sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 12/3/2021 8:33 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> On 12/3/2021 6:12 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>>> It's getting harder and harder to find T-Mobile top-up cards. Some
> >>>> top-up functions charge an additional fee -- one year I had to do one of
> >>>> those. Last year I bought codes from Walmart, which was painless.
> >>>> Ralph's supermarket just added a rack of phone-specific gift cards,
> >>>> which includes both $10 and $25 T-Mobile cards.
> >>>
> >>> Can't you top-up on-line (on a website) or with an app? Top-up cards
> >>> are *so* last century.
> >>
> >> Yes, you can do it all on the T-Mobile website.
> >
> > Thanks, much more helpful than your lapdog.
>
> Huh? Who is my lapdog?

The one that always barks whenever you 'say' something. He's not
actually on your lap, because you would notice that and because of your
'hearing' 'problem', you don't hear him barking. But trust 'us', he
barks, each and every time.

In article <sodgia$fii$1@dont-email.me>, AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

> > remember ringer equivalences?
>
> I didn't. Just Googled it. It made me remember that we always unhooked
> the ringers from the extra (pirate) extension phones so we wouldn't get
> caught.

yep. that's one way.

On 12/3/2021 11:17 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> Huh? Who is my lapdog?
>
> The one that always barks whenever you 'say' something. He's not
> actually on your lap, because you would notice that and because of your
> 'hearing' 'problem', you don't hear him barking. But trust 'us', he
> barks, each and every time.

Whatever. I believe that you're referring to someone that I have had in
my Usenet filters for a long time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“When ignorance screams, intelligence is silent. Your peace and quiet
are worth more.” ― Akhilesh Sengar from the Donkey and the Tiger Fable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 12/3/2021 11:17 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Huh? Who is my lapdog?
> >
> > The one that always barks whenever you 'say' something. He's not
> > actually on your lap, because you would notice that and because of your
> > 'hearing' 'problem', you don't hear him barking. But trust 'us', he
> > barks, each and every time.
>
> Whatever. I believe that you're referring to someone that I have had in
> my Usenet filters for a long time.

Bingo! You've got it in one! (Well, two actually, but who's counting?)

Enjoy the peace and tranquillity.

On 12/03/2021 12:05 AM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 03.12.21 um 00:59 schrieb The Real Bev:
>> I worry about the harm the surveillance can cause. I don't think that
>> people who want to sell me something will want to harm me in any way,
>> although spam is a real annoyance.
>>
>> Not so the governments. They have guns and can only get my money by --
>> ultimately -- threatening to use them.
>
> This document gives you perhaps an idea.
>
> https://propertyofthepeople.org/document-detail/?doc-id=21114562

The Feds already know everything about me up through 1995, and nothing
has changed since then except Mexican dentistry. If they want to read
my mail/messages or look at my photos they'll probably fall asleep
pretty quickly. Or maybe actually enjoy some of it -- every once in a
while I'll run across something I wrote a long time ago and think DAMN
that was clever!

If I were really worried about this stuff I'd probably figure out a way
to deal with it.

--
Cheers, Bev
Psalm 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy
little ones against the stones.

On 12/03/2021 05:05 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/01/2021 11:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>> > AFAICT, *everybody* in the US pays the called-party costs for a
>> > 'landline' to mobile call. The people with a contract with some bundle
>> > of minutes, just pay out of their bundle. That might not be of any
>> > concern to them, but they still pay, FSVSVO 'pay'.
>>
>> I get the first 3 letters but I'm stumped by the last 3. Are two of
>> them typos?
>
> For Some Very Small Value Of.

Thanks!

>> > Anyway, AFAIC EOD.
>>
>> Aw come on, don't quit now!
>
> Not to worry. AJL continued, so so did I. :-)

:-)

--
Cheers, Bev
Psalm 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy
little ones against the stones.

On 12/03/2021 05:11 AM, sms wrote:
> On 12/2/2021 5:10 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Cheapest I've ever seen is ~15/month. Who charges $5?
>
> <https://hellomobile.com/register/plans> Click on "View More Plans."
> Hello Mobile doesn't have good ratings, but since you're already on
> T-Mobile you know the limitations of their coverage so you would be fine.

Interesting. I bookmarked that Just In Case.

> Check <https://prepaidcompare.net/>. The site owner keeps it up to date
> which must be a big job. There are actually ten different plans on
> T-Mobile's network for $5 or less, eight, if you throw out the free
> FreedomPop and TextNow plans which are too much of a hassle.

Freedompop are lying bastards. "Lifetime" means "until we sell
ourselves to somebody else so go pound sand if you're unhappy". This
has happened twice. Moreover, the calls and texts are subtracted from
the free 200 MB of data, so you get far less than you thought for the
cost of the SIM and the nuisance of opting out of their automatic
billing 'feature'.

The thing I really liked -- the $20 200MB/month hotspot -- caused me the
most annoyance when they stopped supporting it. I could use my tablet
with it too. What was I going to do, sue for $20 in Small Claims Court?

> For $4 or less per month there are also options.
>
> No Hassle, $30 per year ($2.50 per month)
> -----------------------------------------
> Red Pocket has a $30/360 day plan with 200 minutes, 1000 SMS, and 200MB
> of data per month <https://www.ebay.com/itm/133196831828>. I have one
> old phone with this plan. I was thinking of getting T-Mobile home
> internet and I wanted to test to see if I had good coverage at my house
> yet, but the speeds are too slow at this time.

I installed Network Cell Info Lite and walked around my neighborhood.
At no point was signal strength more than a single blip into the green
zone, and that was when I was looking at the actual cell tower roughly
1/8 mile away. In my home it's -118. The range is -40 to -140.
Apparently small numbers are good :-(

> No Hassle $39.99 per year ($3.33 per month)

Freedompop sold the useful part of itself to Red Pocket. No joy.

> -------------------------------------------
> Tracfone offers a one year plan, on all three of the nationwide
> carriers, for $39.99 with 1200 minutes, 1200 texts, and 3GB of data
> (that's what you get per year, not per month). See
> <https://www.ebay.com/itm/283448464240>. Extra data is $10/GB and rolls
> over. Unused data from the $10/GB rolls over, but I'm not sure about the
> unused data from the 3GB/year.

I'd be willing to believe that they all try to give you less than you
think you're paying for.

> Tracfone's normal pricing tends to be not a good deal, but their yearly
> special is. Sometimes you can snag a deal at HSN for a year of service
> _and_ a phone. I did this recently. A Samsung A51 with a year of service
> (1500/1500/1.5GB) cost me $98.75, and the phone can be unlocked after a
> year (maybe less now that Verizon owns Tracfone). I really just wanted
> the phone, which normally sells for a lot more than that (around $400
> unlocked, with no service).
>
> Big Hassle
> ----------
> TextNow offers unlimited minutes and unlimited text, but no data, for
> free. It used to be only for Wi-Fi, but now it uses T-Mobile as well.
> $4.99 for a SIM card <https://www.textnow.com/>. It's a huge hassle.
> First, it's ad-based so you have to watch ads. Second, you have to call
> or text at least once a day to keep the account active.
>
> If you're willing to deal with the hassle of manually renewing each
> month, FreedomPop has a new, free, 30 day plan with 300 minutes, 1000
> SMS, and 100MB of data <https://www.walmart.com/ip/680827893>. $9.98 SIM
> card, sold only at Walmart. From what I've read on Reddit about this
> plan, it's even more of a hassle than earlier FreedomPop plans when it
> comes to keeping service active.

They're deliberately confusing and their explanations are linguistically
ambiguous. Never again.

>> I'd like to be able to buy a chunk of data for a reasonable price that
>> would be good until I used it up. NOBODY offers that.
>
> See the Tracfone plan I mentioned above. Data that you purchase rolls
> over. Not super-cheap data at $10/GB, but not unreasonable either,
> considering what a carrier like Page Plus charges for rollover data
> ($50/GB).

I'm saving all this for when I might need it.

> I think that you have the same issue that I had with the T-Mobile
> grandfathered $10/year plan. I built up a big balance that I didn't want
> to lose so I kept adding $10 per year so I wouldn't lose it. But with no
> data available, and with T-Mobile's coverage issues in my area, I
> finally just let it go. It was not my primary phone, I had the SIM in a
> ZTE flip phone with VoLTE, and I thought it'd be a good phone to take
> along when I was hiking or biking, but the poor coverage made it pretty
> useless in the places that I really wanted to use it.

A friend gave my hubby his $10 SIM. He uses it even less than I do and
has a balance of $187. Mine is only $42.

--
Cheers, Bev
Psalm 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy
little ones against the stones.

On 12/03/2021 06:12 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> It's getting harder and harder to find T-Mobile top-up cards. Some
>> top-up functions charge an additional fee -- one year I had to do one of
>> those. Last year I bought codes from Walmart, which was painless.
>> Ralph's supermarket just added a rack of phone-specific gift cards,
>> which includes both $10 and $25 T-Mobile cards.
>
> Can't you top-up on-line (on a website) or with an app? Top-up cards
> are *so* last century.

You'd think so, but the only on-line thing I could find charged me an
additional buck for the service. On-line Walmart was easiest, and I got
5% back on my Discover card.

This is all trivial, of course. OTOH, it keeps us in practice for the
big stuff.

--
Cheers, Bev
"It's no piece of cake, but it sure beats listening to Ted
Kennedy on the Senate floor."
- Jesse Helms describing heart surgery

On 12/03/2021 07:18 AM, AJL wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> one ring was one of the most common methods but was limited to only
>> one person. other methods existed, some more legal than others.
>
> In my youth Ma Bell forbid hooking up anything but their own equipment
> to their lines. But we hams always did it anyway for our phone patches.

My mom was a victim. When you could use whatever phone you wanted my
mom didn't notice and kept paying rent on the spare phone in her bedroom
for years. We didn't notice either. AT&T obviously had no reason to
alert her after -- presumably -- the first time, probably in small print.

Cheers, Bev
"It's no piece of cake, but it sure beats listening to Ted
Kennedy on the Senate floor."
- Jesse Helms describing heart surgery

On 11/29/2021 2:46 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 29/11/2021 03.20, VanguardLH wrote:
>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/11/2021 01.54, VanguardLH wrote:
>>>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Pixel2 using the 'phone' app that came with it.  Google is very good
>>>>> about labeling calls 'spam calls' but then it lets them go through.
>>>>> This crap has cost m4 $2.50 in the last month.  I pay $10/year for the
>>>>> prepaid plan and (obviously)  make very few calls, so you can see why
>>>>> I'm pissed.
>>>>>
>>>>> I just set it to 'Block calls from unidentified callers' but that's
>>>>> kind
>>>>> of ambiguous.  Does it actually connect the call, triggering a charge,
>>>>> but prevent it from ringing or leaving voicemail?  Just exactly what
>>>>> does 'block' mean here?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm willing to trust google's judgment and reject every single one of
>>>>> these calls before it gets to me and triggers a charge.  I'm
>>>>> willing to
>>>>> reject any call from someone NOT in my contacts list.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is such a thing even possible?
>>>>
>>>> Blocking at the client end (phone) can't do anything until the call
>>>> has been accepted, so your phone rings.
>>>
>>> Mine doesn't.
>>
>> How would a client-side app know anything about a call until the call
>> gets connected to the phone?  By the way, call accepted is not the same
>> as call completed (answered).
>
> It gets connected, but it doesn't have to ring yet.
>
>>
>> How does Caller ID work in Spain?  It doesn't have the CID data sent
>> between the 1st and 2nd ring?  Well, that still means the call got
>> accepted by the phone, so the phone rings.
>
> On land lines, not on mobiles.
>
> Mobile phones get also a data path for signaling, the call id number is
> there instantly.

And you have no "spoofed" caller ID's?

On 11/28/2021 9:49 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 11/28/2021 05:44 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 29/11/2021 01.54, VanguardLH wrote:
>>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pixel2 using the 'phone' app that came with it.  Google is very good
>>>> about labeling calls 'spam calls' but then it lets them go through.
>>>> This crap has cost m4 $2.50 in the last month.  I pay $10/year for the
>>>> prepaid plan and (obviously)  make very few calls, so you can see why
>>>> I'm pissed.
>>>>
>>>> I just set it to 'Block calls from unidentified callers' but that's
>>>> kind
>>>> of ambiguous.  Does it actually connect the call, triggering a charge,
>>>> but prevent it from ringing or leaving voicemail?  Just exactly what
>>>> does 'block' mean here?
>>>>
>>>> I'm willing to trust google's judgment and reject every single one of
>>>> these calls before it gets to me and triggers a charge.  I'm willing to
>>>> reject any call from someone NOT in my contacts list.
>>>>
>>>> Is such a thing even possible?
>>>
>>> Blocking at the client end (phone) can't do anything until the call has
>>> been accepted, so your phone rings.
>>
>> Mine doesn't.
>>
>> This feature you have in the USA where you can be charged for receiving
>> a call is amazing to me, I don't know how that works. Here, the
>> receiving side never pays a cent no matter what you do - unless you are
>> roaming abroad and answer the call.
>
> I put it down to good lobbying by the cellphone industry.  Same thing
> with the insurance industry.  We have to buy liability insurance for
> each car we own, regardless of the fact that we can only drive one at a
> time.  It would seem that the liability insurance should attach to the
> person, not the vehicle, but that's not the way it works.
>
>> So I don't know at what point in the call you get charged. It should be
>> only on call completion, ie, on answer. Now, is voice mail "answering"?
>
> I would guess it is, and if I reject a call it goes to voicemail if
> that's what the caller chooses.
>
> AND -- it costs me a call (20 cents/minute) to check my voicemail!
>
> The workaround is to put the phone on airplane mode and call in with the
> landline.  Invariably it's the Chinese chick telling me in Mandarin that
> there's a problem with my immigration documents, the cheerful midwestern
> woman reminding me about the expiration of my car warranty or 5 seconds
> of silence and background noise while the callers figure out that they
> called a wrong number.  I get charged 20 cents a minute for each of
> those even if I never check them.  No idea how long the messages
> actually are, I delete them as soon as I recognize them for what they are.
>

I pay $.06 / minute. $.20 seems way high. I can listen to messages using
my landline or google voice for nothing.

On 11/30/2021 1:47 AM, Rob wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> THEY would have their own liability insurance. Perhaps there would be
>> penalties for driving while NOT insured, although the illegals solved
>> that problem by just running away if they crashed a car.
>
> Ah is that happening over there as well?
> It used to be culture here to stay at the place and possibly help others
> when you are in an accident. Nobody ever would think about leaving
> before having arranged everyone's wellbeing and exchanging insurance
> information.
>
> But lately, we have "imported" folks which do not have that culture,
> and we read on the news every day that people have been hurt or killed
> on the road and the car or the driver fleed the scene.
> Seems to be normal in some cultures.

From the Youtube crash videos I've seen, That's plenty of white
American drivers. Is that the "culture" you speak of.

Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/30/2021 1:47 AM, Rob wrote:
>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> THEY would have their own liability insurance. Perhaps there would be
>>> penalties for driving while NOT insured, although the illegals solved
>>> that problem by just running away if they crashed a car.
>>
>> Ah is that happening over there as well?
>> It used to be culture here to stay at the place and possibly help others
>> when you are in an accident. Nobody ever would think about leaving
>> before having arranged everyone's wellbeing and exchanging insurance
>> information.
>>
>> But lately, we have "imported" folks which do not have that culture,
>> and we read on the news every day that people have been hurt or killed
>> on the road and the car or the driver fleed the scene.
>> Seems to be normal in some cultures.
>
> From the Youtube crash videos I've seen, That's plenty of white
> American drivers. Is that the "culture" you speak of.

I do not mean the fact they crash (in fact I quite often see on those
videos that Americans really cannot drive - but that is not surprising
given the lack of training they get before receiving their license), but
more the phenomenon that people run away when having crashed.

Here, that is linked to "import" people and their culture.
(they also tend to drive without having a license, in cars they do not own)

On 22/12/2021 05.01, Bob F wrote:
> On 11/29/2021 2:46 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

....

>> Mobile phones get also a data path for signaling, the call id number
>> is there instantly.
>
> And you have no "spoofed" caller ID's?

Apparently not. At least, I have not detected them yet. Maybe on
international calls.

Thus, blocking lists work :-)

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 03/12/2021 01.06, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 12/01/2021 01:05 AM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 29.11.21 um 19:29 schrieb nospam:
>>> In article <slrnsqa3b6.846.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
>>> <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The USA used to be technologically ahead of many other countries.
>>>
>>> it still is.
>>>
>>>> Today, it has fallen behind.  But some of the Americans have not
>>>> yet received that message, and still think they are doing something
>>>> right.  However, those days are long gone!
>>>
>>> false.
>>
>> Very right. The weak point of the US is the infrastructure (telecom,
>> roads and bridges, electrical utilities, postal services etc. etc. and
>> the health care system is a total disaster).
>
> It's fortunate that other countries can profit from looking at the
> mistakes we made because we were the first creators/users and we could
> actually afford such things.  Nigeria, say, has never been able to
> afford to string phone wire so they can just bypass that stage.  If
> their people are dirt poor they have to devise systems that are
> affordable.  There are real advantages to being a first-world country,
> but 'cheap' isn't necessarily one of them.
>
> Enjoy standing on our shoulders, ungrateful copycats!

Actually, modern mobile phone was invented here :-P

(GSM)

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Am 23.12.21 um 13:16 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> On 22/12/2021 05.01, Bob F wrote:
>> On 11/29/2021 2:46 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>> Mobile phones get also a data path for signaling, the call id number
>>> is there instantly.
>>
>> And you have no "spoofed" caller ID's?
>
> Apparently not. At least, I have not detected them yet. Maybe on
> international calls.
>
> Thus, blocking lists work :-)

Here roughly 80-90% of the scam-calls show international numbers.
Thereof about 1/3 UK-numbers, 1/3 Rest of Europe and 1/3 overseas
primarily US-numbers.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On 12/23/2021 9:24 AM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 23.12.21 um 13:16 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>> On 22/12/2021 05.01, Bob F wrote:
>>> On 11/29/2021 2:46 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> Mobile phones get also a data path for signaling, the call id number
>>>> is there instantly.
>>>
>>> And you have no "spoofed" caller ID's?
>>
>> Apparently not. At least, I have not detected them yet. Maybe on
>> international calls.
>>
>> Thus, blocking lists work :-)
>
> Here roughly 80-90% of the scam-calls show international numbers.
> Thereof about 1/3 UK-numbers, 1/3 Rest of Europe and 1/3 overseas
> primarily US-numbers.
>
>

A lot of the calls here spoof a number with the first several digits the
same as the victim's number.

On 12/22/2021 9:45 AM, Rob wrote:
> Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/30/2021 1:47 AM, Rob wrote:
>>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> THEY would have their own liability insurance. Perhaps there would be
>>>> penalties for driving while NOT insured, although the illegals solved
>>>> that problem by just running away if they crashed a car.
>>>
>>> Ah is that happening over there as well?
>>> It used to be culture here to stay at the place and possibly help others
>>> when you are in an accident. Nobody ever would think about leaving
>>> before having arranged everyone's wellbeing and exchanging insurance
>>> information.
>>>
>>> But lately, we have "imported" folks which do not have that culture,
>>> and we read on the news every day that people have been hurt or killed
>>> on the road and the car or the driver fleed the scene.
>>> Seems to be normal in some cultures.
>>
>> From the Youtube crash videos I've seen, That's plenty of white
>> American drivers. Is that the "culture" you speak of.
>
> I do not mean the fact they crash (in fact I quite often see on those
> videos that Americans really cannot drive - but that is not surprising
> given the lack of training they get before receiving their license), but
> more the phenomenon that people run away when having crashed.
>
> Here, that is linked to "import" people and their culture.
> (they also tend to drive without having a license, in cars they do not own)

Could that be because people driving their own cars know they will be
easily tracked down?

It is hard to understand why people driving stolen cars run away after
they crash, isn't it. Does it make any difference if the are "import"
people. Is that even really documented to be the case?

On 23/12/2021 22.38, Bob F wrote:
> On 12/23/2021 9:24 AM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 23.12.21 um 13:16 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>>> On 22/12/2021 05.01, Bob F wrote:
>>>> On 11/29/2021 2:46 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>> Mobile phones get also a data path for signaling, the call id number
>>>>> is there instantly.
>>>>
>>>> And you have no "spoofed" caller ID's?
>>>
>>> Apparently not. At least, I have not detected them yet. Maybe on
>>> international calls.
>>>
>>> Thus, blocking lists work :-)
>>
>> Here roughly 80-90% of the scam-calls show international numbers.
>> Thereof about 1/3 UK-numbers, 1/3 Rest of Europe and 1/3 overseas
>> primarily US-numbers.
>>
>>
>
> A lot of the calls here spoof a number with the first several digits the
> same as the victim's number.

You could block international calls.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Am 23.12.21 um 22:45 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> You could block international calls.

I can and do in the webinterface with numbers, expressions and
wildcards. We have no problem anymore with disturbing calls. Even
landlines are ip-based telephony for roughly 5 years now which makes
these things very easy. I just see these things in the filter log when I
check it from time to time.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On 12/23/2021 01:38 PM, Bob F wrote:
> On 12/23/2021 9:24 AM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 23.12.21 um 13:16 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>>> On 22/12/2021 05.01, Bob F wrote:
>>>> On 11/29/2021 2:46 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Mobile phones get also a data path for signaling, the call id number
>>>>> is there instantly.
>>>>
>>>> And you have no "spoofed" caller ID's?
>>>
>>> Apparently not. At least, I have not detected them yet. Maybe on
>>> international calls.
>>>
>>> Thus, blocking lists work :-)
>>
>> Here roughly 80-90% of the scam-calls show international numbers.
>> Thereof about 1/3 UK-numbers, 1/3 Rest of Europe and 1/3 overseas
>> primarily US-numbers.
>
> A lot of the calls here spoof a number with the first several digits the
> same as the victim's number.

ALL of mine do that. They're either the Chinese chick telling me about
my immigration problems or people telling me about my expring car
warranty, but the numbers are always different -- but with my own area code.

I had thought that the message in Mandarin was because of the high
Chinese population in the area, but if it's a common practice I was wrong.

--
Cheers, Bev
"If anyone disagrees with anything I say, I am quite prepared
not only to retract it, but also to deny under oath that I
ever said it." -- T. Lehrer

On 23/12/2021 23.11, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 23.12.21 um 22:45 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>> You could block international calls.
>
> I can and do in the webinterface with numbers, expressions and
> wildcards. We have no problem anymore with disturbing calls. Even
> landlines are ip-based telephony for roughly 5 years now which makes
> these things very easy. I just see these things in the filter log when I
> check it from time to time.

That's the thing, IP telephony has not taken off here.

Of course, the telephone company uses VoIP, but to the users they don't.
There is a conversion box and what I see "appears" to be plain old
telephony, with the same copper wire terminals and classical numbers.
Apparently, there are no pure VoIP users, so they don't spoof the call
ID numbers.

As long as they can control who can initiate calls, the call id will
work. If they allow any one to enter, the game is lost.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

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 ...

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 ...

Seems Telefonica has roughly the same timescale as British Telecom ...

"Telefónica is committed to network sustainability whereby 100% of the
energy consumption of the networks in core
markets come from renewable sources. In Spain, the closure of the copper
network is progressing according to the plan
(769 central offices closed by March 2021, out of a total of 8,532),
reducing CO2 emissions and generating additional
savings. It is expected that 100% of the copper network will have been
replaced by fibre by 2025"

<https://www.telefonica.com/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2021/07/rdos21t1-eng.pdf>

Am 24.12.21 um 08:49 schrieb Andy Burns:
> 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 ...

I did not miss it one single second.
The classic "Plain Old Telephone Service" is on a downhill path anyway.
In western markets the number of mobile phones/numbers has overtaken
fixed lines years ago.

The concept of making a call to a phone number and hoping that the right
person is answering was overtaken by location-independent services to
specific persons (=mobile).

--
De gustibus non est disputandum