annoying phone calls
Nov. 7th, 2006 01:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kengr(sparked by a post in ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
griffen's LJ)
The post was about political calls with weird numbers like 800-000-000
Anybody with a PBX, most types of call center gear and even some sorts of ISDN line equipment can set the caller ID info to anything they like.
There *are* legit uses for this.
I'm surprised that you got a number at all. Most of the ones I've been getting were "Out-of-area" (which means "no caller ID info received").
I've seen a few weirdies. Like a 703 area code number that gave an 866 areacode number as the *name* part of the Caller ID info. Or the 206 code call that gave "Out of Area" as the name (probably a programming error by whoever was trying to spoof things.
Me, I'd like to see the law set to require that *valid* caller ID be present on all "telemarketing" type calls, including surveys and political calls.
By valid I mean that the number that showed would be a legit number for the organization calling. And the name shown should be appropriate (ie either the company calling, or the company they are calling for.
Only exception would be for "local area only" calls in areas where the phone switches aren't set up for caller ID.
I'd also like to revive an old Oregon law that was thrown out (improperly, in my opinion) as violating free speech. It forbade "robot" calls. There had to be a human being, at least long enough to see if the called person wanted the call.
The argument (something about making it unreasonably hard for small businesses to do telemarketing) is pretty much null and void given things like the federal Do Not Call list, which the cheap machines can't be programmed to obey anyway (they just call *all* the numbers in an exchange).
I'd also forbid the practice of having the automated gear dial several numbers at once for a single staffer. The idea is that odds favor only one answering (if any do). My reason for outlawing it is that if more than one line answers, the machine *hangs up* on all but the first to answer, since it doesn't have a person to connect them to.
And I'd either make it illegal for calls to cell phones or any other phone where the called party has to pay for the call. Or require the phone companies to find a way to charge the caller the per minute charges.
If we did this at the federal level, it'd even be possible to make the phone companies add the programming to track call patterns that indicate telemarketing type calls, and look for violations (like not having the proper Caller ID info or calling numbers on the Do Not Call list).
Large fines could then be levied. Might be a thought to have part of them go into a fund to pay for the extra expenses of the phone company in tracking these things.
griffen's LJ)The post was about political calls with weird numbers like 800-000-000
Anybody with a PBX, most types of call center gear and even some sorts of ISDN line equipment can set the caller ID info to anything they like.
There *are* legit uses for this.
I'm surprised that you got a number at all. Most of the ones I've been getting were "Out-of-area" (which means "no caller ID info received").
I've seen a few weirdies. Like a 703 area code number that gave an 866 areacode number as the *name* part of the Caller ID info. Or the 206 code call that gave "Out of Area" as the name (probably a programming error by whoever was trying to spoof things.
Me, I'd like to see the law set to require that *valid* caller ID be present on all "telemarketing" type calls, including surveys and political calls.
By valid I mean that the number that showed would be a legit number for the organization calling. And the name shown should be appropriate (ie either the company calling, or the company they are calling for.
Only exception would be for "local area only" calls in areas where the phone switches aren't set up for caller ID.
I'd also like to revive an old Oregon law that was thrown out (improperly, in my opinion) as violating free speech. It forbade "robot" calls. There had to be a human being, at least long enough to see if the called person wanted the call.
The argument (something about making it unreasonably hard for small businesses to do telemarketing) is pretty much null and void given things like the federal Do Not Call list, which the cheap machines can't be programmed to obey anyway (they just call *all* the numbers in an exchange).
I'd also forbid the practice of having the automated gear dial several numbers at once for a single staffer. The idea is that odds favor only one answering (if any do). My reason for outlawing it is that if more than one line answers, the machine *hangs up* on all but the first to answer, since it doesn't have a person to connect them to.
And I'd either make it illegal for calls to cell phones or any other phone where the called party has to pay for the call. Or require the phone companies to find a way to charge the caller the per minute charges.
If we did this at the federal level, it'd even be possible to make the phone companies add the programming to track call patterns that indicate telemarketing type calls, and look for violations (like not having the proper Caller ID info or calling numbers on the Do Not Call list).
Large fines could then be levied. Might be a thought to have part of them go into a fund to pay for the extra expenses of the phone company in tracking these things.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-11-08 07:03 am (UTC)Chrissy Michelle
Shaking in my boots!!!!
no subject
Date: 2006-11-08 08:09 am (UTC)1. "no Caller ID info" Mine shows that as "Out of area" (and my modem shows it as "number=0" "name=0")
2. Caller ID received by your exchange, but flagged as "private". That's the "Private caller" you are getting.
I'm thinking about picking up one of the gizmos that intercepts calls with blocked or missing caller ID and asks the caller to punch in a number.
If they don't, it hangs up on them. Which eliminates the robots and most telemarketing slime. If they do, it either passes them thru or takes a message.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-08 08:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-08 05:57 pm (UTC)"Press 1 to be connected".
Something to keep in mind
Date: 2006-11-08 05:27 pm (UTC)As an example, I'm wondering what would show up if I (in Southern California, with my Caller ID turned off by default like many people do) were to call you. Would you see "out of area," or "caller ID blocked," or something else? I hope you wouldn't see my Caller ID, at least not unless I typed in the code to allow it first. (Not that I don't want you specifically to see it, but that if you did without me allowing it that would mean to me that something wasn't working right).
Anyway, at this point it's all over but the counting (thank the Light!), and we can all breath for a while before getting ready for the next round (we have a couple of folks here who needs to be challenged in the '08 primary).
Re: Something to keep in mind
Date: 2006-11-08 06:07 pm (UTC)BTW, if you call an 800 number (or 888, 877, 866 etc), or some other "special" setups, the called party gets the ANI info (similar to Caller ID, but used by the phone company billing system). This is not blockable. And never will be.
Also "blocking" caller ID just means that the info your phone exchange sends to the called party's exchange has the "private" bit set. They still get the name & number info. They just don't pass it on to the called party's phone.
That's how you can use the "call trace" feature and "call last caller" feature on even blocked calls.
"Call trace" just records the Caller ID info at the destination phone company. In most places you have to complain about repeated annoying calls and then the phone co will check that stored info and if it's from the same folks, they'll do something (usually turn it over to the police in the caller's area.
ps. every call I got was from a machine. Either they hung up after two rings, or they just started talking over the answering machine's outgoing message. Said message specifically tells folks to put me on their do not call list.
Re: Something to keep in mind
Date: 2006-11-08 07:15 pm (UTC)As to the Do Not Call list, I don't know about Oregon law but the national one doesn't apply to political and non-profit organizations. I looked it up after reading about the New Hampshire lawsuit, but apparently that's a state law thing.
Re: Something to keep in mind
Date: 2006-11-08 09:36 pm (UTC)ANI is far older and used for billing (collect calls and the like).
Caller ID is more recent and is passed thru different channels.
I'll note that any place that's big enough to have its own phone switch or even a sufficiently large PBX, can program it to ignore that "private" bit on the caller ID.
Re: Something to keep in mind
Date: 2006-11-08 10:33 pm (UTC)Re: Something to keep in mind
Date: 2006-11-08 09:39 pm (UTC)Even those sorts of groups are supposed to honor requests to put you on their do not call lists.
Which is one of the reasons for my proposal. If it's a robot caller, there's no way to *tell* them.
And for political calls, there's a need to be able to *positively* identify the origin of the call (because of dirty tricks campaigns)
Re: Something to keep in mind
Date: 2006-11-08 10:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-08 08:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-09 03:48 pm (UTC)