I use Charter as my phone service. They offer several caller
services. I wish they would offer a service where you have to press 0
to connect the call. The phone shouldn't even ring at the home
without someone pressing 0 to connect. I have suggested this to tech
support, but I get the feeling lots more need to make the same
request.

On 4/13/2016 12:55 PM, Seymore4Head wrote:
I use Charter as my phone service. They offer several caller
services. I wish they would offer a service where you have to press 0
to connect the call. The phone shouldn't even ring at the home
without someone pressing 0 to connect. I have suggested this to tech
support, but I get the feeling lots more need to make the same
request.

Any canned, repeatable solution like that would easily be
worked-around by the robodialers -- they would emit the
tones for '0' as soon as the call was answered (just in case
this line happened to have that "feature").

Pick a digit, any digit... OK, we'll just blindly send
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 in a 1 second long medley and satisfy
all of the above.

You need something that requires the caller to demonstrate:
- comprehension of english (so they are LISTENING to what they
will be instructed to do)
- the ability to respond to the *current* requirements (not just
some general process)

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:03:47 -0700, Don Y
wrote:

On 4/13/2016 12:55 PM, Seymore4Head wrote:
I use Charter as my phone service. They offer several caller
services. I wish they would offer a service where you have to press 0
to connect the call. The phone shouldn't even ring at the home
without someone pressing 0 to connect. I have suggested this to tech
support, but I get the feeling lots more need to make the same
request.

Any canned, repeatable solution like that would easily be
worked-around by the robodialers -- they would emit the
tones for '0' as soon as the call was answered (just in case
this line happened to have that "feature").

Pick a digit, any digit... OK, we'll just blindly send
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 in a 1 second long medley and satisfy
all of the above.

You need something that requires the caller to demonstrate:
- comprehension of english (so they are LISTENING to what they
will be instructed to do)
- the ability to respond to the *current* requirements (not just
some general process)

What I would really like is for Charter to whitelist my calls. If I
have dialed a number in the past then Charter can route the call
through. If the caller is not on the whitelist go to voice mail
without ringing the phone.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:55:34 -0400, Seymore4Head
wrote:

I use Charter as my phone service. They offer several caller
services. I wish they would offer a service where you have to press 0
to connect the call. The phone shouldn't even ring at the home
without someone pressing 0 to connect. I have suggested this to tech
support, but I get the feeling lots more need to make the same
request.

Go on the Internet, and complain.

On 4/13/16 3:55 PM, Seymore4Head wrote:
I use Charter as my phone service. They offer several caller
services. I wish they would offer a service where you have to press 0
to connect the call. The phone shouldn't even ring at the home
without someone pressing 0 to connect. I have suggested this to tech
support, but I get the feeling lots more need to make the same
request.


You could try NoMoRoBo except that Charter apparently does not support
it. They need to have a service called "Simultaneous Ringing". We have
it on our Comcast VoIP line, and it works great.

https://nomorobo.zendesk.com/hc/en-u...Are-Supported-

FWIW, they answer detected robo calls with a "challenge". The caller,
if human, can enter 2 digits that the challenge provides them. The
numbers are random per call.

On 4/13/2016 4:29 PM, Seymore4Head wrote:


What I would really like is for Charter to whitelist my calls. If I
have dialed a number in the past then Charter can route the call
through. If the caller is not on the whitelist go to voice mail
without ringing the phone.


You called the doctor and now he is calling back on another line that
you never called. His call goes right to voice mail. Same with the
pharmacy telling you your meds are ready. I prefer to answer the few
call I get an hang up.

On 04/13/2016 02:55 PM, Seymore4Head wrote:
I use Charter as my phone service. They offer several caller
services. I wish they would offer a service where you have to press 0
to connect the call. The phone shouldn't even ring at the home
without someone pressing 0 to connect. I have suggested this to tech
support, but I get the feeling lots more need to make the same
request.




I signed up with "nomorobo"

I also use AT&T that gives me the ability to block numbers


Between the two option very few unwanted calls get through.


The phone rings one time only...so I never answer on the first ring

On 04/13/2016 03:03 PM, Don Y wrote:

[snip]

You need something that requires the caller to demonstrate:
- comprehension of english (so they are LISTENING to what they
will be instructed to do)
- the ability to respond to the *current* requirements (not just
some general process)

The challenge could be "press 3 to connect" (changing the number each
time), then disables ringing if it receives any other tones on the line
(so 0123456789 wouldn't work).

I used to have a challenge system on my phone (although the number was
always 1). It was not useful. Robocallers never "pressed" 1, and neither
did a lot of the callers I wanted to get.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Meaning is a human construct, and therefore I can assign life whatever
meaning I wish." - Peter Berger, in aa

On 04/13/2016 04:54 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

[snip]

You called the doctor and now he is calling back on another line that
you never called.

Businesses often make calls from a different number that the one
advertised for you to use (different lines for incoming & outgoing makes
sense there).

His call goes right to voice mail. Same with the
pharmacy telling you your meds are ready.

I order refills by internet, and get notified by an automatic system. It
won't "press 1".

I prefer to answer the few
call I get an hang up.

I look at the called ID and don't answer most calls, and junk callers
(usually) don't leave a message. Recent calls I don't want have shown:

* TOLL FREE CALL
* city st
* meaningless name (like "FAV", "ETS INC", "customr serv")
* OUT OF AREA (at last one of these left a message, and was an IRS scam)
* charities (real or fake) like "TEXAS COPS", "MUSCULAR DYSTROP",
"DONATE THAT CAR"
* SURVEY

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Meaning is a human construct, and therefore I can assign life whatever
meaning I wish." - Peter Berger, in aa

On 4/14/2016 1:48 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 04/13/2016 03:03 PM, Don Y wrote:

You need something that requires the caller to demonstrate:
- comprehension of english (so they are LISTENING to what they
will be instructed to do)
- the ability to respond to the *current* requirements (not just
some general process)

The challenge could be "press 3 to connect" (changing the number each time),
then disables ringing if it receives any other tones on the line (so 0123456789
wouldn't work).

I used to have a challenge system on my phone (although the number was always
1). It was not useful. Robocallers never "pressed" 1, and neither did a lot of
the callers I wanted to get.

The "challenge" has to be something that the caller engages without any
deliberate consideration on their part.

Likewise, the "telephone agent" needs to itself be unobtrusive. A phone
that "rings once" has still interrupted you. Worse, it now has you
waiting to see if this is a legitimate call, or not. (i.e., any agent
acting on your behalf should hide *all* unwanted contacts from you -- not
tell you "someone is calling... but, wait... no, you don't want to talk
to them, nevermind").

I look at CID for incoming calls. If it is blocked, then I'm almost certain
that I don't want to speak to that entity; it's a small hurdle to request
that they unblock their CID before calling us -- we have programmed our dialer
to automatically do it for the folks in our address books (so those
people can have the same respect shown to them that we expect *of* them).

If the CID is obviously bogus (e.g., *my* name), then it is also dumped.
(ever received an email from yourself? And, was it something that you
actually wanted to read? : )

When the "agent" answers the phone (on my behalf), it already has *some*
information (of dubious reliability) regarding the caller -- if the caller
is legitimate. Just like an observant personal secretary would recognize
a CID of "Tina Lloyd" as likely related to *you* (or, perhaps known to be
your spouse). So, it can then look for *confirmation* of the suspected
identity: does the caller *sound* like Tina? (agent has heard tina's
voice before and, each time she calls, gets better at "recognizing" it!)
Has the caller interrupted the OGM by pressing the N-digit access code
that *Tina* knows (which is different from the one that Thomas would use)?

Is the caller attempting contact at a time that is would normally be expected?
E.g., I don't expect calls from clients when I'm asleep; they should be
using email for that!

Then, how does that potential contact fit with the current "call acceptance"
criteria *known* to the telephone agent? Even if it is within the acceptable
time/DoW criteria, have we elected enhanced privacy, presently (watching a
movie, eating dinner -- the time of which changes from day to day, napping,
running errands, etc.)? How much information do we want the agent to
*leak* about our current situation? E.g., if we are out of the house,
do we want the agent to TELL a caller, that?

And, just like a personal secretary, the caller should be able to interact
with the agent: "Would you like me to see if he can come to the phone?"
A considerate caller would only respond "Yes" if it was of some importance,
knowing that they would be regarded as "pushy" for doing so -- you wouldn't
offer this option to "everyone". A caller abusing this might not be offered
the option in the future. Or, the agent might elect to *lie*: offer to
contact the desired recipient... but "return(FAIL)" instead (so the
recipient isn't BOTHERED by the caller!)

Note that a personal secretary would also LEARN from the responses/directions
of the recipient. I.e., if he routinely says "take a message" when Bob calls,
then there's no need to bother him when Bob calls, again. Instead, go through
the motions of letting Bob *think* you've tried to locate the recipient but
have failed (just like every other previous attempt!) and are now offering Bob
the consolation prize: the ability to leave a message.

[Of course, you can also leave a custom OGM *for* Bob -- so you don't have
to be bothered when he calls *or* home at the time: "We'll meet you at
the restaurant. We left a few minutes early (which is why we missed your
call) so that we could drop off some things at the Post Office -- and you
know how slow THEY can be!"]

The more the caller expects to be able to do when calling, the more certain
I need to be of his/her identity *and*, with that, the permissions associated!
E.g., if a close friend wants to wake me at some ungodly time (e.g., before
noon), I really want to be reasonably confident that it IS that friend and
not someone who would like to abuse that friend's special state of privilege!

Yet, you want this "verification" action to be natural; like a caller
trying to convince your secretary that they really ARE your spouse and
you SHOULD be interrupted, regardless of how important the meeting in
which you might be engaged!

This implicitly makes it hard for robots and spammers to even KNOW what
would be important to YOU. It's not just a "single digit" sort of challenge.

I've been using USENET as a means of testing these learning algorithms.
I.e., treat USENET messages as incoming phone calls (they happen at a much
higher frequency than real telephone calls so your algorithm "gets a better
workout" than if I had to wait for thousands of phone calls to evaluate
its effectiveness!) So, USENET messages that I opt NOT to read are the
equivalent of incoming phone calls that I've been informed of (by that
"telephone agent", played by my news agent!) and have implicitly "told"
to ignore. Soon, the messages just don't show up -- because my news
agent knows I'm not interested in them.

Just like I won't be bothered by calls from Solar City because the phone
agent will have learned that -- when informed they are on the line -- I
never want to spend any time talking to them. Even if I don't explicitly
say "block all calls from Solar City"!

This seems to work delightfully! I don't have to *do* anything that I
wouldn't normally have to do if I had a personal assistant acting on my
behalf.

The problem I've yet to resolve is: how to re-enable contacts from folks
that my actions have implicitly blocked. I.e., how do I KNOW that Solar
City is being blocked (because the agent LEARNED this from observing my
actions) and how do I tell it to "forget" what it has learned and, once
again, ALLOW contact from Solar City.

[And, to do this without requiring the user to sit in front of a
computer screen and "edit" a list of rules/blocks]

On 4/14/16 5:50 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 4/14/2016 1:48 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 04/13/2016 03:03 PM, Don Y wrote:

You need something that requires the caller to demonstrate:
- comprehension of english (so they are LISTENING to what they
will be instructed to do)
- the ability to respond to the *current* requirements (not just
some general process)

The challenge could be "press 3 to connect" (changing the number
each time),
then disables ringing if it receives any other tones on the line (so
0123456789
wouldn't work).

I used to have a challenge system on my phone (although the number
was always
1). It was not useful. Robocallers never "pressed" 1, and neither
did a lot of
the callers I wanted to get.

The "challenge" has to be something that the caller engages without any
deliberate consideration on their part.

Likewise, the "telephone agent" needs to itself be unobtrusive. A phone
that "rings once" has still interrupted you. Worse, it now has you
waiting to see if this is a legitimate call, or not. (i.e., any agent
acting on your behalf should hide *all* unwanted contacts from you -- not
tell you "someone is calling... but, wait... no, you don't want to talk
to them, nevermind").



snip

Given what seems to be available now, I'll trade a "one ring" system,
like NoMoRoBo, for having to run over and look at the Caller ID for
every call. (Yes, I could carry around a cordless phone w/CiD all day,
but I'm not about to do that either).

AYMK, Nomorobo tests all calls against their database of known
telemarketers, spammers, etc. If they get a hit, that's the "one ring"
and no more. If no hit, then the call is put through as normal. If the
hit happens to be "human", they are given a random 2 digit challenge
to get the call put through.

Could it be better ? Probably only when the telcos get their act
together and offer a comprehensive service like you propose.

On 4/14/2016 3:10 PM, Retired wrote:

Given what seems to be available now, I'll trade a "one ring" system, like
NoMoRoBo, for having to run over and look at the Caller ID for every call.
(Yes, I could carry around a cordless phone w/CiD all day, but I'm not about to
do that either).

A lot of it depends on your attitude towards The Phone, in general.

I see the phone as existing for the convenience of the CALLER, not the
CALLEE. People call when it is convenient for THEM, not *you*. People
call when THEY want something (rarely to inquire if YOU want something).

A consequence of this is that they call when it suits THEIR schedule -- which
may not be appropriate to YOUR schedule.

E.g., I don't work 9-to-5 but, rather, when I want and on whatever I want.
So, YOU calling when YOU are interested in something from me will probably
not be at a time when I'm thinking or working on YOUR project -- *if*
I'm even working at all!

If I have a question about something, I don't pick up the phone and call you
for an immediate answer; because it's probably 2A where I am, who knows what
time it will be in YOUR timezone -- and, you're probably asleep (or its
YOUR WEEKEND). So, why should you be able to bother me on *my* off times?

[Do I have to decide, ahead of time, what my schedule will be for this
week and convey that to you so that you can contact me at an appropriate
time -- FOR ME?]

And, how often are those contacts really to address "immediate needs"?
How many are folks just wanting to shoot the sh*t? Or, want to muse
out loud over a problem they are trying to resolve (Great! More than
willing to share my opinions with you! But, on terms that make sense
to ME, not you!)

Library calls to tell you a book is overdue -- will it be more or less
overdue if I "take a message" instead of dropping what I am doing to
field the call when it arrives?

Provider (doctor/dentist/lawyer/accountant/etc.) calls to inform you
of an appointment, provide test results, ask for a clarification, etc.
Do they REALLY need it at that instant? What would they have done
had you not been "HOME"?

AYMK, Nomorobo tests all calls against their database of known telemarketers,

So, a scammer that changes their CID can slip through the cracks.
How will they handle "Retired's Spouse" for the CID? Or, "Retired's
Grandkid"?

spammers, etc. If they get a hit, that's the "one ring" and no more. If no hit,
then the call is put through as normal. If the hit happens to be "human", they
are given a random 2 digit challenge to get the call put through.

So, no way to avoid calls from your boss when you're taking the day
off, "sick", etc. No way to tailor your response to the caller.

Boss calls: "(cough) Hi, sniffle I'm sorry I can't come to the (cough,
cough cough) phone, right now. But, if you leave a sniffle
message, snort I'll try to get back to you..."
Friend calls: "I'll meet you at the show at 1:15! Bring munchies!"
Kids call: "Sorry, we're both out working our second jobs -- despite
our both being well into retirement. Just trying to make
ends meet..."
Grandkids call: "Hi Timmy! Are you anxious to come and see us, next week??"

Could it be better ? Probably only when the telcos get their act together and
offer a comprehensive service like you propose.

I can't see it being offered by a third party as it is too personal and
requires too much information about your particular preferences. Along
with lots of data collection for each "client" and "caller".

Note that "answering services" are a legacy approach to this problem.
For a fee, a human will interact with callers and (hopefully) try to
resolve their needs in terms that are appropriate to you (their client).

In the business world, a secretary usually did this -- better (but at
a higher cost).

On 4/14/2016 2:50 PM, Don Y wrote:

snip

Likewise, the "telephone agent" needs to itself be unobtrusive. A phone
that "rings once" has still interrupted you. Worse, it now has you
waiting to see if this is a legitimate call, or not. (i.e., any agent
acting on your behalf should hide *all* unwanted contacts from you -- not
tell you "someone is calling... but, wait... no, you don't want to talk
to them, nevermind").

When I had Ring.To there were seven or eight one or two ring calls per
day. Then they dropped the call. It was quite annoying.

With Google Voice this problem has almost ended. One telemarketer that
calls about every day "consider this your final notice..." still manages
to get through somehow.

On 4/14/16 6:33 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 4/14/2016 3:10 PM, Retired wrote:

Given what seems to be available now, I'll trade a "one ring"
system, like
NoMoRoBo, for having to run over and look at the Caller ID for every
call.
(Yes, I could carry around a cordless phone w/CiD all day, but I'm
not about to
do that either).

A lot of it depends on your attitude towards The Phone, in general.

Snip

AYMK, Nomorobo tests all calls against their database of known
telemarketers,

So, a scammer that changes their CID can slip through the cracks.
How will they handle "Retired's Spouse" for the CID? Or, "Retired's
Grandkid"?


Nomo use ANI, not CiD, which is the actual # the call was placed from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automa...identification
ANI is not available to consumers, only telcos, or telco-like companies.




spammers, etc. If they get a hit, that's the "one ring" and no more.
If no hit,
then the call is put through as normal. If the hit happens to be
"human", they
are given a random 2 digit challenge to get the call put through.

So, no way to avoid calls from your boss when you're taking the day
off, "sick", etc. No way to tailor your response to the caller.


Just don't answer, let it go to voice mail like we used to.



Could it be better ? Probably only when the telcos get their act
together and
offer a comprehensive service like you propose.

I can't see it being offered by a third party as it is too personal and
requires too much information about your particular preferences. Along
with lots of data collection for each "client" and "caller".

Note that "answering services" are a legacy approach to this problem.
For a fee, a human will interact with callers and (hopefully) try to
resolve their needs in terms that are appropriate to you (their client).

In the business world, a secretary usually did this -- better (but at
a higher cost).

On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 4:40:12 PM UTC-7, philo wrote:

I signed up with "nomorobo"
I also use AT&T that gives me the ability to block numbers
Between the two option very few unwanted calls get through.
The phone rings one time only...so I never answer on the first ring

Same here, but that one ring will still disturb "nap" time. :-)
Set up Nomorobo a year ago, but failed to properly engage their "locate me" feature properly until a few weeks ago.
Works great now

On 4/14/2016 6:10 PM, Retired wrote:
Given what seems to be available now, I'll trade a "one ring" system, like NoMoRoBo, for having to run over and look at the Caller ID for every call. (Yes, I could carry around a cordless phone w/CiD all day, but I'm not about to do that either).

NoMoRoBo is built in to Ooma so you don't ever hear the "one ring".

On 4/14/2016 5:17 PM, Retired wrote:
On 4/14/16 6:33 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 4/14/2016 3:10 PM, Retired wrote:

Given what seems to be available now, I'll trade a "one ring"
system, like
NoMoRoBo, for having to run over and look at the Caller ID for every
call.
(Yes, I could carry around a cordless phone w/CiD all day, but I'm
not about to
do that either).

A lot of it depends on your attitude towards The Phone, in general.

Snip

AYMK, Nomorobo tests all calls against their database of known
telemarketers,

So, a scammer that changes their CID can slip through the cracks.
How will they handle "Retired's Spouse" for the CID? Or, "Retired's
Grandkid"?

Nomo use ANI, not CiD, which is the actual # the call was placed from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automa...identification
ANI is not available to consumers, only telcos, or telco-like companies.

ANI *and* CID can both be hacked. Both rely on trusting the providers.
Does that VoIP call center in India that handles LEGITIMATE contacts for
your bank, etc. AND abuses from hackers wanting to CLAIM to be your
bank strictly follow all rules? Do all of it's clients (running
VoIP PBX's of their own) also ensure all data reported is accurate
and current?

Ask yourself how police departments are "SWATted". SURELY *they* would
have access to the most accurate call identification technologies
on the planet!?

spammers, etc. If they get a hit, that's the "one ring" and no more.
If no hit,
then the call is put through as normal. If the hit happens to be
"human", they
are given a random 2 digit challenge to get the call put through.

So, no way to avoid calls from your boss when you're taking the day
off, "sick", etc. No way to tailor your response to the caller.

Just don't answer, let it go to voice mail like we used to.

So, you've been disturbed by someone who *might* be of interest to
you. Or not.

How often have you seen a secretary answer the boss's phone, figure out
who the caller is, then ASK the boss if he/she wants to take the call?
I.e., bothering the boss with EVERY incoming call (from a human being).

Most people want more than just "block the telemarketers" -- because
these are basically "pests" and anyone can be classified as a "pest"
over time.

[It's fun to watch folks with whom you are conversing glance at their
cell phone for an incoming call -- then decide to ignore it... often
commenting to you: "It's my daughter; I'll call her back when I
have time..." Had the phone NOT rung while we were chatting, the
end result would have been the same -- the call's receipt "registered"
for action later.]

I stopped answering telephone calls from clients more than 10 (20?) years
ago. Politely and cheerily returning their calls at inopportune times
(for THEM): "Oh, you're getting ready to go home for the weekend? Well,
why not give me a call next week, sometime. Or, drop me a note in email
when you get a chance..."

But *PROMPTLY* returning any communications via email.
"I just tried calling you but got your machine. I need to know..."
"Yeah, I'm not at home, right now. Sorry. But, to answer your
questions..."
Of course, they have no way of knowing if I'm sitting at home or on the
beach in Aruba. Nor should they care!

[It doesn't take long for folks to realize that they'll get the
INFORMATION they want more quickly and reliably if they use email!
OTOH, if they want "social contact", they'll have to find some other
outlet -- or, get a puppy! My relationship with them is on a business
level, not personal/social one.]

Could it be better ? Probably only when the telcos get their act
together and
offer a comprehensive service like you propose.

I can't see it being offered by a third party as it is too personal and
requires too much information about your particular preferences. Along
with lots of data collection for each "client" and "caller".

Note that "answering services" are a legacy approach to this problem.
For a fee, a human will interact with callers and (hopefully) try to
resolve their needs in terms that are appropriate to you (their client).

In the business world, a secretary usually did this -- better (but at
a higher cost).

On 4/14/2016 4:50 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/14/2016 2:50 PM, Don Y wrote:

snip

Likewise, the "telephone agent" needs to itself be unobtrusive. A phone
that "rings once" has still interrupted you. Worse, it now has you
waiting to see if this is a legitimate call, or not. (i.e., any agent
acting on your behalf should hide *all* unwanted contacts from you -- not
tell you "someone is calling... but, wait... no, you don't want to talk
to them, nevermind").

When I had Ring.To there were seven or eight one or two ring calls per day.
Then they dropped the call. It was quite annoying.

Of course! Your ears perk up, you suspend what you were doing and *wait*
to see if the phone WILL resume ringing ("Oh, goodie! A live person to
bother/interrupt me, instead of just a spammer! I wonder who it is and
whether I actually want to talk to them, now?")

With Google Voice this problem has almost ended. One telemarketer that calls
about every day "consider this your final notice..." still manages to get
through somehow.

They have a financial incentive to beat whatever system you use.
Using a canned, COTS system makes it easy for them to share
information as to how to work around those systems.

On 04/14/2016 07:50 PM, Shade Tree Guy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 4:40:12 PM UTC-7, philo wrote:

I signed up with "nomorobo"
I also use AT&T that gives me the ability to block numbers
Between the two option very few unwanted calls get through.
The phone rings one time only...so I never answer on the first ring

Same here, but that one ring will still disturb "nap" time. :-)
Set up Nomorobo a year ago, but failed to properly engage their "locate me" feature properly until a few weeks ago.
Works great now




Even though I'm 66, I started taking naps at age 25, so it's not because
I'm old.

Anyway...I have the ringer turned off in my bedroom so, the one ring is
not too much of a problem.