33 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Copyright © 2015 E. William Horne. All Rights Reserved.

The Telecom Digest for Jun 27, 2015
Volume 34 : Issue 119 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Robocalls - the next level (Don Y)
Re: Robocalls - the next level (Bill Horne)
Re: Robocalls - the next level (Pete Cresswell)
Re: Robocalls - the next level (Don Y)
Re: Robocalls - the next level (Barry Margolin)
Re: Robocalls - the next level (Bob K)

What is right and what is practicable are two different things.
James Buchanan

See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details.

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 00:22:01 -0700 From: Don Y <anonymous@invalid.telecom-digest.org> To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Robocalls - the next level Message-ID: <mmiuie$aao$1@speranza.aioe.org> On 6/25/2015 10:05 PM, Bill Horne wrote: > On 6/25/2015 5:24 PM, Don Y wrote: > >> I've been trying to sort out effective algorithms to implement an >> "automated attendant" (imagine a machine that screens calls like >> a "secretary" would). So you aren't even bothered by a phone ringing! > > There are several obstacles to designing "smart" telephone answering > machines. Goal isn't to produce an "answering machine". Rather, an "automated attendant" as part of a much larger system. > Just off the top of my head - > > * The person I want to talk to at 2PM on Sunday might not be welcome > at 9AM on Monday. If you had a secretary, this event would go something like: "Bill, I have Tom Smith on the phone..." "Put him through!" or "Take a message." (i.e., send it to voice mail) or "Tell him 'I'm in a meeting'" "Tell him 'I will be a few minutes late'" "Tell him to 'Call back later'" "Tell him 'I'll call him on Sunday'" or "I don't want to talk to the bum!" etc. Why can't an "automated attendant" do likewise? I.e., announce the caller (assuming it isn't someone that you've already decided you don't want to talk to -- like someone with missing CID, blacklisted CID, blacklisted credential, etc.) and then allow you to indicate what subsequent action should be taken (as above). The caller need not know (but may *suspect*!) that you are even actively involved in this decision -- just like calling someone "at the office" and the sec'y puts the caller on hold, then comes back a while later with "I'm sorry but Bill is in a meeting" (when, in fact, Bill may have been standing beside her at the time!) Note that the action you (your attendant) takes can vary with the "identity" (or, CLASS of identities) of the caller. E.g., I don't expect calls from an employer/client on the weekend, after hours or when I am on vacation -- it can wait until I'm back on the clock! I might accept calls from certain friends in the late evening but not other friends. I'll probably accept a call from certain neighbors even in the wee hours of the morning ("Hi Don, Bob has had a heart attack. I'm going with him in the ambulance to the hospital. Can you come over and watch the kids?"). And, would definitely accept a call from a spouse regardless of the time of day, my current activities, location, etc. > * It's almost impossible to design a workable whitelist > without knowing the phone numbers that will be allowed. > Predictive algorithms will always fail due to special > circumstances, and you mentioned the important ones. You can't base accept/reject/processing criteria on CID. You can use CID in some cases for some decisions; e.g., if no CID, then route the call to the bit bucket (don't even take a message from folks who don't want to identify themselves!). But there are other mechanisms that you can use to identify the caller that aren't as easily spoofed and are more "portable" than CID. I.e., if your spouse is calling from an unfamiliar phone, you still want him/her to be able to get through your "attendant" -- regardless of time of day, CID, etc. You have to build an identifier from mechanisms of varying authenticity. E.g., recognizing a voice regardless of CID may entitle that caller to "leave a message" or "have themselves *announced*" (the latter being far more invasive to the called party than the former). Or, a CID coupled with a "pass key" (DTMF or spoken) -- so a particular smart phone (or, a traditional phone with a note attached that says, "when calling Bill, enter the pass key 308923 when prompted; note only works from THIS phone!") can be used to get to you -- regardless of the person using that phone. Before even doing that, you can impose simple tests to weed out robots: - missing CID (or nonwhitelisted CID) - speaks while your attendant is speaking - doesn't "respond" to prompts ("who is calling, please?") I.e., doesn't behave like a POLITE human caller would be expected to behave. > * Blacklists aren't viable, since CID is so easy to forge. Blacklists won't prevent all undesirable contacts. OTOH, if you didn't want to hear from your neighbor at 3AM, chances are, he won't be spoofing his CID! It's primarily the telemarketers, etc. who are trying to masquerade as someone else. But, if you only allow the phone to ring for whitelisted numbers, how will that telemarketer know that your Mom's CID is in your whitelist? (i.e., how will they know who your Mom is? And, that you've included that particular number in your whitelist?) > * There's no way to implement a "one size fits all" solution, > because the spam^h^h^h^h telemarketers will just add the codes > to their automatic dialers. You can't opt for a one-size-fits all approach because the criteria that you use (i.e., the rules that you tell your secretary to use when deciding how to handle incoming calls) WILL be different from the rules that I use. Screens like: "Press X to leave a message (else I will hang up on you!)" won't cut it. Robot dialer just presses all ten digits, sequentially. You could embelish this a bit: "Press XYZ to leave a message (else I will hang up on you!)" to make it harder for an "open loop" solution. But, it's still not very smart. Unless you created a random set of digits for each installation (device), there will inevitably be many users who pick the same, lame code: 000, 123, 5551212, etc. > * Costs will likely be prohibitive. The rest of the system already absorbs those costs. E.g., I rely on similar "authentication" to allow my neighbor to command my garage door shut if I happen to leave it open when I drive away. Or, gain access to the house to water the plants while I'm on vacation, etc. > Still, I applaud your effort: it's an arms race, but you just might > be the winner if you can market it quickly and well. Good luck. No desire to "market". Rather, just trying to solve a problem that has annoyed me. And, scare any live spammers who find themselves confronting an impenetrable barrier (i.e., push all the buttons on the phone, fake your CID, claim to be the IRS/police/etc. ... none of those are going to get through!). Most of this is reasonably feasible. But, as I said, the real issue is presenting information regarding the (automatically) "screened" calls to the user for his/her review. You really don't want to put a list of date/time/CID/presumed_identity/how_call_handled/etc. on a display for the user to review. A phone is inherently NOT a visual device (despite all the folks who wander around with their eyes GLUED to theirs!) So, you need a simple means of letting the user verify that the attendant has been operating as expected as well as identifying calls that, in hindsight, should NOT have been "handled" as the attendant saw fit (e.g., dropped, routed to voice mail, etc.) It's an interesting problem! :>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:02:21 -0400 From: bill@horneQRM.net (Bill Horne) To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Robocalls - the next level Message-ID: <20150626160220.GB31987@telecom.csail.mit.edu> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 12:22:01AM -0700, Don Y wrote: > On 6/25/2015 10:05 PM, Bill Horne wrote: > >On 6/25/2015 5:24 PM, Don Y wrote: > >There are several obstacles to designing "smart" telephone answering > >machines. > > Goal isn't to produce an "answering machine". Rather, an "automated > attendant" as part of a much larger system. I understand what you want to do, but few people will buy an "automated attendant". OTOH, a "Smart Answering Machine" or "Mister Jeeves" or other catchy name will bring more sales. > > >Just off the top of my head - > > > >* The person I want to talk to at 2PM on Sunday might not be welcome > > at 9AM on Monday. > > If you had a secretary, this event would go something like: > "Bill, I have Tom Smith on the phone..." > "Put him through!" > or > "Take a message." (i.e., send it to voice mail) > or > "Tell him 'I'm in a meeting'" > "Tell him 'I will be a few minutes late'" > "Tell him to 'Call back later'" > "Tell him 'I'll call him on Sunday'" > or > "I don't want to talk to the bum!" > etc. The people whom still have secretaries are, ipso facto, not interested in auto-attendant devices. Forget secretaries: the market is ordinary people with enough money to pay for a device, but not enough to hire a secretary. > Why can't an "automated attendant" do likewise? I.e., announce the > caller (assuming it isn't someone that you've already decided you > don't want to talk to -- like someone with missing CID, blacklisted > CID, blacklisted credential, etc.) and then allow you to indicate > what subsequent action should be taken (as above). The caller need > not know (but may *suspect*!) that you are even actively involved in > this decision -- just like calling someone "at the office" and the > sec'y puts the caller on hold, then comes back a while later with "I'm > sorry but Bill is in a meeting" (when, in fact, Bill may have been > standing beside her at the time!) Blacklists only work to manage calls from those you know. The abusers win, because they can play whack-a-mole all day long. In fact, that abuse is now part of the system that was supposed to prevent it: I get two or three "hang up" calls a day, each with different CID info, so I think one or more companies are assembling social maps that show which NPA/NXX/line number combinations I or my wife are more likely to respond to. > Note that the action you (your attendant) takes can vary with the > "identity" (or, CLASS of identities) of the caller. E.g., I don't > expect calls from an employer/client on the weekend, after hours or > when I am on vacation -- it can wait until I'm back on the clock! I > might accept calls from certain friends in the late evening but not > other friends. I'll probably accept a call from certain neighbors > even in the wee hours of the morning ("Hi Don, Bob has had a heart > attack. I'm going with him in the ambulance to the hospital. Can you > come over and watch the kids?"). And, would definitely accept a call > from a spouse regardless of the time of day, my current activities, > location, etc. That won't work. - Your boss will demand to be cleared at all times, and (s)he doesn't care how: when (s)he wants to talk to you, you're expected to be there. - Your doctor will demand that you put his/her call through without delay or verification when you call for help out-of-hours. Although some HMO's have installed "dial around" devices to allow their employees to bypass Star-87 restrictions, anything that complicates the process will prevent you getting the medical advice you want. - Politicians will write laws that prevent any such device from blocking their appeals for money and votes. ... That's the "new normal" of the cell-phone-glued-to-the-ear generation, and it's one of the big reasons why I always look askance at "smart" phones and how they are used: nothing stays static. The system is going to react and adapt! > >* It's almost impossible to design a workable whitelist > > without knowing the phone numbers that will be allowed. > > Predictive algorithms will always fail due to special > > circumstances, and you mentioned the important ones. > > You can't base accept/reject/processing criteria on CID. You can use > CID in some cases for some decisions; e.g., if no CID, then route > the call to the bit bucket (don't even take a message from folks who > don't want to identify themselves!). See above. > But there are other mechanisms that you can use to identify the caller > that aren't as easily spoofed and are more "portable" than CID. I.e., > if your spouse is calling from an unfamiliar phone, you still want > him/her to be able to get through your "attendant" -- regardless of > time of day, CID, etc. Are you sure? ;-) The question isn't just about letting only some people through: it's really about social norms and how the habit of grabbing the phone whenever it rings has been inculcated in our minds since childhood. If users are willing to miss some calls that they might have wanted, and (more importantly) to commit themselves to the added burdens of learning how to use (and convince their callers to use) a new device that acts to reduce the effectiveness of the other devices that they are already paying extra for (i.e., cell phones, tables, Skype, etc.), then a selective call-screening device has a chance of success. My brother-in-law connects his home phone to a fax machine whenever he's home and he doesn't want to be bothered, and he gets his way because he's willing to do without talking to people he might otherwise be interested in, if they were calling when he decides to be available. I'm not that extreme, but I do have an uncommon call-waiting system: if you call my home when I'm talking to someone else, you will hear a quaint audible indicator known as a Busy Signal . It means that I'm busy, and your call has to wait! > You have to build an identifier from mechanisms of varying > authenticity. E.g., recognizing a voice regardless of CID may entitle > that caller to "leave a message" or "have themselves *announced*" (the > latter being far more invasive to the called party than the former). > Or, a CID coupled with a "pass key" (DTMF or spoken) -- so a > particular smart phone (or, a traditional phone with a note attached > that says, "when calling Bill, enter the pass key 308923 when > prompted; note only works from THIS phone!") can be used to get to > you -- regardless of the person using that phone. Anything more complicated than a one or two-digit code will fail. Voice recognition isn't viable, both because it's not yet reliable enough for everyday use, and because collecting the samples would be too time-consuming and error-prone even if it was. > Before even doing that, you can impose simple tests to weed out robots: > - missing CID (or nonwhitelisted CID) See above. > - speaks while your attendant is speaking Too many false positives. > - doesn't "respond" to prompts ("who is calling, please?") Again, too many false positives. > I.e., doesn't behave like a POLITE human caller would be expected to behave. See above. Politicians all have a vested interest in discouraging workable screening systems, and they have men with guns they can order around so they don't need to be polite. > >* Blacklists aren't viable, since CID is so easy to forge. > > Blacklists won't prevent all undesirable contacts. OTOH, if you > didn't want to hear from your neighbor at 3AM, chances are, he won't > be spoofing his CID! It's primarily the telemarketers, etc. who are > trying to masquerade as someone else. > > But, if you only allow the phone to ring for whitelisted numbers, > how will that telemarketer know that your Mom's CID is in your > whitelist? (i.e., how will they know who your Mom is? And, that > you've included that particular number in your whitelist?) Your birth certificate is a public record. Database weenies of all stripes would be overjoyed if that was all that was needed to get by your device: every telemouseketeer would have to pay them for everybody's mother's number. > >* There's no way to implement a "one size fits all" solution, > > because the spam^h^h^h^h telemarketers will just add the codes > > to their automatic dialers. > > You can't opt for a one-size-fits all approach because the criteria > that you use (i.e., the rules that you tell your secretary to use > when deciding how to handle incoming calls) WILL be different from the > rules that I use. Screens like: > > "Press X to leave a message (else I will hang up on you!)" > > won't cut it. Robot dialer just presses all ten digits, sequentially. > You could embelish this a bit: > > "Press XYZ to leave a message (else I will hang up on you!)" > > to make it harder for an "open loop" solution. But, it's still not > very smart. Unless you created a random set of digits for each > installation (device), there will inevitably be many users who pick > the same, lame code: 000, 123, 5551212, etc. Eeek! Users! OMG like fer shur, l^husers are always the problem! (Ducks, covers, thinks of his mortgage and tax bills). > >* Costs will likely be prohibitive. > > The rest of the system already absorbs those costs. E.g., I rely on > similar "authentication" to allow my neighbor to command my garage > door shut if I happen to leave it open when I drive away. Or, gain > access to the house to water the plants while I'm on vacation, etc. If the question is how best to prevent forged CID calls, then that's a problem only the government can address. However, IMNSHO, the question is how to prevent me from being bothered, and any one-of solution will work, but any thing else will fail if it can be gamed by a programmer. The problem is that anything which doesn't present abusive callers from having to pay for a human to solve a Turing test will fail: CPU is cheap. > >Still, I applaud your effort: it's an arms race, but you just might > >be the winner if you can market it quickly and well. Good luck. > > No desire to "market". Rather, just trying to solve a problem that > has annoyed me. And, scare any live spammers who find themselves > confronting an impenetrable barrier (i.e., push all the buttons on the > phone, fake your CID, claim to be the IRS/police/etc. ... none of > those are going to get through!). Yes, but how will the real police get through? Don't think it's a minor issue: cops and their bosses are depending on automation (that's what E-911 is, btw) to cut down on municipal pension obligations whenever they can. They will demand a "one size fits every department" work around. > Most of this is reasonably feasible. But, as I said, the real issue > is presenting information regarding the (automatically) "screened" > calls to the user for his/her review. You really don't want to put a > list of date/time/CID/presumed_identity/how_call_handled/etc. on a > display for the user to review. A phone is inherently NOT a visual > device (despite all the folks who wander around with their eyes GLUED > to theirs!) So, you need a simple means of letting the user verify > that the attendant has been operating as expected as well as > identifying calls that, in hindsight, should NOT have been "handled" > as the attendant saw fit (e.g., dropped, routed to voice mail, etc.) > > It's an interesting problem! :> It's an arm race, just like spam prevention. The best you can hope to do is to reduce the recipient's workload to a much lower level compared to what we're doing now. Do that, and the world will beat a path to your door. Bill -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 09:44:22 -0400 From: Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org> To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Robocalls - the next level Message-ID: <i7lqoa5kkshkashhn6hg0cmaj2fs13fam1@4ax.com> Per Don Y: >I've been trying to sort out effective algorithms to implement an >"automated attendant" (imagine a machine that screens calls like a >"secretary" would). So you aren't even bothered by a phone ringing! How about some sort of Challenge-Response? I keep going on about this even though my knowledge is limited... but the logic seems sound and the basic feature is in place in most businesses today: - Caller dials my number. - CallerID is checked against a WhiteList and, if WhiteListed, my phone rings immediately. This is strictly a convenience feature for frequent callers, and not needed. - Failing the WhiteList, the caller hears a more-or-less standard voice menu. ("Press 1 for Joe, Press 2 for Sam, Press 3 for Gail, ..." and so -forth". - If the caller presses the right digit - or had pressed the right digit as soon as the Voice Menu picked up - my phone rings. - All other calls are handled in a manner that I determine: + Just hang up + Flip them to voice mail + (something else?) I think this is currently available with my VOIP provider (CallCentric), but I have not tried it because only my outgoing calls go through the VOIP provider: incoming calls are still on POTS... Reason: I feel more comfortable with local 911 service instead of hoping that some database somewhere in Broken Pelvis, Montana is up-to-date and correct for my particular phone number. But I'm getting close. We're currently getting 4-6 robocalls per day on our land line - and I have a stack of lame-sounding letters from the Pennsylvania Att'y General telling how they just can't do anything about Do-Not-Call List violations any more. And then there is NoMoRobo.... but I am too cheap to pay for the extra features necessary for it to work. -- Pete Cresswell
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 10:44:06 -0700 From: Don Y <anonymous@invalid.telecom-digest.org> To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Robocalls - the next level Message-ID: <mmk30r$4vu$1@speranza.aioe.org> On 6/26/2015 6:44 AM, Pete Cresswell wrote: > Per Don Y: >> I've been trying to sort out effective algorithms to implement an >> "automated attendant" (imagine a machine that screens calls like a >> "secretary" would). So you aren't even bothered by a phone ringing! > > How about some sort of Challenge-Response? I originally considered that and decided against it -- except as a backup mechanism (e.g., caller has laryngitis so speaker identification algorithm possibly fails in a big way). I think, (to make things palatable to callers and callees) it must be a more natural part of a "typical dialog". E.g., if you think of the "secretary" model, your secretary recognizes the voices of key callers (spouse, etc.) and, effectively, authenticates them as part of the initial "banter" that normally happens at the start of a call. Yet, neither party actually thinks of this as "authentication". If, for example, a call came in and the CID indicated that it was my neighbor and the speaker identification algorithm suggested that it was "Patricia", this is likely a good indication that it is Patricia! A telemarketer would have to know the phone numbers from which my neighbors call me (i.e., they may prefer to use cell phones or land lines) and the characteristics of each of their voices to "trick" the attendant into thinking that it is Patricia. With this level of authentication, I may allow the attendant to tell me "Patricia is on the line" if I am home. If not, it may offer the caller a chance to leave a message. (normally, it wouldn't let anyone leave a message!) If, however, Patricia wants to close (or open) my garage door, I would require a bit more "proof" of that identity. E.g., provide a Patricia-specific shared secret to further prove identity. We all use something like this to control access to our computers; a user-name can be forged even more easily than a CID! But, having that name doesn't inherently grant access -- you also need a password that is associated with that specific user name (and, policies on the host that allow that user to access the host at that particular time, perform those particular tasks, etc.) > I keep going on about this even though my knowledge is limited... but > the logic seems sound and the basic feature is in place in most > businesses today: > > - Caller dials my number. > > - CallerID is checked against a WhiteList and, if WhiteListed, my > phone rings immediately. This is strictly a convenience feature for > frequent callers, and not needed. This means anyone who can guess a number on your CID has access. It would be like guessing user names on a computer and being granted access based solely on that! ("Hmmm... let's try 'Administrator' or 'root'!") I condition this with an indication of who the actual caller seems to be (based on an analysis of their speech). Alternatively, I could require a "secret" that is uniquely tied to that CID (so, if one neighbor calls and tries to use the secret shared with them by another of my neighbors, the call won't go through). Note that the "secret" could be something as natural as the caller's name (e.g., Patricia identifiers herself as Penny; something a really smart telemarketer wouldn't know!) > - Failing the WhiteList, the caller hears a more-or-less standard > voice menu. ("Press 1 for Joe, Press 2 for Sam, Press 3 for Gail, > ..." and so -forth". > > - If the caller presses the right digit - or had pressed the right > digit as soon as the Voice Menu picked up - my phone rings. So, a telemarketer just presses 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 and one of them wins! > - All other calls are handled in a manner that I determine: > > + Just hang up > + Flip them to voice mail > + (something else?) If you have a means of identifying the caller (at various levels of confidence -- as indicated above), you can do damn near anything you want with the call. E.g., if no CID, drop the call (don't even ring the phone or offer an opportunity for voicemail -- I don't want to have to review that voicemail!). If Patricia is calling (see above) and it's "normal hours", handle the call based on whether or not I am known to be home: announce the call to me; put it through; or offer voicemail ("Could you please leave a message?"). If she is calling and it's 3AM, then ring the phone REALLY LOUD! I trust her NOT to call at that hour of the night unless it is something REALLY important! If she abuses this "privilege", then I just need to change the rule for her calls! OTOH, if my boss calls at 3AM, route it to voice mail or just politely push the call off. > I think this is currently available with my VOIP provider > (CallCentric), but I have not tried it because only my outgoing calls > go through the VOIP provider: incoming calls are still on POTS... > Reason: I feel more comfortable with local 911 service instead of > hoping that some database somewhere in Broken Pelvis, Montana is > up-to-date and correct for my particular phone number. > > But I'm getting close. We're currently getting 4-6 robocalls per day > on our land line - and I have a stack of lame-sounding letters from > the Pennsylvania Att'y General telling how they just can't do anything > about Do-Not-Call List violations any more. I hold no hope for gummit solutions. Control has to be at the called party's end of the line. They can allow loopholes for all sorts of "special interests; but, if my "secretary" blocks the call from reaching my desk, are they going to send an armed contingent to FORCE her to pass the call through to me?? Am I required to even answer the phone when it rings? E.g., if the CID says "Police Department", there is nothing to prevent me from letting the phone ring endlessly -- with the wires to the clapper *cut*! > And then there is NoMoRobo.... but I am too cheap to pay for the extra > features necessary for it to work. And, legislators to require a tunnel through that service for <whatever>.
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:47:31 -0400 From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Robocalls - the next level Message-ID: <barmar-629966.12473126062015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> In article <i7lqoa5kkshkashhn6hg0cmaj2fs13fam1@4ax.com>, Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote: > Per Don Y: > >I've been trying to sort out effective algorithms to implement an > >"automated attendant" (imagine a machine that screens calls like a > >"secretary" would). So you aren't even bothered by a phone ringing! > > How about some sort of Challenge-Response? The problem is that there are some robocallers you DO want to let through. A couple of nights ago I got a robocall from my electric company, announcing that they knew there was a service outage in my area (I wasn't down, although I'd had a number of short blips that day). I'm not sure if I've ever been called by them before (especially since NStar merged into Eversource, so they may have a different number). You could add numbers to a white-list. But if you default to blocking, how will you ever get the first call from them, so that you learn the number to add? Humans can respond to a challenge-response, but if the first contact is from a bot, it will never get through. Maybe there's some way that these "legitimate" callers could arrange with the telcos to get on a universal white-list. But phone companies don't have a good track record of vetting third parties -- isn't that how "cramming" became a problem? -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 01:23:17 -0400 From: Bob K <SPAMpot@Rochester.RR.com> To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Robocalls - the next level Message-ID: <558CE1C5.7020600@Rochester.RR.com> I guess I am just not up with it on the latest technology. How does the FCC (or anyone) plan to enforce this? I have a phone number on the "do-not-call" list, and all that list does is provide the telemarketers a list of probably good numbers to pester. With the information the Caller ID provides, there is little chance of successfully filing a complain against any of the harassers that call. And calling a number pack -- if I get a working number -- it always ends up with a voice mail menu that doesn't identify the company reached. Does my telephone service provider have some way to detect that a call will be a robocall? Times have changed from when I picked up a phone to make a call and a friendly voice greeted me with "Number please". ...Bob K

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom- munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit educational service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne.

The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
339-364-8487
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom

This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Copyright © 2015 E. William Horne. All rights reserved.


Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself. Thank you!

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization.


End of The Telecom Digest (6 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues