On 12/24/2021 04:42 PM, Bob F wrote:
> On 12/24/2021 10:09 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 12/24/2021 04:48 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 02/12/2021 22.06, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Some asshole is making money by annoying me at my expense. I wouldn't
>>>> cry if every single one of those people died a painful death. I might
>>>> even pay 20 cents to watch.
>>>>
>>>> You never get a call from the same number a second time. There's no
>>>> point in blocking numbers.
>>>
>>> I do, here. There are a bunch that seem to not call again, but others
>>> do. Maybe an hour later, the next day, the next week, the next month...
>>> Those that are known "reliable" companies do. They don't fake the
>>> calling number.
>>
>> These assholes aren't what I would call 'reliable' in any language! I
>> wonder how the one that offers to deal with your immigration problems
>> works; selling someone a car warranty seems pretty straightforward.
>
> When businesses call me, asking me to buy their products of services, I
> explain that I do not do business with people that violate the law to
> call me. Strike one - your out.

When telemarketers press 0 to ring through (a Sentry2 requirement for
first-time callers) because they apparently don't realize that THEY are
actual telemarketers I scream obscenities at them. Free stress relief.
And then I block their numbers. I'm amazed that it only happens a
couple of times a year -- I wouldn't have thought that the bastards were
that honest.

--
Cheers, Bev
Why is it so hot and what am I doing in this handbasket?

On 24/12/2021 15.33, Rob wrote:
> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>> Am 24.12.21 um 13:34 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>>> On 24/12/2021 08.49, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> IP telephony has not taken off here.
>>>>
>>>> Wait until your telco starts making noises about withdrawing POTS
>>>> services in a couple of years ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> They are removing POTS service and phasing out even the buildings.
>>> Nevertheless, even though we have fibre to the home, which of necessity
>>> uses VoIP, if you ask for a VoIP phone they refuse. And they refuse to
>>> publish the specs of the VoIP network they use to give us the service,
>>> and they refuse to give us the credentials. Some do reverse engineer it,
>>> but it failed for me.
>>
>> I simply do not believe what you write here. They have to give you the
>> credentials and or the required SIP credentials. I use our router for
>> this and I connect DECT phones to the built in DECT-module.

Well, Telefónica, which is the biggest player here, doesn't. Not for
SIP, nor for the router itself.

And that's for people that know stuff.

They simply install an ONT and connect the house copper pair to it.
Claim you have the same service as always.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_interface_device#Optical_network_terminals>

On more recent installations, they install a router that does it all,
ONT/Router/TV.

With no battery backup. The clients can install an UPS on their own, at
their expense.

> It depends on the local regulations. In some cases triple-play providers
> (internet+telephony+tv) that are managing the routers have refused to
> give credentials to customers, forcing them to use the ATA in the router.
> However, due to EU directives that is no longer allowed here, the customer
> must be able to connect their own router and other equipment.
>
> Not all providers are already compliant with this, especially for TV.

That is so. :-(

I wonder when that EU directive will be enforced...

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 30/11/2021 20.17, sms wrote:
> On 11/30/2021 10:58 AM, AJL wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Blocking numbers never worked for me. The spammer was always changing
>> numbers. So I subscribe to a $3/mo spam killer service that works for
>> about 90% of it. Then I have my phone's 'Do Not Disturb' on so only my
>> contacts ring. And fortunately the leftover spam never seems to wait for
>> Voice Mail. Legitimate calls not on my contact list still show as a
>> bounced call and they can also leave a Voice Mail, so I can get back to
>> them. Best system I've found so far...
>
> Plus, you can turn those spam calls into cash
> <https://www.kare11.com/article/money/how-a-minnesota-woman-is-making-thousands-off-annoying-robocallers/89-07eff40b-7c29-490b-a1ae-dea066548f62>
>
>

Access Denied
You don't have permission to access
"http://www.kare11.com/article/money/how-a-minnesota-woman-is-making-thousands-off-annoying-robocallers/89-07eff40b-7c29-490b-a1ae-dea066548f62"
on this server.

Reference #18.c7231102.1640378033.65a761f7

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 24/12/2021 15.27, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 24.12.21 um 13:34 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>> It is impossible to get (for homes) an Internet only connection from the
>> big players. There are two resellers (to my knowledge) that give it. For
>> example, Lowi provides a 100 Mbit connection, but pesters you to add a
>> mobile phone "for free". The use the Vodafone network, who claims it is
>> impossible to give internet without a fixed line phone.
>
> You need a number anyway and that is a commercial decision which you
> have to accept. Telephony is a free addition to the internet connection
> here. Calls can be made in the whole of the country even to mobiles free
> of charge. My provider is Swisscom.

No, I don't need a number.
And it is not a technical requirement any longer.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 24/12/2021 14.17, Rob wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> It used to work OK on the telephone network when all providers were
>>> reputable companies (in Europe usually state-owned). Everyone had
>>> their filtering. But when the cowboys were allowed to enter the scene,
>>> it went downhill.
>>>
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>> So far, my ISP seems to be doing this correctly (Telefónica).
>
> Yes, same for the corresponding company here in the Netherlands (KPN).
>
> But as long as other companies are connected to the network that do
> not perform the proper checks, it is still possible to spoof the number.
> Only the numbers of the own customers can be checked, not those in calls
> received from other providers, so when not everyone cooperates the system
> still breaks.

Right.

> (unless the large companies like Telefónica and KPN have the guts to just
> cut the connection to every provider that does not check correctly)

I hope they do.

> At the moment, the government has stepped in here and will likely
> provide regulations next year. That usually is a better motivation
> for commercial companies to step into action that does not bring profit.
>

:-)

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Am 24.12.21 um 21:31 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> On 24/12/2021 15.27, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 24.12.21 um 13:34 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>>> It is impossible to get (for homes) an Internet only connection from the
>>> big players. There are two resellers (to my knowledge) that give it. For
>>> example, Lowi provides a 100 Mbit connection, but pesters you to add a
>>> mobile phone "for free". The use the Vodafone network, who claims it is
>>> impossible to give internet without a fixed line phone.
>>
>> You need a number anyway and that is a commercial decision which you
>> have to accept. Telephony is a free addition to the internet connection
>> here. Calls can be made in the whole of the country even to mobiles free
>> of charge. My provider is Swisscom.
>
> No, I don't need a number.
> And it is not a technical requirement any longer.

There is one whether you know it or not. What do you think how the
routing and billing is done?

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On 24/12/2021 15.54, Andy Burns wrote:
> Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>
>> schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>>
>>> They are removing POTS service and phasing out even the buildings.
>>> Nevertheless, even though we have fibre to the home, which of necessity
>>> uses VoIP, if you ask for a VoIP phone they refuse. And they refuse to
>>> publish the specs of the VoIP network they use to give us the service,
>>> and they refuse to give us the credentials. Some do reverse engineer it,
>>> but it failed for me.
>>
>> I simply do not believe what you write here. They have to give you the
>> credentials and or the required SIP credentials.
>
> Come here and tell BT that then, they similarly refuse to give out
> credentials for VoIP access, if you don't use the ISP's router and plug
> an analogue phone into the "green VoIP socket" you'll have to pay for a
> 3rd party VoIP poduct.

Which would be a quite funny situation, because (at least here) they
claim that it is impossible to provide internet without a phone line.

With copper pairs, that was the case, but now it is the reverse: you
first get internet, and then put phone service on top of it.

So, to get a VoIP service we need internet + phone, then contract
independently another VoIP service with another provider. And still pay
the first phone.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 25/12/2021 07.10, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 24.12.21 um 21:31 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>> On 24/12/2021 15.27, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 24.12.21 um 13:34 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>>>> It is impossible to get (for homes) an Internet only connection from the
>>>> big players. There are two resellers (to my knowledge) that give it. For
>>>> example, Lowi provides a 100 Mbit connection, but pesters you to add a
>>>> mobile phone "for free". The use the Vodafone network, who claims it is
>>>> impossible to give internet without a fixed line phone.
>>>
>>> You need a number anyway and that is a commercial decision which you
>>> have to accept. Telephony is a free addition to the internet connection
>>> here. Calls can be made in the whole of the country even to mobiles free
>>> of charge. My provider is Swisscom.
>>
>> No, I don't need a number.
>> And it is not a technical requirement any longer.
>
> There is one whether you know it or not. What do you think how the
> routing and billing is done?

That's an stupid and artificial claim.

They just need a contract alphanumeric string as identifier on the computer.

Routing is an internet thing. Not a phone thing, because a phone is not
needed at all.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article <69gj9i-60n.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> > Come here and tell BT that then, they similarly refuse to give out
> > credentials for VoIP access, if you don't use the ISP's router and plug
> > an analogue phone into the "green VoIP socket" you'll have to pay for a
> > 3rd party VoIP poduct.
>
> Which would be a quite funny situation, because (at least here) they
> claim that it is impossible to provide internet without a phone line.

they might claim that, but it's wrong.

> With copper pairs, that was the case,

it is not the case. with naked (or dry) dsl, there is no phone service.
only dsl. they don't like doing that because phone service is highly
profitable, but it's an option.

> but now it is the reverse: you
> first get internet, and then put phone service on top of it.

yep.

> So, to get a VoIP service we need internet + phone, then contract
> independently another VoIP service with another provider. And still pay
> the first phone.

that's quite unfortunate.

On 25/12/2021 13.50, nospam wrote:
> In article <69gj9i-60n.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> Come here and tell BT that then, they similarly refuse to give out
>>> credentials for VoIP access, if you don't use the ISP's router and plug
>>> an analogue phone into the "green VoIP socket" you'll have to pay for a
>>> 3rd party VoIP poduct.
>>
>> Which would be a quite funny situation, because (at least here) they
>> claim that it is impossible to provide internet without a phone line.
>
> they might claim that, but it's wrong.

I know it is wrong. That's the point.

>
>> With copper pairs, that was the case,
>
> it is not the case. with naked (or dry) dsl, there is no phone service.
> only dsl. they don't like doing that because phone service is highly
> profitable, but it's an option.
>
>> but now it is the reverse: you
>> first get internet, and then put phone service on top of it.
>
> yep.
>
>> So, to get a VoIP service we need internet + phone, then contract
>> independently another VoIP service with another provider. And still pay
>> the first phone.
>
> that's quite unfortunate.

Certainly.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 12/24/2021 5:42 PM, Bob F wrote:
> On 12/24/2021 10:09 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 12/24/2021 04:48 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 02/12/2021 22.06, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Some asshole is making money by annoying me at my expense.  I wouldn't
>>>> cry if every single one of those people died a painful death.  I might
>>>> even pay 20 cents to watch.
>>>>
>>>> You never get a call from the same number a second time.  There's no
>>>> point in blocking numbers.
>>>
>>> I do, here. There are a bunch that seem to not call again, but others
>>> do. Maybe an hour later, the next day, the next week, the next month...
>>> Those that are known "reliable" companies do. They don't fake the
>>> calling number.
>>
>> These assholes aren't what I would call 'reliable' in any language!  I
>> wonder how the one that offers to deal with your immigration problems
>> works;  selling someone a car warranty seems pretty straightforward.
>>
>
> When businesses call me, asking me to buy their products of services, I
> explain that I do not do business with people that violate the law to
> call me. Strike one - your out.

If someone calls me and asks to speak with Kenneth, I know it's someone
I don't know and almost always immediately hang up without listening to him.

Ken Blake wrote:

> If someone calls me and asks to speak with Kenneth, I know it's
> someone I don't know and almost always immediately hang up without
> listening to him.

I use my phone's do not disturb feature. Only my contacts will ring the
phone. I can later see the bounces and respond if needed. Also voice
mail is still active for legitimate non-contact calls. I also subscribe
to Verizon's $3/mo spam blocker service. Surprisingly the spam calls
that still get through Verizon seldom go to voice mail, maybe 2 or 3 a
month at most. So I only have to deal with erasing those 2 or 3 voice
mails by ticking a few numbers on the number pad. Not perfect but then
again not bad...

Am 25.12.21 um 13:45 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> On 25/12/2021 07.10, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> There is one whether you know it or not. What do you think how the
>> routing and billing is done?
>
> That's an stupid and artificial claim.
>
> They just need a contract alphanumeric string as identifier on the computer.>
> Routing is an internet thing. Not a phone thing, because a phone is not
> needed at all.

Bullshit. Routing is everything that includes instructions for goods or
information to get from a to b. Your are completely one track minded.
*ROTFLSTC*

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, the issue is that driving around in stolen cars, and not caring
>> about what is allowed and what not and/or what damages other people
>> might have from one's behaviour appears to be predominantly an "import"
>> people thing.
>
> That is YOUR assumption. Where is you documentation to back it up?
>
> "import" people here seem to work harder, and obey laws better than the
> earlier "import' people's kids from decades ago.

It depends a lot from where you import them.
The kind that I am referring to originate in (Northern) Africa, and
they do not come here to work, they come to profit from our social
security system and to run their drug imperium, to blow up cash
dispensing machines, etc. Between that they race on the streets
in their stolen (or owned by a person "they do not know") cars and
scooters.

It is an unfortunate fact.

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 25.12.21 um 13:45 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>> On 25/12/2021 07.10, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> There is one whether you know it or not. What do you think how the
>>> routing and billing is done?
>>
>> That's an stupid and artificial claim.
>>
>> They just need a contract alphanumeric string as identifier on the computer.>
>> Routing is an internet thing. Not a phone thing, because a phone is not
>> needed at all.
>
> Bullshit. Routing is everything that includes instructions for goods or
> information to get from a to b. Your are completely one track minded.
> *ROTFLSTC*

He is correct, POTS phone service and VoIP phone service are not
required or manadatory parts of an internet connection.

I have VDSL here but there is no POTS on it and the internet provider
offers VoIP phone service at additional cost (i.e. the package that
includes VoIP is more expensive than bare internet), I do not have
that, and I have VoIP service at another provider that is cheaper.

Phone routing and internet routing (and bill routing) are completely
separate things.

Am 25.12.21 um 21:40 schrieb Rob:
> Phone routing and internet routing (and bill routing) are completely
> separate things.

I never said anything else.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On 24/12/2021 19.09, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 12/24/2021 04:48 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 02/12/2021 22.06, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>
>>> Some asshole is making money by annoying me at my expense.  I wouldn't
>>> cry if every single one of those people died a painful death.  I might
>>> even pay 20 cents to watch.
>>>
>>> You never get a call from the same number a second time.  There's no
>>> point in blocking numbers.
>>
>> I do, here. There are a bunch that seem to not call again, but others
>> do. Maybe an hour later, the next day, the next week, the next month...
>> Those that are known "reliable" companies do. They don't fake the
>> calling number.
>
> These assholes aren't what I would call 'reliable' in any language!  I
> wonder how the one that offers to deal with your immigration problems
> works;  selling someone a car warranty seems pretty straightforward.

I used "quotes" ;-)

Reliable in the sense that they are true business in this country, using
their own phone number, and listed.

Here there is something called "Robinson List"⁽¹⁾. If you inscribe
there, companies are obligated to check that list, and do not call those
numbers. The trick is hiring a calling company not on our soil, and
those ignore the Robinson List, not bound by our laws. But still, they
use an actual phone number to do the calling, so they are easy to filter
out.

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_list

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 12/26/2021 04:46 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 24/12/2021 19.09, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 12/24/2021 04:48 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 02/12/2021 22.06, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Some asshole is making money by annoying me at my expense. I wouldn't
>>>> cry if every single one of those people died a painful death. I might
>>>> even pay 20 cents to watch.
>>>>
>>>> You never get a call from the same number a second time. There's no
>>>> point in blocking numbers.
>>>
>>> I do, here. There are a bunch that seem to not call again, but others
>>> do. Maybe an hour later, the next day, the next week, the next month...
>>> Those that are known "reliable" companies do. They don't fake the
>>> calling number.
>>
>> These assholes aren't what I would call 'reliable' in any language! I
>> wonder how the one that offers to deal with your immigration problems
>> works; selling someone a car warranty seems pretty straightforward.
>
> I used "quotes" ;-)
>
> Reliable in the sense that they are true business in this country, using
> their own phone number, and listed.
>
> Here there is something called "Robinson List"⁽¹⁾. If you inscribe
> there, companies are obligated to check that list, and do not call those
> numbers. The trick is hiring a calling company not on our soil, and
> those ignore the Robinson List, not bound by our laws. But still, they
> use an actual phone number to do the calling, so they are easy to filter
> out.

I forget where "here" is for you. In the US we have the do-not-call
list which provides that the potential victims who have put themselves
on the list are enabled to sue the telemarketers in small claims court
for a certain (forgotten) amount. No idea what kind of proof might be
required. Apparently some victims have worked out a system where this
provides a nice income stream -- perhaps just sending a lawyer letter
enables a payment. I would guess, however, that most people (myself
included) find it too much trouble to deal with the legal system for the
amount of money involved.

> (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_list

--
Cheers, Bev
"Do not try to solve all life's problems at once -- learn to
dread each day as it comes." -- Donald Kaul

On 02/12/2021 21.16, sms wrote:
> On 12/2/2021 10:55 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>    So sms is right that not *many* people do, but nospam is kind of right
>> as well, assuming he means that (quite?) *some* people still do.
>
> Those pay-per-minute calls still exist, but they're becoming rarer, both
> in the companies that offer them and the people that use them. At least
> in the U.S. they are for a) people that use their phones only for urgent
> use and b) for people that don't realize that they're often paying _way_
> more than they'd pay on an inexpensive monthly plan or yearly plan.

You forget that sometimes we keep a phone only to receive calls, not to
make them.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article <sqabk7$1mo$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

> I forget where "here" is for you. In the US we have the do-not-call
> list which provides that the potential victims who have put themselves
> on the list are enabled to sue the telemarketers in small claims court
> for a certain (forgotten) amount.

scammers use such lists to target people because those numbers are now
considered valid. very few numbers on the list, if any, will result in
a reorder due to it being disconnected or out of service. that helps
the scammers.

marketers also use such lists for advertising purposes.

as for suing, if the scam call originates from outside the usa, which
it often does, you aren't going to get very far in pursuing legal
options, and that's assuming you can figure out its true origin to even
try. the scammers know how to hide themselves.

tl;dr such a list is worthless.

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 02/12/2021 21.16, sms wrote:
> > On 12/2/2021 10:55 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>    So sms is right that not *many* people do, but nospam is kind of right
> >> as well, assuming he means that (quite?) *some* people still do.
> >
> > Those pay-per-minute calls still exist, but they're becoming rarer, both
> > in the companies that offer them and the people that use them. At least
> > in the U.S. they are for a) people that use their phones only for urgent
> > use and b) for people that don't realize that they're often paying _way_
> > more than they'd pay on an inexpensive monthly plan or yearly plan.
>
> You forget that sometimes we keep a phone only to receive calls, not to
> make them.

Yes, that's - as I wrote in the '<snip>' part - our main use as well.

BTW, speaking about "only to receive calls", this afternoon our
VOIP-based 'landline' became receive-only. Rebooting the (cable)
modem/router/phone-adapter solved that problem. Weird!

On 12/25/2021 12:35 PM, Rob wrote:
> Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Well, the issue is that driving around in stolen cars, and not caring
>>> about what is allowed and what not and/or what damages other people
>>> might have from one's behaviour appears to be predominantly an "import"
>>> people thing.
>>
>> That is YOUR assumption. Where is you documentation to back it up?
>>
>> "import" people here seem to work harder, and obey laws better than the
>> earlier "import' people's kids from decades ago.
>
> It depends a lot from where you import them.
> The kind that I am referring to originate in (Northern) Africa, and
> they do not come here to work, they come to profit from our social
> security system and to run their drug imperium, to blow up cash
> dispensing machines, etc. Between that they race on the streets
> in their stolen (or owned by a person "they do not know") cars and
> scooters.
>
> It is an unfortunate fact.

Maybe a "Fact" in your mind. Doubtful in reality.

But we know what you look for.

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/26/2021 04:46 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
[...]

> > Here there is something called "Robinson List"?¹?. If you inscribe
> > there, companies are obligated to check that list, and do not call those
> > numbers. The trick is hiring a calling company not on our soil, and
> > those ignore the Robinson List, not bound by our laws. But still, they
> > use an actual phone number to do the calling, so they are easy to filter
> > out.
>
> I forget where "here" is for you. ...

Carlos' home country is shown in his email address:

<robin_listas@es.invalid>

'es' = Spain (España)

'Country code top-level domain' -> '3 Lists'
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_code_top-level_domain#Lists>

If you're unsure if a top-level domain (TLD) is a country TLD or not,
first go to:

'List of Internet top-level domains'
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains>

[...]

On 12/26/2021 10:46 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/26/2021 04:46 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> [...]
>
>> > Here there is something called "Robinson List"?¹?. If you inscribe
>> > there, companies are obligated to check that list, and do not call those
>> > numbers. The trick is hiring a calling company not on our soil, and
>> > those ignore the Robinson List, not bound by our laws. But still, they
>> > use an actual phone number to do the calling, so they are easy to filter
>> > out.
>>
>> I forget where "here" is for you. ...
>
> Carlos' home country is shown in his email address:
>
> <robin_listas@es.invalid>
>
> 'es' = Spain (España)

Si, comprendo. I usually ignore everything except the word that comes
before .com -- my only excuse.

> 'Country code top-level domain' -> '3 Lists'
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_code_top-level_domain#Lists>
>
> If you're unsure if a top-level domain (TLD) is a country TLD or not,
> first go to:
>
> 'List of Internet top-level domains'
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains>

I saved a nice text list of only abbreviations and countries SOMEWHERE
as a text file. Unfortunately I can't remember its name. :-(

--
Cheers, Bev
You're such a loser that if there was a contest for losers
you'd come in second.

On 26/12/2021 19.17, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 12/26/2021 04:46 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 24/12/2021 19.09, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 12/24/2021 04:48 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 02/12/2021 22.06, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Some asshole is making money by annoying me at my expense.  I wouldn't
>>>>> cry if every single one of those people died a painful death.  I might
>>>>> even pay 20 cents to watch.
>>>>>
>>>>> You never get a call from the same number a second time.  There's no
>>>>> point in blocking numbers.
>>>>
>>>> I do, here. There are a bunch that seem to not call again, but others
>>>> do. Maybe an hour later, the next day, the next week, the next month...
>>>> Those that are known "reliable" companies do. They don't fake the
>>>> calling number.
>>>
>>> These assholes aren't what I would call 'reliable' in any language!  I
>>> wonder how the one that offers to deal with your immigration problems
>>> works;  selling someone a car warranty seems pretty straightforward.
>>
>> I used "quotes" ;-)
>>
>> Reliable in the sense that they are true business in this country, using
>> their own phone number, and listed.
>>
>> Here there is something called "Robinson List"⁽¹⁾. If you inscribe
>> there, companies are obligated to check that list, and do not call those
>> numbers. The trick is hiring a calling company not on our soil, and
>> those ignore the Robinson List, not bound by our laws. But still, they
>> use an actual phone number to do the calling, so they are easy to filter
>> out.
>
> I forget where "here" is for you.

You can see it in my address ;-)
The two letter country code is there.

Spain.

> In the US we have the do-not-call
> list which provides that the potential victims who have put themselves
> on the list are enabled to sue the telemarketers in small claims court
> for a certain (forgotten) amount.  No idea what kind of proof might be
> required.  Apparently some victims have worked out a system where this
> provides a nice income stream -- perhaps just sending a lawyer letter
> enables a payment.  I would guess, however, that most people (myself
> included) find it too much trouble to deal with the legal system for the
> amount of money involved.

Yeah, I guess so.

>
>> (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_list
>

--
Cheers, Carlos.