape recorder handy, ask them the
name of the company, and to put me on thier do not call
list.  Once you do that, if the company ever calls your
number again, you get $500 and the phone company will
enforce that, and I believe you also get it if they refuse
to provide the comany name..


Harold Hallikainen wrote:
>
>se the detected silence to quickly hang up when answering calls.  The
> other great device to deter telemarketing calls is to just turn off all
> the ringers and let an answering machine handle the call.  If you hear
> someone leaving a message that you'd like to talk with, pick up the
> phone!
>
> Harold

1998\11\05@190330 by Bob Drzyzgula

flavicon
face
Hi.

Yes, this is my first post to PICLIST. I've been reading it
for a few days; congratulations all on a remarkably well
behaved and friendly list.

On Thu, Nov 05, 1998 at 12:16:23PM -0500, Harold Hallikainen wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 1998 22:20:55 -0500 John Hansen <hansenspamKILLspamAIT.FREDONIA.EDU>
> writes:
>
> >I've been looking into this as well.  My theory is that most of the=
> > automated calling services these days have about one second of silence
>
>         I don't think the delay is intentional or reliable...

Certainly the whole system is intentional, and they don't
seem to care that it doesn't work perfectly or that it
annoys people. Somehow I doubt that it is high on their
list of problems to fix. :-)

> If the person receiving the call
> answers a little earlier than expected, or the telemarketers take a
> little longer than expected to complete the call, there is a short delay
> before a telemarketer is available to have the call handed to.

Or not. I find that, more often than not (I assume)
there is no telemarketer available, so rather than pay
the message units for a dead call they just drop the
connection. I can't count the number of times I've rushed
to the phone only to hear a click and silence.

>         So, there is generally a delay from zero to several seconds.  I
> use the detected silence to quickly hang up when answering calls.  The
> other great device to deter telemarketing calls is to just turn off all
> the ringers and let an answering machine handle the call.  If you hear
> someone leaving a message that you'd like to talk with, pick up the
> phone!

I've found that Caller ID is quite reliable in
predicting telemarking calls. While they don't tend
to use ID blocking, they do tend to sit on the other side of
non-SS7-enabled PBXs, so there is no Caller ID info at
all. This way you can't tell who they are, but it doesn't
get trapped by anonymous call rejection either. Thus,
since getting caller ID and figuring this out, I've simply
stopped answering any calls with no ID. This seems to
knock out about 90% of those calls, although they do tend
to call more often as a result. The very small number of
welcome calls that get blocked this way are easily handled
by the answering machine.

I would say then, that a device that could spot a call
with no ID and immediately hand it over to the answering
machine (and a message that politely says "we do not respond to
telephone solicitations"), would probably be quite effective.

--Bob

--
============================================================
Bob Drzyzgula                             It's not a problem
.....bobKILLspamspam.....drzyzgula.org                until something bad happens
============================================================

1998\11\05@220511 by Mark A Winters

flavicon
face
----Original Message-----
From: Bob Drzyzgula <EraseMEbobspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTDRZYZGULA.ORG>
--snip--

>I would say then, that a device that could spot a call
>with no ID and immediately hand it over to the answering
>machine (and a message that politely says "we do not respond to
>telephone solicitations"), would probably be quite effective.
>


As an enhancement to this approach, I remember reading recently about a
service one of the RBOC's is going to offer for a monthly fee.

If the phone company detects someone is calling you without proper caller-ID
information, they intercept the call and play a message to the caller
telling them that the phone number doesn't automatically accept non-ID
calls. It then asks the caller to leave his/her name, which it records. If
the person doesn't leave a name, the caller is hung up on. If the caller
does leave a name, the phone company calls you and plays the recorded name,
and asks if you want to accept the call. Only if you accept at that point
does the call actually go through.

I would guess that this system is pretty foolproof, since most solicitors
won't be willing to leave a name, in which case you won't even be
interrupted.

Now, if someone could come up with a PIC and ISD voice chip approach to
avoid the monthly fee.... :-)  (Although you might want to do a patent
search first -- I understand the RBOC has some patents on portions of the
process).

Just some thoughts...

Mark

1998\11\05@222408 by Dennis Plunkett

flavicon
face
At 19:46 5/11/98 -0700, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

This would work, pitty that the line would be tied up during the message bit
though. That's where the RBOC system is best.
It is quite easy to do at home, a few components a PIC and wahlaa! There it
be, but the voice mail bit would be a little tricky, so just divert the call
to an answering machine (Cheep one that is).

While other systems exist, it would be fun to put the data into the PC, and
let it do a directory search to find the owner of the number. Just for
interset sake, and the caller ID be turned off by the calling party as it
can in Australia?


Dennis

1998\11\05@233142 by Steve Ridley

flavicon
face
Since there seems to be some interest in telemarketing call rejection. It
may be of some comfort to know I have developed a simple device along
similar lines to those being discussed in this stream. And yes, it is a PIC
based device hence my interest in this news group. I am in the process of
finalising several patents and I prefer not to say more about it at present.
With some luck and a lot of hard work you will see my device in the shops
early next year.

Steve Ridley
Blue Ocean Telecommunications

{Original Message removed}

1998\11\06@023516 by Eric Smith

flavicon
face
> As an enhancement to this approach, I remember reading recently about a
> service one of the RBOC's is going to offer for a monthly fee.
>
> If the phone company detects someone is calling you without proper caller-ID
> information, they intercept the call and play a message to the caller
> telling them that the phone number doesn't automatically accept non-ID
> calls. It then asks the caller to leave his/her name, which it records. If
> the person doesn't leave a name, the caller is hung up on. If the caller
> does leave a name, the phone company calls you and plays the recorded name,
> and asks if you want to accept the call. Only if you accept at that point
> does the call actually go through.
>
> I would guess that this system is pretty foolproof, since most solicitors
> won't be willing to leave a name, in which case you won't even be
> interrupted.

Here in California, our wonderful phone company (SBC dba Pacific Bell)
offers Anonymous Call Reject.  Callers that have their ID blocked will
get a message explaining that they will have to unblock if they want
to call the number, and how to do that.  They do not get to leave a
message.

Sounds great in theory.  But in practice, it only handles *blocked* number
calls.  It doesn't handle "unavailable" numbers.  There are many reasons
why a number can be "unavailable" without it being blocked.  For instance,
if the caller is behind a PBX, the number is often "unavailable".

Guess what 99.9% of telemarketers show up as?

Like others have described here, I want a system of my own (not a service
of The Phone Company) that will keep my phone from ringing until after the
caller ID has been received, and divert the call to voice mail if the
number is unavailable for *ANY* reason.

It is entirely reasonable to implement this with a PIC or SX.  In fact, the
caller ID demodulation (Bell 202) can be done entirely in software on an
SX.

I haven't figured out how to suppress the first ring, without actually
disconnecting the phones from the line.  I know it's possible; I used to
have a little box with a switch that did exactly that.  Any suggestions
will be welcome; analog stuff is not my forte.

Cheers,
Eric

1998\11\06@030014 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face
I have long wished for a phone that had a CID driven ringer, with a
clock and a memory.

Three classes of callers.

Family (anyone in the list keyed in by me, boss, friends etc)
Identified callers (anyone that idents in their CID)
Unidentified callers. (unavailable, blocked, any other synonyms for
sleaze)

Family can ring at any time.  Sister can call with an emergency at 03:00

Identified callers can ring between hours I set.  No calls at 2AM
looking for "is willis there?"

Unidentified callers can bite me.

Anyone who the phone is filtering dosent' even get to hit the ringer.
The phone answers the line, and then disconnects. Too bad, so sad. A
recorded message might be played, or the phone might take a message.

Some perverse people might want to allow unidentified callers at some
hours, but there are good treatments available for those tendencies now.

1998\11\06@042007 by Nigel Orr

flavicon
face
At 19:46 05/11/98 -0700, you wrote:
>If the phone company detects someone is calling you without proper caller-ID
>information, they intercept the call and play a message to the caller

It's called ACR- a European Directive requires all EU 'phone suppliers to
supply this to customers with Caller-ID by 24th October 1998- BT in the UK
are apparently aiming to launch it in November/December...

The other system being discussed is called predictive dialling

(Just thought it might be helpful to have the right terms, if anyone is
wanting to web-search for more info... there's been discussion of both on
uk.telecom recently...)

>Now, if someone could come up with a PIC and ISD voice chip approach to
>avoid the monthly fee.... :-)

Several UK people are doing/have done this- unfortunately we use various
flavours of incompatible caller-ID, depending on the phone/cable company
(including the BT version sent before the first ring, designed for remote
meter reading etc), so a generic product is a bit tricky...

Nigel

1998\11\06@072204 by Caisson

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

What do you do if your sister is calling from somewhere else ("My car got
stuck, can you help me") ?  If the Caller is rejected (a phone-booth is not
in your list of numbers-to-accepted) he/she should be able to send their
home-phone number and be accepted after all ...

Greetz,
 Rudy Wieser

P.s.
Yes, I've been juggeling with the idea of a caller-reject for some time
also. :-)

1998\11\06@084003 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face
> What do you do if your sister is calling from somewhere else ("My car got
> stuck, can you help me") ?  If the Caller is rejected (a phone-booth is not
> in your list of numbers-to-accepted) he/she should be able to send their
> home-phone number and be accepted after all ...


Probably have to make do with a passcode or something..

1998\11\06@102315 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, Eric Smith wrote:

> I haven't figured out how to suppress the first ring, without actually
> disconnecting the phones from the line.  I know it's possible; I used to
> have a little box with a switch that did exactly that.  Any suggestions
> will be welcome; analog stuff is not my forte.

The simplest device that will do that, is a series resistor followed by
two 56V zeners in anti-series shunting the line to the phone. For some
modern phones this is not enough, so you need to add a rectifier bridge
after this, and caps to bypass audio on 2 diodes. The second method is
polarity dependent and sometimes you need to swap the leads for certain
phones and faxes. The resistor is supposed to drop 50 mA at 60V. The
method may not work with some PBXes.

don't tell anyone that I said this and use at your own risk ;)

Peter

1998\11\06@125301 by Matt Bonner

flavicon
face
Dave VanHorn wrote:
>
> Some perverse people might want to allow unidentified callers at some
> hours, but there are good treatments available for those tendencies now.

I bought caller ID and name display to avoid these unidentified
callers.  Unfortunately, cell calls display no ID information (yet).
Since my company supplies most of us with cell phones, I *have* to
answer even the unidentified numbers in case the call is work-related.

One of these days I'll put up a web page listing companies that use
telemarketers - I wonder how well a boycott would work since nobody
seems to like these calls.

--Matt

1998\11\06@170308 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face
> I bought caller ID and name display to avoid these unidentified
> callers.  Unfortunately, cell calls display no ID information (yet).
> Since my company supplies most of us with cell phones, I *have* to
> answer even the unidentified numbers in case the call is work-related.
>

My cell shows as "indiana call", and gives the number, unless I
specifically block it.

1998\11\07@230635 by bcannon

flavicon
face
Great thread!

It seems to me a dirt-simple solution which bypasses all the Bell's
"value-added" junk might be just an answering machine set to answer on the
first ring, and with the OGM set to something like: "Hi, you've reached the
desk of Bruce Cannon.  Who's calling please? [Three second pause] If no one
picks up, please leave a message at the tone."

Or something like that.

Bruce Cannon
Systems Designer
Style Management Systems
1228 Ceres ST
Crockett CA 94525
(510) 787-6870

RemoveMEbcannonTakeThisOuTspamjps.net
http://www.jps.net/bcannon

Remember: electronics is changing your world...for good!

{Original Message removed}

1998\11\08@052034 by Lee Jones

flavicon
face
>>> I've been looking into this as well.  My theory is that most
>>> of the automated calling services these days have about one
>>> second of silence

>> I don't think the delay is intentional or reliable...  If the
>> person receiving the call answers a little earlier than expected,
>> or the telemarketers take a little longer than expected to
>> complete the call, there is a short delay before a telemarketer
>> is available to have the call handed to.

> Or not. I find that, more often than not (I assume)
> there is no telemarketer available, so rather than pay
> the message units for a dead call they just drop the
> connection.

> This seems to knock out about 90% of those calls, although
> they do tend to call more often as a result.


There may be a way to build a device to not only block the
current telemarketing call but also reduce the future calls.
Let me tell you a little story...

A friend (new co-worker) of mine used to work for DEC.  The
group in which he worked provided the computer support for
the telemarketing arm of a large company.

He described to me how the system worked.  As previously
described, there was a large pool of sales people.  Calls
were placed by computer on a predicted availability basis.
Once the call was answered, the next available sales person
was connected to the victim.

But the telemarketer didn't want to waste sales person time
nor message unit money on unproductive target phone numbers.
So the computer system (which was placing calls) prescreened
for modem or facsimile machine tones.  If either was found,
the call was disconnected.  And the target number was marked
as non-voice to prevent future calls.

So I've thought a PIC device could be constructed to send out
a couple seconds of modem answer tone.  Or make the device more
sophisticated so it only does it if the box suspects the call
is a telephone solicitation.  Real people calling you would be
slightly confused and/or annoyed by the tones, but would
probably stay on the line.

I haven't tried to implement it (yet).
                                               Lee Jones

1998\11\08@180142 by Dennis Plunkett

flavicon
face
At 17:07 6/11/98 +0000, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I don't understand this Peter.
Won't the diodes be just on the edge of the exchange battery supply? (56V is
nominally the maximum, but there are some 100V lines too) Also, this may not
work as some phones require to see a minimum of 50VRMS of ring current to
ring, others will work down to 10VRMS.
Most exchanges use battery backed ring, and may just see enough current to
trip the ring, as often the ringer is not exactly the same supply voltage,
and the actual loop current required to trip the ring is 12mA (Not 20).
There may also be a problem with balanced ring too.

What is the 50mA at 60V? Most lines are designed for 20mA loops, granted
that some exchanges will supply 125mA for the old 200R feed, and the new
ones may supply 72mA, however if your unfortunate you may only get 45. This
DC limit is controlled by the SLIC (Nominally, as is may be an ASLIC
combination).

Yes you are correct, don't tell anyone.

Dennis

1998\11\19@094201 by Martin McCormick

flavicon
face
Bruce Cannon writes:
>first ring, and with the OGM set to something like: "Hi, you've reached the
>desk of Bruce Cannon.  Who's calling please? [Three second pause] If no one
>picks up, please leave a message at the tone."
>
>Or something like that.
       I've been doing something similar on our modem line at home.
Since the number is unlisted, nobody has any business calling it.
Callers, in fact, are either people who accidentally misdialed or
telemarketing scum that dial blocks of numbers in hopes of raising
somebody.

       I have an old answering machine that I got for $5.00 at a ham
fest.  The message tape which is not easily replaceable is almost warn
out which I think gives it a nice mean sound.  What I do is to answer
on the third ring with the word "hello" as if I was a live person.  I
then wait about 10 seconds and then say that this phone is never
answered by a live human at any time and that the caller has the wrong
number.  The pause probably confuses people who have called the wrong
number, but they probably just growl under their breath and go on.
It seems to really confuse the automated telemarketing systems who
think they have a live one and put through a call.  By the time an
operator picks up, the rest of my message has gone past and the
telemarketer is listening to what seems like a dead line.  More than
once, I have plaid back the response tape just for fun and heard that
familiar sound of a room full of voices plus a frustrated sigh from
the telemarketer who just can't figure out what is happening.  I guess
some of us are easily entertained.  Anything that wastes a
telemarketer's time is hurting them the only way they understand.

       Is this the mature thing to do?  Who cairs?  If I knew some
magic signal to send down the line to cause their telemarketing setup
to halt and catch fire, I'd do that in a minute.  It would be a lot
more fun.

Martin McCormick

1998\11\19@133620 by Nigel Orr

flavicon
face
At 19:46 05/11/98 -0700, you wrote:
>If the phone company detects someone is calling you without proper caller-ID
>information, they intercept the call and play a message to the caller

It's called ACR- a European Directive requires all EU 'phone suppliers to
supply this to customers with Caller-ID by 24th October 1998- BT in the UK
are apparently aiming to launch it in November/December...

The other system being discussed is called predictive dialling

(Just thought it might be helpful to have the right terms, if anyone is
wanting to web-search for more info... there's been discussion of both on
uk.telecom recently...)

>Now, if someone could come up with a PIC and ISD voice chip approach to
>avoid the monthly fee.... :-)

Several UK people are doing/have done this- unfortunately we use various
flavours of incompatible caller-ID, depending on the phone/cable company
(including the BT version sent before the first ring, designed for remote
meter reading etc), so a generic product is a bit tricky...

Nigel

1998\11\19@142153 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face
I have long wished for a phone that had a CID driven ringer, with a
clock and a memory.

Three classes of callers.

Family (anyone in the list keyed in by me, boss, friends etc)
Identified callers (anyone that idents in their CID)
Unidentified callers. (unavailable, blocked, any other synonyms for
sleaze)

Family can ring at any time.  Sister can call with an emergency at 03:00

Identified callers can ring between hours I set.  No calls at 2AM
looking for "is willis there?"

Unidentified callers can bite me.

Anyone who the phone is filtering dosent' even get to hit the ringer.
The phone answers the line, and then disconnects. Too bad, so sad. A
recorded message might be played, or the phone might take a message.

Some perverse people might want to allow unidentified callers at some
hours, but there are good treatments available for those tendencies now.

1998\11\19@143611 by Eric Smith

flavicon
face
> As an enhancement to this approach, I remember reading recently about a
> service one of the RBOC's is going to offer for a monthly fee.
>
> If the phone company detects someone is calling you without proper caller-ID
> information, they intercept the call and play a message to the caller
> telling them that the phone number doesn't automatically accept non-ID
> calls. It then asks the caller to leave his/her name, which it records. If
> the person doesn't leave a name, the caller is hung up on. If the caller
> does leave a name, the phone company calls you and plays the recorded name,
> and asks if you want to accept the call. Only if you accept at that point
> does the call actually go through.
>
> I would guess that this system is pretty foolproof, since most solicitors
> won't be willing to leave a name, in which case you won't even be
> interrupted.

Here in California, our wonderful phone company (SBC dba Pacific Bell)
offers Anonymous Call Reject.  Callers that have their ID blocked will
get a message explaining that they will have to unblock if they want
to call the number, and how to do that.  They do not get to leave a
message.

Sounds great in theory.  But in practice, it only handles *blocked* number
calls.  It doesn't handle "unavailable" numbers.  There are many reasons
why a number can be "unavailable" without it being blocked.  For instance,
if the caller is behind a PBX, the number is often "unavailable".

Guess what 99.9% of telemarketers show up as?

Like others have described here, I want a system of my own (not a service
of The Phone Company) that will keep my phone from ringing until after the
caller ID has been received, and divert the call to voice mail if the
number is unavailable for *ANY* reason.

It is entirely reasonable to implement this with a PIC or SX.  In fact, the
caller ID demodulation (Bell 202) can be done entirely in software on an
SX.

I haven't figured out how to suppress the first ring, without actually
disconnecting the phones from the line.  I know it's possible; I used to
have a little box with a switch that did exactly that.  Any suggestions
will be welcome; analog stuff is not my forte.

Cheers,
Eric

1998\11\19@145051 by Steve Ridley

flavicon
face
Since there seems to be some interest in telemarketing call rejection. It
may be of some comfort to know I have developed a simple device along
similar lines to those being discussed in this stream. And yes, it is a PIC
based device hence my interest in this news group. I am in the process of
finalising several patents and I prefer not to say more about it at present.
With some luck and a lot of hard work you will see my device in the shops
early next year.

Steve Ridley
Blue Ocean Telecommunications

{Original Message removed}

1998\11\19@145107 by Dennis Plunkett

flavicon
face
At 19:46 5/11/98 -0700, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

This would work, pitty that the line would be tied up during the message bit
though. That's where the RBOC system is best.
It is quite easy to do at home, a few components a PIC and wahlaa! There it
be, but the voice mail bit would be a little tricky, so just divert the call
to an answering machine (Cheep one that is).

While other systems exist, it would be fun to put the data into the PC, and
let it do a directory search to find the owner of the number. Just for
interset sake, and the caller ID be turned off by the calling party as it
can in Australia?


Dennis

1998\11\19@165043 by Mark

flavicon
face
I think most of us wish that something like this were available but it
isn't and that yould ring bells -there are good reasons....

> I have long wished for a phone that had a CID driven ringer, with a
> clock and a memory.
>
> Three classes of callers.
>
> Family (anyone in the list keyed in by me, boss, friends etc)
> Identified callers (anyone that idents in their CID)
> Unidentified callers. (unavailable, blocked, any other synonyms for
> sleaze)
>
> Family can ring at any time.  Sister can call with an emergency at 03:00

Unless she's calling from a phone booth (or her cell) after a car
accident.


> Identified callers can ring between hours I set.  No calls at 2AM
> looking for "is willis there?"

See above.

> Unidentified callers can bite me.

Again.

> Anyone who the phone is filtering dosent' even get to hit the ringer.
> The phone answers the line, and then disconnects. Too bad, so sad. A
> recorded message might be played, or the phone might take a message.

The caller ID data is sent between the 1st and 2nd rings, so you
must *suppress* the first ring. This implies that your wonder box
must be at the telephone entry and all extensions must be piped
through it. BTW, it should 'fail-safe' into passing all calls (both
ways) during a power failure.


Mark Hillier
President, HVW Technologies
TakeThisOuTMarkEraseMEspamspam_OUTHVWTech.com
Tel:(403)730-8603 Fax:(403)730-8903
Visit our web site: http://www.hvwtech.com

1998\11\20@070002 by Bob Drzyzgula

flavicon
face
Hi.

Yes, this is my first post to PICLIST. I've been reading it
for a few days; congratulations all on a remarkably well
behaved and friendly list.

On Thu, Nov 05, 1998 at 12:16:23PM -0500, Harold Hallikainen wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 1998 22:20:55 -0500 John Hansen <RemoveMEhansenspamTakeThisOuTAIT.FREDONIA.EDU>
> writes:
>
> >I've been looking into this as well.  My theory is that most of the=
> > automated calling services these days have about one second of silence
>
>         I don't think the delay is intentional or reliable...

Certainly the whole system is intentional, and they don't
seem to care that it doesn't work perfectly or that it
annoys people. Somehow I doubt that it is high on their
list of problems to fix. :-)

> If the person receiving the call
> answers a little earlier than expected, or the telemarketers take a
> little longer than expected to complete the call, there is a short delay
> before a telemarketer is available to have the call handed to.

Or not. I find that, more often than not (I assume)
there is no telemarketer available, so rather than pay
the message units for a dead call they just drop the
connection. I can't count the number of times I've rushed
to the phone only to hear a click and silence.

>         So, there is generally a delay from zero to several seconds.  I
> use the detected silence to quickly hang up when answering calls.  The
> other great device to deter telemarketing calls is to just turn off all
> the ringers and let an answering machine handle the call.  If you hear
> someone leaving a message that you'd like to talk with, pick up the
> phone!

I've found that Caller ID is quite reliable in
predicting telemarking calls. While they don't tend
to use ID blocking, they do tend to sit on the other side of
non-SS7-enabled PBXs, so there is no Caller ID info at
all. This way you can't tell who they are, but it doesn't
get trapped by anonymous call rejection either. Thus,
since getting caller ID and figuring this out, I've simply
stopped answering any calls with no ID. This seems to
knock out about 90% of those calls, although they do tend
to call more often as a result. The very small number of
welcome calls that get blocked this way are easily handled
by the answering machine.

I would say then, that a device that could spot a call
with no ID and immediately hand it over to the answering
machine (and a message that politely says "we do not respond to
telephone solicitations"), would probably be quite effective.

--Bob

--
============================================================
Bob Drzyzgula                             It's not a problem
bobEraseMEspam.....drzyzgula.org                until something bad happens
============================================================

1998\11\20@071434 by shadedemon

picon face
My favorite is to keep a tape recorder handy, ask them the
name of the company, and to put me on thier do not call
list.  Once you do that, if the company ever calls your
number again, you get $500 and the phone company will
enforce that, and I believe you also get it if they refuse
to provide the comany name..


Harold Hallikainen wrote:
>
>se the detected silence to quickly hang up when answering calls.  The
> other great device to deter telemarketing calls is to just turn off all
> the ringers and let an answering machine handle the call.  If you hear
> someone leaving a message that you'd like to talk with, pick up the
> phone!
>
> Harold

1998\11\20@074054 by Harold Hallikainen

picon face
On Wed, 4 Nov 1998 22:20:55 -0500 John Hansen <EraseMEhansenspamAIT.FREDONIA.EDU>
writes:

>I've been looking into this as well.  My theory is that most of the=
> automated calling services these days have about one second of silence
after you
>pick  up the phone, but before you are connected to the salesperson.

       I don't think the delay is intentional or reliable.  I believe
it's the call distributing system detecting an answer (possibly using a
signal from the central office?), then passing the call to the next
available telemarketer.  I believe the call distributing system
anticipates call durations and dials out based on that anticipated
duration.  If it works out just right, a telemarketer is handed the call
just as he/she finishes a previous call and as the person receiving the
call gets the receiver to his/her ear.  If the person receiving the call
answers a little earlier than expected, or the telemarketers take a
little longer than expected to complete the call, there is a short delay
before a telemarketer is available to have the call handed to.
       So, there is generally a delay from zero to several seconds.  I
use the detected silence to quickly hang up when answering calls.  The
other great device to deter telemarketing calls is to just turn off all
the ringers and let an answering machine handle the call.  If you hear
someone leaving a message that you'd like to talk with, pick up the
phone!

Harold


Harold Hallikainen
RemoveMEharoldEraseMEspamEraseMEhallikainen.com
Hallikainen & Friends, Inc.
See the FCC Rules at http://hallikainen.com/FccRules and comments filed
in LPFM proceeding at http://hallikainen.com/lpfm

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

1998\11\20@075920 by Marc

flavicon
face
> telemarketer is listening to what seems like a dead line.  More than
> once, I have plaid back the response tape just for fun and heard that
> familiar sound of a room full of voices plus a frustrated sigh from
> the telemarketer who just can't figure out what is happening.  I guess
> some of us are easily entertained.  Anything that wastes a
> telemarketer's time is hurting them the only way they understand.

I don't understand the problem. Probably because I live in a country where
telemarketing is not allowed.

Isn't it possible to just announce a message "We don't accept calls from
telemarketers. If you are one hang up now, otherwise stay on the line."?
This announcement could easily be done with a FAX diverter, that answers
with the message and checks for the FAX calling tone. As this never
arrives (on voice calls), it will ring your phone right after the msg.

No need to develop a new device?

1998\11\21@194350 by Mark Willis

flavicon
face
Marc wrote:
>
> > telemarketer is listening to what seems like a dead line.  More than
> > once, I have plaid back the response tape just for fun and heard that
> > familiar sound of a room full of voices plus a frustrated sigh from
> > the telemarketer who just can't figure out what is happening.  I guess
> > some of us are easily entertained.  Anything that wastes a
> > telemarketer's time is hurting them the only way they understand.
>
> I don't understand the problem. Probably because I live in a country where
> telemarketing is not allowed.
>
> Isn't it possible to just announce a message "We don't accept calls from
> telemarketers. If you are one hang up now, otherwise stay on the line."?
> This announcement could easily be done with a FAX diverter, that answers
> with the message and checks for the FAX calling tone. As this never
> arrives (on voice calls), it will ring your phone right after the msg.
>
> No need to develop a new device?

 I think the problem is that some (at least) of these obnoxious people
don't care what you want - they just want to meet their quota of calls
to make for the day, get their check, and get out of job HELL (Everyone
I know who's ever been a telemarketer HATED their job, some took it out
on those they called...  Crummy low-wage job, too.  Most are reformed
now.)

 Real thing to do is hurt the telemarketers' employers, but that's
TOUGH!  Short of outlawing telemarketing completely (Hmmm, wonder if I
can get a state initiative together on that <VBG>)

 Your suggestion is a good idea, but it's a bit like solving a home
break-in wave by putting up signs that ask the burglars to please stop;
Doesn't necessarily work very well.  Something that gets them to tak you
off their calling list, is more likely to work <G>

 Mark, RemoveMEmwillisspam_OUTspamKILLspamnwlink.com

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1998 , 1999 only
- Today
- New search...