This subject is not specific to T-Mobile and not even cell phone related
because it's about my landline phone service, provided by Qwest.
However, it could also be an issue with mobile service.
I've recently changed my Qwest service by removing some rarely used
options when I noticed in the confirmation email this never seen
no-charge item: anonymous call rejection. I called up the customer
service and asked what that was all about and I was told that it was
something that automatically came with caller ID option and it would
reject any calls made to me with a deliberate blocking of the caller ID.
This explanation sounds fishy to me because it would make the caller ID
blocking option itself meaningless. Why would somebody block his
outgoing caller ID knowing that the call would not go through that way?
When I mentioned the service rep that many calls may not even have a
caller ID because they come from areas not having that service, or are
Internet based calls, he reassured me that such calls would still get
through. Does this make sense to you out there?
[ my answer appended after the full text of the question ]
In <h7h5c9$9nm$1@news.eternal-september.org> "P J" <pj@pjama.invalid> writes:
>This subject is not specific to T-Mobile and not even cell phone related
>because it's about my landline phone service, provided by Qwest.
>However, it could also be an issue with mobile service.
>I've recently changed my Qwest service by removing some rarely used
>options when I noticed in the confirmation email this never seen
>no-charge item: anonymous call rejection. I called up the customer
>service and asked what that was all about and I was told that it was
>something that automatically came with caller ID option and it would
>reject any calls made to me with a deliberate blocking of the caller ID.
>This explanation sounds fishy to me because it would make the caller ID
>blocking option itself meaningless. Why would somebody block his
>outgoing caller ID knowing that the call would not go through that way?
>When I mentioned the service rep that many calls may not even have a
>caller ID because they come from areas not having that service, or are
>Internet based calls, he reassured me that such calls would still get
>through. Does this make sense to you out there?
It actually does. Now I don't know if Qwest has actually implemented
their option in this manner...
That being said, there are (generally speaking) four
things that may occur with regard to caller ID when you
get a phone call.
a: the correct CNID gets sent and you receive it
b: there's a completely bogus CNID and, alas, you still get it.
c: for some reason or another there's no CNID coming over
or
d: the call was sent with a "privacy" flag, so you don't
see any CNID info.
Note that "C" and "D" are -different-. A call from a messed
up location (whether deliberately done so or from a backward
exchange in Frostbite Falls) is NOT the same as one that has
the "privacy" flag included.
(In fact, when someone blocks outgoing CNID, it actually
_does_ get as far as the final Central Office [1]. It's
at that last mile, so to speak, that the Telco holds the
number back.)
So yes, a receiving Telco can treat a deliberately blocked CNID
differently than a messed up one.
[1] or wherever the final bit of telco processing
actually takes place.
--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
>This subject is not specific to T-Mobile and not even cell phone related
>because it's about my landline phone service, provided by Qwest.
>However, it could also be an issue with mobile service.
>
>I've recently changed my Qwest service by removing some rarely used
>options when I noticed in the confirmation email this never seen
>no-charge item: anonymous call rejection. I called up the customer
>service and asked what that was all about and I was told that it was
>something that automatically came with caller ID option and it would
>reject any calls made to me with a deliberate blocking of the caller ID.
From my landline phone (Southwestern Bell/AT&T), I can turn this
feature on (*77) and off (*87) whenever I want. Your codes may be
different. Read the description of it in the front of the white
pages for your phone book. If you can't control it, it seems
counterproductive and obnoxious to give away this feature without
telling the customer.
>This explanation sounds fishy to me because it would make the caller ID
>blocking option itself meaningless.
It's a negotiation. Each side says "meet my conditions or we won't
talk". It's quite possible that the result is no call takes place.
If everyone voluntarily turns it on, it would make the caller ID blocking
option useless, but not everyone turns it on. Most businesses won't,
for example. They don't want to turn away customers. I don't think
they sell anonymous call rejection without caller ID, but I think it
would be a useful option - let the nuisance callers reject themselves.
Some people won't turn anonymous call rejection on because it might
be the hospital/jail calling about one of their kids/spouse/parents.
Some people might let through anonymous callers only when they aren't
eating dinner or sleeping.
>Why would somebody block his
>outgoing caller ID knowing that the call would not go through that way?
He wouldn't know that the call would not go through that way until
he tried to call that number.
>When I mentioned the service rep that many calls may not even have a
>caller ID because they come from areas not having that service, or are
>Internet based calls, he reassured me that such calls would still get
>through. Does this make sense to you out there?
There is a difference between things like "OUT OF AREA" and "BLOCKED".
These show up differently on (most, at least) Caller-ID displays.
I don't know how Internet based calls are handled. They may have
their own caller ID (that of the gateway).
"danny burstein" <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
> It actually does. Now I don't know if Qwest has actually implemented
> their option in this manner...
>
> That being said, there are (generally speaking) four
> things that may occur with regard to caller ID when you
> get a phone call.
>
> a: the correct CNID gets sent and you receive it
>
> b: there's a completely bogus CNID and, alas, you still get it.
>
> c: for some reason or another there's no CNID coming over
>
> or
>
> d: the call was sent with a "privacy" flag, so you don't
> see any CNID info.
>
> Note that "C" and "D" are -different-. A call from a messed
> up location (whether deliberately done so or from a backward
> exchange in Frostbite Falls) is NOT the same as one that has
> the "privacy" flag included.
>
> (In fact, when someone blocks outgoing CNID, it actually
> _does_ get as far as the final Central Office [1]. It's
> at that last mile, so to speak, that the Telco holds the
> number back.)
>
> So yes, a receiving Telco can treat a deliberately blocked CNID
> differently than a messed up one.
>
> [1] or wherever the final bit of telco processing
> actually takes place.
Thanks for the info. The term "Anonymous Call Rejection" implies to me
that calls with blocked caller ID always get blocked by the phone
company and I have no control over it. Is that right? I would prefer an
option that I can control whether to block it or not.
"Gordon Burditt" <gordonb.po7zz@burditt.org> wrote:
> From my landline phone (Southwestern Bell/AT&T), I can turn this
> feature on (*77) and off (*87) whenever I want. Your codes may be
> different. Read the description of it in the front of the white
> pages for your phone book. If you can't control it, it seems
> counterproductive and obnoxious to give away this feature without
> telling the customer.
I recall from some earlier telco pamphlet that there were methods like
you listed above to block my own outgoing caller ID before a call but I
don't remember an option where I could control whether to accept calls
with blocked ID or not. In fact I know that I've got quite a few calls
that were flagged as anonymous before. Not so many since I registered my
number in the national don't call database.
>
>>This explanation sounds fishy to me because it would make the caller
>>ID
>>blocking option itself meaningless.
>
> It's a negotiation. Each side says "meet my conditions or we won't
> talk". It's quite possible that the result is no call takes place.
Well, what's the negotiation if the telco blocks all anonymous calls
without me having anything to say about it?
>>Why would somebody block his
>>outgoing caller ID knowing that the call would not go through that
>>way?
>
> He wouldn't know that the call would not go through that way until
> he tried to call that number.
I have a feeling that I got the wrong impression of what "Anonymous Call
Rejection" meant because from what you are implying it should be called
"Anonymous Call Control." That would imply to me that I could control
whether to accept those calls or not.
> There is a difference between things like "OUT OF AREA" and "BLOCKED".
> These show up differently on (most, at least) Caller-ID displays.
> I don't know how Internet based calls are handled. They may have
> their own caller ID (that of the gateway).
Yes, I've got that from Danny's explanation as well.
At 31 Aug 2009 17:13:30 -0700 P J wrote:
> The term "Anonymous Call Rejection" implies to me
> that calls with blocked caller ID always get blocked by the phone company
> and I have no control over it. Is that right? I would prefer an option
> that I can control whether to block it or not.
Using that logic, "Call Forwarding" implies all of your calls will be
forwarded without your control, but we all know that isn't how it works!
Similarly, Automatic Call Rejection simply means all "private" callers are
rejected when _you_ turn the feature on. "Automatic"implies to me, and,
apparently, to the phone company, when the feature is active, you don't
have to do anything to reject the call.
>> From my landline phone (Southwestern Bell/AT&T), I can turn this
>> feature on (*77) and off (*87) whenever I want. Your codes may be
>> different. Read the description of it in the front of the white
>> pages for your phone book. If you can't control it, it seems
>> counterproductive and obnoxious to give away this feature without
>> telling the customer.
>
>I recall from some earlier telco pamphlet that there were methods like
>you listed above to block my own outgoing caller ID before a call but I
>don't remember an option where I could control whether to accept calls
>with blocked ID or not.
The options to block/unblock outgoing caller ID are *DIFFERENT*
from the ones above. The options presented above are how I control
anonymous call rejection.
There are a number of options where one code turns something on and
another code turns it off. The state depends on the last code that
affected the option. Call forwarding (to turn it on, specify the
number to forward to). Select call forwarding (forwarding of
specific numbers). Call blocker (block specific numbers). Priority
ringing. Auto redial (turn it off to make it give up if it can't
get through). Accurate billing [1]. On some PBX or Centrex systems
there are also Do Not Disturb, Music on Hold, Automatic Answer,
logging in or out of a call queue, etc.
There are also options where you use a code before a call, and the
option is active for that call and turns itself off at the end of
the call: Call Waiting Disable. One-shot Outgoing Anonymous Call.
One-shot Outgoing Non-Anonymous Call. Caller Destruct [1]. (none
of these actually have names listed in my phone book, probably
because they are freebies you don't have to order to be able to
use, thrown in with another option like Call Waiting or Caller ID).
[1] Just kidding. This isn't available at any price.
>In fact I know that I've got quite a few calls
>that were flagged as anonymous before. Not so many since I registered my
>number in the national don't call database.
It won't block anonymous calls until you tell it to block anonymous
calls. If you don't know what the code is to block anonymous calls,
that's forever, unless you start trying random codes and accidentally
hit it.
>>>This explanation sounds fishy to me because it would make the caller
>>>ID
>>>blocking option itself meaningless.
>>
>> It's a negotiation. Each side says "meet my conditions or we won't
>> talk". It's quite possible that the result is no call takes place.
>
>Well, what's the negotiation if the telco blocks all anonymous calls
>without me having anything to say about it?
If you turned on anonymous call rejection, the telco blocks anonymous
calls. If you turned off anonymous call rejection, the call goes
through. You *DO* have something to say about it if you read the
instructions and follow them. You may not have these options if
you don't have Caller ID, in which case, anonymous call rejection
is off.
>>>Why would somebody block his
>>>outgoing caller ID knowing that the call would not go through that
>>>way?
>>
>> He wouldn't know that the call would not go through that way until
>> he tried to call that number.
>
>I have a feeling that I got the wrong impression of what "Anonymous Call
>Rejection" meant because from what you are implying it should be called
>"Anonymous Call Control." That would imply to me that I could control
>whether to accept those calls or not.
Both names imply you can control whether to accept these calls or
not. You reject or not. You forward or not. You selectively
forward or not. Remember, these names were invented by the telco
marketing department.
>> There is a difference between things like "OUT OF AREA" and "BLOCKED".
>> These show up differently on (most, at least) Caller-ID displays.
>> I don't know how Internet based calls are handled. They may have
>> their own caller ID (that of the gateway).
>
>Yes, I've got that from Danny's explanation as well.
In message <h7hov1$h6b$1@news.eternal-september.org> "P J"
<pj@pjama.invalid> was claimed to have wrote:
>Thanks for the info. The term "Anonymous Call Rejection" implies to me
>that calls with blocked caller ID always get blocked by the phone
>company and I have no control over it. Is that right? I would prefer an
>option that I can control whether to block it or not.
In that case, leave the feature turned off and hit the "Reject" button
when a call comes in.
"Gordon Burditt" <gordonb.wskzo@burditt.org> wrote:
> The options to block/unblock outgoing caller ID are *DIFFERENT*
> from the ones above. The options presented above are how I control
> anonymous call rejection.
>
> There are a number of options where one code turns something on and
> another code turns it off. The state depends on the last code that
> affected the option. Call forwarding (to turn it on, specify the
> number to forward to). Select call forwarding (forwarding of
> specific numbers). Call blocker (block specific numbers). Priority
> ringing. Auto redial (turn it off to make it give up if it can't
> get through). Accurate billing [1]. On some PBX or Centrex systems
> there are also Do Not Disturb, Music on Hold, Automatic Answer,
> logging in or out of a call queue, etc.
>
> There are also options where you use a code before a call, and the
> option is active for that call and turns itself off at the end of
> the call: Call Waiting Disable. One-shot Outgoing Anonymous Call.
> One-shot Outgoing Non-Anonymous Call. Caller Destruct [1]. (none
> of these actually have names listed in my phone book, probably
> because they are freebies you don't have to order to be able to
> use, thrown in with another option like Call Waiting or Caller ID).
>
> [1] Just kidding. This isn't available at any price.
>
>>In fact I know that I've got quite a few calls
>>that were flagged as anonymous before. Not so many since I registered
>>my
>>number in the national don't call database.
>
> It won't block anonymous calls until you tell it to block anonymous
> calls. If you don't know what the code is to block anonymous calls,
> that's forever, unless you start trying random codes and accidentally
> hit it.
>
>>>>This explanation sounds fishy to me because it would make the caller
>>>>ID
>>>>blocking option itself meaningless.
>>>
>>> It's a negotiation. Each side says "meet my conditions or we won't
>>> talk". It's quite possible that the result is no call takes place.
>>
>>Well, what's the negotiation if the telco blocks all anonymous calls
>>without me having anything to say about it?
>
> If you turned on anonymous call rejection, the telco blocks anonymous
> calls. If you turned off anonymous call rejection, the call goes
> through. You *DO* have something to say about it if you read the
> instructions and follow them. You may not have these options if
> you don't have Caller ID, in which case, anonymous call rejection
> is off.
>
>>>>Why would somebody block his
>>>>outgoing caller ID knowing that the call would not go through that
>>>>way?
>>>
>>> He wouldn't know that the call would not go through that way until
>>> he tried to call that number.
>>
>>I have a feeling that I got the wrong impression of what "Anonymous
>>Call
>>Rejection" meant because from what you are implying it should be
>>called
>>"Anonymous Call Control." That would imply to me that I could control
>>whether to accept those calls or not.
>
> Both names imply you can control whether to accept these calls or
> not. You reject or not. You forward or not. You selectively
> forward or not. Remember, these names were invented by the telco
> marketing department.
"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> Using that logic, "Call Forwarding" implies all of your calls will be
> forwarded without your control, but we all know that isn't how it
> works!
> Similarly, Automatic Call Rejection simply means all "private" callers
> are
> rejected when _you_ turn the feature on. "Automatic"implies to me,
> and,
> apparently, to the phone company, when the feature is active, you
> don't
> have to do anything to reject the call.
To me Call Forwarding is not quite analogous to Call Rejection because
Call Forwarding is an option I can buy or not and why would I buy it if
I don't want to use it? Call Rejection on the other hand just comes with
the Caller ID option at no charge, whether I want it or not. So that's
where my confusion came from. But Gordon cleared that up for me, thank
you.
Anonymous call rejection 
Linear Mode
