OT Phone that mutes spammers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter John Doe
  • Start date Start date
J

John Doe

I would like a cordless phone with caller ID to remember the number of
a spammer and mutes the ringer whenever that number calls. Any phones
do that?

That would be easy to program. In addition to the Do Not Call list,
seems to me that would be an effective spam stopper. But I haven't
noticed it in marketing terms.
 
In message <[email protected]> John Doe
I would like a cordless phone with caller ID to remember the number of
a spammer and mutes the ringer whenever that number calls. Any phones
do that?

That would be easy to program. In addition to the Do Not Call list,
seems to me that would be an effective spam stopper. But I haven't
noticed it in marketing terms.
Click to expand...

Various telcos offer this type of service, but I'm not aware of any
phones that do the trick beyond rolling your own VoIP system.
 
Various telcos offer this type of service, but I'm not aware of any
phones that do the trick beyond rolling your own VoIP system.
Click to expand...

I have call blocking but some users have phone numbers like 000-000-0000 and
oddly enough, the phone company makes sure a number to be blocked is
legitimate but their phone system allows illegitimate numbers over the
caller ID, ie call blocking is useless.

--g
 
In message <[email protected]> "geoff"
I have call blocking but some users have phone numbers like 000-000-0000 and
oddly enough, the phone company makes sure a number to be blocked is
legitimate but their phone system allows illegitimate numbers over the
caller ID, ie call blocking is useless.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, it's been many moons since I lived in the PSTN world. On
my VoIP system I hit the web interface and block or redirect whatever I
want, wherever I want.

I have a special drop point for certain particularly offensive callers.
 
I use VOIP but when the calling number is all zeros, for example (or any
illegitimate number), the buttons to add it to the phonebook, block, etc.
are all disabled on their webpage.

--g
 
In message <[email protected]> "geoff"
I use VOIP but when the calling number is all zeros, for example (or any
illegitimate number), the buttons to add it to the phonebook, block, etc.
are all disabled on their webpage.
Click to expand...

Then that's a design flaw in their web interface -- I'd complain.

I'm running Asterisk+FreePBX, it allows me to blacklist or reroute
whatever I want, however I want.

This includes IVR hell for people I don't like, custom recordings for
certain telemarketers, etc.

It's not for the faint of heart, but it does give me some entertainment.
 
It is AT&T CallVantage. I complained but only got canned responses, so, I
gave up.

The best one can expect from these companies is mediocrity.

--g
 
I should have looked first, but I didn't know the keywords.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16876101238

A widely available cordless phone that uses "Caller ID info of any
and all unwanted callers". It gives a busy signal. They could easily
use any caller ID information of callers you want blocked, including
anonymous calls, but figuring out whether it's programmed to do that
probably requires using the phone or hearing from someone who has. I
wouldn't rely on the marketing speak. They are sold locally (Best
Buy USA), so it would be easy enough to return.
 
In message <[email protected]> John Doe
I should have looked first, but I didn't know the keywords.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16876101238

A widely available cordless phone that uses "Caller ID info of any
and all unwanted callers". It gives a busy signal. They could easily
use any caller ID information of callers you want blocked, including
anonymous calls, but figuring out whether it's programmed to do that
probably requires using the phone or hearing from someone who has. I
wouldn't rely on the marketing speak. They are sold locally (Best
Buy USA), so it would be easy enough to return.
Click to expand...

Note that the caller will still hear at least one ring as CID info isn't
transmitted until after the first ring, OR your phone will discard the
first ring and you'll have less time to answer.

Also be aware that the "Busy" signal sent back may sound like a "Busy
signal" but it won't send back a supervisory signal, so any telemarketer
or other caller will know that the line was answered, but no voice
answered.

Whether you care or not about that, I don't know.
 
DevilsPGD said:
Note that the caller will still hear at least one ring as CID info
isn't transmitted until after the first ring,
Click to expand...

Do you have any recent information about that? I would be surprised
if it still requires at least one ring.
Also be aware that the "Busy" signal sent back may sound like a
"Busy signal" but it won't send back a supervisory signal,
Click to expand...

Could be. Personally, I'd like it to automatically/programmatically
simply shut off the ringer on this end, that would be very easy and
it would tie up the spammer thinking somebody might answer
eventually. I guess the masses don't enjoy tying up spammers that
way, and that's probably why that most easy to implement design
isn't used (assuming it isn't).
 
Do you have any recent information about that? I would be surprised
if it still requires at least one ring.


Could be. Personally, I'd like it to automatically/programmatically
simply shut off the ringer on this end, that would be very easy and
it would tie up the spammer thinking somebody might answer
eventually. I guess the masses don't enjoy tying up spammers that
way, and that's probably why that most easy to implement design
isn't used (assuming it isn't).
Click to expand...
Personally, I think that blasting back a very loud high pitched sound
would be better.
 
Personally, I think that blasting back a very loud high pitched
sound would be better.
Click to expand...

Maybe, if it weren't for the fact that most of the calls I get
nowadays start out with bots that ask me to press a button.
Apparently they have figured out that is much more efficient than
wasting a real person's time for the initial contact.

Each call requires a line and there are only so many hours in a day.
So if I can tie them up for a few additional rings (especially
without hearing the phone ring on my side), I'm at least wasting
their time. Apparently many people upon seeing the caller ID
anonymous/spammer call just hit the off button that turns off the
ringer, that's what I do now. Considering the fact most people do
that, muting the ringer might be a better feature than most
telephone makers think. Many other people probably would enjoy
seeing the phone flashing without hearing it ringing, knowing that
it's a spammer and the phone is going "ring ring ring" without
actually being bothered by hearing it. Besides, there is some
potential benefit in seeing the flash, just in case you might want
to pick up the phone when a known solicitor calls.

A very smart phone would let it ring for awhile and then press the
buttons they ask to be pressed and then give a fake address or
strike up a conversation if my bot reaches a real person. Of course
it would be a dumb bot conversation, but that's okay.
 
In message <[email protected]> John Doe
Do you have any recent information about that? I would be surprised
if it still requires at least one ring.
Click to expand...

The protocol hasn't changed, telcos don't transmit the data until after
the first ring -- The first ring is designed to "wake up" the receiving
devices.

The CID protocol is one-way, there is no handshake, so the telco has no
way to know whether or not receiving devices are ready/willing/able to
listen at all times or not.

There are some practical reasons for this design, among them that the
line doesn't have enough voltage (especially older phones that don't
have a power supply of their own) while the line is inactive, however
the ringing and/or active line provides the voltage required.
Could be. Personally, I'd like it to automatically/programmatically
simply shut off the ringer on this end, that would be very easy and
it would tie up the spammer thinking somebody might answer
eventually. I guess the masses don't enjoy tying up spammers that
way, and that's probably why that most easy to implement design
isn't used (assuming it isn't).
Click to expand...

Telemarkets don't care, there is no human on their side until their
dialer senses a human on your side.
 
DevilsPGD said:
Telemarkets don't care, there is no human on their side until their
dialer senses a human on your side.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the longer it rings (to the programmed limit), the longer it
ties up their line. As far as I know, there is no way of getting
around that, at least not with conventional telephone service.
 
In message <[email protected]> John Doe
Yes, but the longer it rings (to the programmed limit), the longer it
ties up their line. As far as I know, there is no way of getting
around that, at least not with conventional telephone service.
Click to expand...

Sure, but few are likely to use anything resembling a conventional
telephone service these days.

At a minimum it's all digital, if not VoIP simply because it's so much
easier to manage.

Most of the long haul telephone transmissions are VoIP these days and
have been for some time, and from a wholesale point of view it's far
more expensive to go back to conventional analog lines for the local
loop. (and no, I don't mean "Voice over internet", but rather, "Voice
over IP", over dedicated lines)
 
Back
Top