Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

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.

And of course it is to be expected. Cultures differ around the world.

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 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.

The whole telephone number spoofing thing is the same as the IP source
address filtering (BCP-38) on internet. It causes a tremendous amount
of damages, but not to the people who would have to do something about
it. It is easy for an ISP or a telephony provider to filter the numbers
their users use, but it would only work when EVERYONE does it, and it
would not have benefits for the people who implement it.
(when you implement BCP-38 or strict checks on caller ID, it will help
everyone else but you, and that is a reason for lots of companies to
not bother)

The only way we can get rid of it is by setting requirements on "being
on the network". I.e. internet companies that do not implement BCP-38,
or phone companies that do not filter their caller IDs, get disconnected.
That is when they will spring into action and fix it.

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.

Am 23.12.21 um 22:38 schrieb Bob F:
> On 12/23/2021 9:24 AM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> 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.

That's filtered by the provider on my request with a filter available
for all users who want to use it.

Callers not showing their identity can be blocked by default. I never
ever talk to people who do not reveal it. In real life as well.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

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.

This way they can charge us for services such as caller ID or
redirections, because, well, POTs, you know.

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.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 24/12/2021 10.35, Rob wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> The whole telephone number spoofing thing is the same as the IP source
> address filtering (BCP-38) on internet. It causes a tremendous amount
> of damages, but not to the people who would have to do something about
> it. It is easy for an ISP or a telephony provider to filter the numbers
> their users use, but it would only work when EVERYONE does it, and it
> would not have benefits for the people who implement it.
> (when you implement BCP-38 or strict checks on caller ID, it will help
> everyone else but you, and that is a reason for lots of companies to
> not bother)
>
> The only way we can get rid of it is by setting requirements on "being
> on the network". I.e. internet companies that do not implement BCP-38,
> or phone companies that do not filter their caller IDs, get disconnected.
> That is when they will spring into action and fix it.
>
> 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).

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 02/12/2021 22.06, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 11/30/2021 10:10 AM, Rob wrote:
>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/30/2021 4:41 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/29/2021 1:33 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> when your [US] system is broken by design, you're faced with the
>>>>>>  consequences, news at eleven.
>>>
>>>>> After I pay my $20/mo/phone (plus tax, fees and data) I can make
>>>>> all the calls I want from anywhere to anywhere in the US, no time
>>>>> limit, no extra charges. That system is just fine with me.
>>>
>>>> Yes, for most people it's a non-issue, both in the USA and
>>>> elsewhere.
>>>
>>> So why is it an issue here?
>>
>> The issue appears to be that people in the USA (with a mobile phone)
>> are getting scam calls and they have to pay to receive them.  Whereas
>> people in other countries just block the number and don't worry
>> about it.
>
> It only matters if you have to pay for each phone call -- which is the
> way that prepaid plans work.  At least that's how mine works.  I deeply
> resent paying 20 cents for something I would regard as a nuisance
> bordering on attack even if it were free.
>
> 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.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

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

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.

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.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

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.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

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.

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.

Am 24.12.21 um 15:33 schrieb Rob:
> 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.

Exactly the same here. Switzerland adopts the EU rules. A few months of
discussions and the politicians sided with the users.

Years ago.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

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.

On 12/24/2021 04:34 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> 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.
>
> This way they can charge us for services such as caller ID or
> redirections, because, well, POTs, you know.
>
> 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.

AT&T offers gigabit internet-only for ~$70/month for the first year.
We'll see what happens next year -- we don't need a whole gigabit, it's
just nice to have. We use an Ooma device (and an old Panasonic
phone/answering machine) for VOIP, which costs $6/month supposedly for
the taxes they (we) have to pay. We also bought a Sentry2 device ($50
or so) to block telemarketers. Life is good.

Every once in a while I get notifications from Ooma of special deals if
I refer friends. Usually a $20 discount for the friend and a $20 check
(or credit) for me. If anybody is interested, let me know.

--
Cheers, Bev
"On the other hand, I live in California so I'd be willing to
squeeze schoolchildren to death if I thought some oil would
come out." -- Scott Adams

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.

--
Cheers, Bev
"On the other hand, I live in California so I'd be willing to
squeeze schoolchildren to death if I thought some oil would
come out." -- Scott Adams

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> 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.

Here, the scams usually are about some problem you have with your
computer, which they have detected, and want to fix for you.
You would have to download TeamViewer, AnyDesk or similar for them
to look at your system. They show you some alarming messages from
the logs and offer to fix it for a fee of like $30.
To pay that, you are asked to login to your banking environment
(while they are connected) and transfer the money. They then trick
you into transferring like 100 times more (possible because they
control your computer at that time).

Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote:
> Here, the scams usually are about some problem you have with your
> computer, which they have detected, and want to fix for you.
> You would have to download TeamViewer, AnyDesk or similar for them
> to look at your system. They show you some alarming messages from
> the logs and offer to fix it for a fee of like $30.
> To pay that, you are asked to login to your banking environment
> (while they are connected) and transfer the money. They then trick
> you into transferring like 100 times more (possible because they
> control your computer at that time).

Next, they call "from your bank" to warn you that hackers have
infected your computer and your account is in danger, to fix that
your money has to be transferred to a safe account, which is of
course their (money mule's) account.

On 12/24/2021 11:29 AM, Rob wrote:
> Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>> Here, the scams usually are about some problem you have with your
>> computer, which they have detected, and want to fix for you. You
>> would have to download TeamViewer, AnyDesk or similar for them to
>> look at your system. They show you some alarming messages from the
>> logs and offer to fix it for a fee of like $30. To pay that, you
>> are asked to login to your banking environment (while they are
>> connected) and transfer the money. They then trick you into
>> transferring like 100 times more (possible because they control
>> your computer at that time).
>
> Next, they call "from your bank" to warn you that hackers have
> infected your computer and your account is in danger, to fix that
> your money has to be transferred to a safe account, which is of
> course their (money mule's) account.

And there are the "Grandma, I'm in trouble..." calls. I wonder if
someone has an age-sorted database.

--
Cheers, Bev
Ride faster, I hear banjo music!

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/24/2021 11:29 AM, Rob wrote:
>> Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>>> Here, the scams usually are about some problem you have with your
>>> computer, which they have detected, and want to fix for you. You
>>> would have to download TeamViewer, AnyDesk or similar for them to
>>> look at your system. They show you some alarming messages from the
>>> logs and offer to fix it for a fee of like $30. To pay that, you
>>> are asked to login to your banking environment (while they are
>>> connected) and transfer the money. They then trick you into
>>> transferring like 100 times more (possible because they control
>>> your computer at that time).
>>
>> Next, they call "from your bank" to warn you that hackers have
>> infected your computer and your account is in danger, to fix that
>> your money has to be transferred to a safe account, which is of
>> course their (money mule's) account.
>
> And there are the "Grandma, I'm in trouble..." calls. I wonder if
> someone has an age-sorted database.

That kind of scam is normally done over WhatsApp here. The risk
would be too high that grandma recognizes the voice or asks questions
they cannot answer quickly.

On 12/24/2021 01:25 PM, Rob wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/24/2021 11:29 AM, Rob wrote:
>>> Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>>>> Here, the scams usually are about some problem you have with your
>>>> computer, which they have detected, and want to fix for you. You
>>>> would have to download TeamViewer, AnyDesk or similar for them to
>>>> look at your system. They show you some alarming messages from the
>>>> logs and offer to fix it for a fee of like $30. To pay that, you
>>>> are asked to login to your banking environment (while they are
>>>> connected) and transfer the money. They then trick you into
>>>> transferring like 100 times more (possible because they control
>>>> your computer at that time).
>>>
>>> Next, they call "from your bank" to warn you that hackers have
>>> infected your computer and your account is in danger, to fix that
>>> your money has to be transferred to a safe account, which is of
>>> course their (money mule's) account.
>>
>> And there are the "Grandma, I'm in trouble..." calls. I wonder if
>> someone has an age-sorted database.
>
> That kind of scam is normally done over WhatsApp here. The risk
> would be too high that grandma recognizes the voice or asks questions
> they cannot answer quickly.

The first kid who called COULD have been my grandson. Voice reasonably
similar (probably) and the beginning of his tale was sort of plausible.
At some point I smelled a rat and asked him for his dog's name. I'm
ashamed that I was gullible enough to allow it to progress for a couple
of minutes :-( In my defense, I don't remember the last time I talked
to my grandson on the phone.

The second kid got asked within seconds.

--
Cheers, Bev
"There are only two reasons to sit in the back row of an
airplane: Either you have diarrhoea, or you're anxious to
meet people who do." -- Rich Jeni

On 12/24/2021 2:38 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 12/24/2021 01:25 PM, Rob wrote:
>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/24/2021 11:29 AM, Rob wrote:
>>>> Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>>>>> Here, the scams usually are about some problem you have with your
>>>>> computer, which they have detected, and want to fix for you. You
>>>>> would have to download TeamViewer, AnyDesk or similar for them to
>>>>> look at your system. They show you some alarming messages from the
>>>>> logs and offer to fix it for a fee of like $30. To pay that, you
>>>>> are asked to login to your banking environment (while they are
>>>>> connected) and transfer the money. They then trick you into
>>>>> transferring like 100 times more (possible because they control
>>>>> your computer at that time).
>>>>
>>>> Next, they call "from your bank" to warn you that hackers have
>>>> infected your computer and your account is in danger, to fix that
>>>> your money has to be transferred to a safe account, which is of
>>>> course their (money mule's) account.
>>>
>>> And there are the "Grandma, I'm in trouble..." calls. I wonder if
>>> someone has an age-sorted database.
>>
>> That kind of scam is normally done over WhatsApp here. The risk
>> would be too high that grandma recognizes the voice or asks questions
>> they cannot answer quickly.
>
> The first kid who called COULD have been my grandson. Voice reasonably
> similar (probably) and the beginning of his tale was sort of plausible.
> At some point I smelled a rat and asked him for his dog's name. I'm
> ashamed that I was gullible enough to allow it to progress for a couple
> of minutes :-( In my defense, I don't remember the last time I talked
> to my grandson on the phone.
>
> The second kid got asked within seconds.

I only got such a call once. I almost immediately asked which grandson
he was, Dave or Charlie. I only have one grandson, and he's not Dave or
Charlie.

On 12/24/2021 01:50 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
> On 12/24/2021 2:38 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 12/24/2021 01:25 PM, Rob wrote:
>>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/24/2021 11:29 AM, Rob wrote:
>>>>> Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Here, the scams usually are about some problem you have with your
>>>>>> computer, which they have detected, and want to fix for you. You
>>>>>> would have to download TeamViewer, AnyDesk or similar for them to
>>>>>> look at your system. They show you some alarming messages from the
>>>>>> logs and offer to fix it for a fee of like $30. To pay that, you
>>>>>> are asked to login to your banking environment (while they are
>>>>>> connected) and transfer the money. They then trick you into
>>>>>> transferring like 100 times more (possible because they control
>>>>>> your computer at that time).
>>>>>
>>>>> Next, they call "from your bank" to warn you that hackers have
>>>>> infected your computer and your account is in danger, to fix that
>>>>> your money has to be transferred to a safe account, which is of
>>>>> course their (money mule's) account.
>>>>
>>>> And there are the "Grandma, I'm in trouble..." calls. I wonder if
>>>> someone has an age-sorted database.
>>>
>>> That kind of scam is normally done over WhatsApp here. The risk
>>> would be too high that grandma recognizes the voice or asks questions
>>> they cannot answer quickly.
>>
>> The first kid who called COULD have been my grandson. Voice reasonably
>> similar (probably) and the beginning of his tale was sort of plausible.
>> At some point I smelled a rat and asked him for his dog's name. I'm
>> ashamed that I was gullible enough to allow it to progress for a couple
>> of minutes :-( In my defense, I don't remember the last time I talked
>> to my grandson on the phone.
>>
>> The second kid got asked within seconds.
>
> I only got such a call once. I almost immediately asked which grandson
> he was, Dave or Charlie. I only have one grandson, and he's not Dave or
> Charlie.

The first kid was really good. He was sufficiently generic/swift that
he COULD have been my grandson.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Steve Balmer, CEO of Microsoft[0], recently referred to LINUX as a
cancer. Unsurprisingly, that's incorrect; LINUX was released on
August 25th, 1991 and is therefore a virgo." -- Kevin L

On 12/23/2021 11:49 PM, 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 ...
>

I just recently got fiber installed for my phone. When I got them out to
fix the noise and failures when it rained hard, I was "informed" that
the solution to that was to switch to fiber. The old lead coated cables
were around 100 years old, and were not going to be replaced. When 50%
of the neighborhood has been switched over, everyone else will have to
make the switch. (Centurylink)

On 12/24/2021 1:29 AM, Rob wrote:
> Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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?
>
> 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.

>
> And of course it is to be expected. Cultures differ around the world.

Only by appropriately prejudiced people.

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.

On 12/23/2021 3:39 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> 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.
>

It is just another scam. They don't care that 99% of their calls go to
people that cannot understand a word they say, as long as they can scam
a few of the others.