Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.dcom.telecom > #13731 > unrolled thread

Panasonic call blocker [telecom]

Back to article view | Back to comp.dcom.telecom

Contents

  Panasonic call blocker [telecom] "Julian THOMAS" <Jt@jt-mj.net> - 2023-01-14 13:37 -0500
    Re: Panasonic call blocker [telecom] Bill Horne <malQRMassimilation@gmail.com> - 2023-01-14 23:05 +0000
      Re: Panasonic call blocker [telecom] "Garrett Wollman" <wollman@bimajority.org> - 2023-01-16 17:18 +0000
        Re: Panasonic call blocker [telecom] Bill Horne <malQRMassimilation@gmail.com> - 2023-01-17 01:35 +0000
          Re: Panasonic call blocker [telecom] "Michael Trew" <michael.trew@att.net> - 2023-01-17 15:12 -0500
    Re: Panasonic call blocker [telecom] "Marco Moock" <mo01@posteo.de> - 2023-01-15 10:43 +0100
    Re: Panasonic call blocker [telecom] "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> - 2023-01-14 20:16 +0000

#13731 — Panasonic call blocker [telecom]

(There is a Panasonic Call Bloker) For about $110 - claims to be
preloaded with 14000 robocall/telemarketing numbers.

Is this worthwhile?  Seems to me a lot of the nuisance calls use
spoofed numbers.

Thanks

Sent from JT's Ipad=20

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#13733

On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 01:37:37PM -0500, Julian THOMAS wrote:
> (There is a Panasonic Call Bloker) For about $110 - claims to be
> preloaded with 14000 robocall/telemarketing numbers.
> 
> Is this worthwhile?  Seems to me a lot of the nuisance calls use
> spoofed numbers.

Let’s talk about the real problem instead of magic boxes which depend
on me believing that I have to pay for someone else’s greed. In a
nutshell, it's that the telemarketing industry is taking advantage of
the telephone etiquette that Americans were taught in schools at a
young age: I learned in college that "Ma Bell" paid to distribute
educational materials to elementary schools nationwide, so as to
inculcate the next generation of consumers with habits that would
increase profits:

* Answer calls quickly
* Be polite and listen carefully
* Pay attention to what the caller is saying
* Take notes

Those lessons are still being taught, although by different
means: I doubt there is anyone under 40 years old who could stand the
thought of letting the electronic leash in their pocket buzz more
than three times before they strike a pose and push "answer," just
like all the actors on TV shows taught them to.

The only solution to ever-more-intrusive sales tactics is to demand
that our elected leaders start to care about OUR quality of life and
OUR right to have the quiet enjoyment of OUR free time.

At the moment, they obviously couldn’t care less. 

Bill Horne

--
(Please remove QRM for direct replies)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13736

In article <20230114230515.GA1280341@telecomdigest.us>,
Bill Horne  <malQRMassimilation@gmail.com> wrote:

>Those lessons are still being taught, although by different
>means: I doubt there is anyone under 40 years old who could stand the
>thought of letting the electronic leash in their pocket buzz more
>than three times before they strike a pose and push "answer," just
>like all the actors on TV shows taught them to.

You must be joking.

If someone is so rude as to make an unscheduled voice call, they go
direct to voicemail.  If it was important they would have sent a text.

-GAWollman

-- 
Garrett A. Wollman    | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wollman@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future.  This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers.         | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13737

On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 05:18:37PM -0000, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <20230114230515.GA1280341@telecomdigest.us>,
> Bill Horne  <malQRMassimilation@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Those lessons are still being taught, although by different
>> means: I doubt there is anyone under 40 years old who could stand the
>> thought of letting the electronic leash in their pocket buzz more
>> than three times before they strike a pose and push "answer," just
>> like all the actors on TV shows taught them to.
> 
> You must be joking.
> 
> If someone is so rude as to make an unscheduled voice call, they go
> direct to voicemail.  If it was important they would have sent a
> text.

It's possible you're observing a cultural shift that I haven't been
exposed to. I know that my son, who is 32, ignores voice mails and
didn't even set up a mailbox until he'd had his cellphone for over a
year. However, I have always been surprised by how quickly both he and
his friends check *ANY* signal from their cellphones, so I think my
point is valid, at least for the millennial generation.

Bill Horne

--
(Please remove QRM for direct replies)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13740

On 1/16/2023 20:35, Bill Horne wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 05:18:37PM -0000, Garrett Wollman wrote:
>> In article<20230114230515.GA1280341@telecomdigest.us>,
>> Bill Horne<malQRMassimilation@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> Those lessons are still being taught, although by different
>>> means: I doubt there is anyone under 40 years old who could stand the
>>> thought of letting the electronic leash in their pocket buzz more
>>> than three times before they strike a pose and push "answer," just
>>> like all the actors on TV shows taught them to.
>>
>> You must be joking.
>>
>> If someone is so rude as to make an unscheduled voice call, they go
>> direct to voicemail.  If it was important they would have sent a
>> text.

I simply don't understand that bizarre train of thought, but it is a 
very frustrating one to someone like myself, who does not use text messages.

> It's possible you're observing a cultural shift that I haven't been
> exposed to. I know that my son, who is 32, ignores voice mails and
> didn't even set up a mailbox until he'd had his cellphone for over a
> year. However, I have always been surprised by how quickly both he and
> his friends check *ANY* signal from their cellphones, so I think my
> point is valid, at least for the millennial generation.

 From the perspective of someone who is 27 (late Millennial), I think 
that you have a valid point.  I don't care for smart phones, and I don't 
have one, which is quite a buck to the current trend.  I am quick to 
answer the telephone when it rings.

With most other people my age, they avoid answering phone calls, for 
reasons unknown to me.  Their attention has shifted to social media... 
also text messages.  Many will immediately hop to their phone if a text 
dings through (even if just to read and ignore), which I agree has 
replaced the need to answer a ringing phone for them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13734

Am 14.01.2023 um 13:37:37 Uhr schrieb Julian THOMAS:

> Is this worthwhile?  Seems to me a lot of the nuisance calls use
> spoofed numbers.

Most abusive/advert calls I receive are from spoofed numbers, so such
devices won't really help.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13735

According to Julian THOMAS <Jt@jt-mj.net>:
>(There is a Panasonic Call Bloker) For about $110 - claims to be
>preloaded with 14000 robocall/telemarketing numbers.
>
>Is this worthwhile?

No.

> Seems to me a lot of the nuisance calls use spoofed numbers.

No kidding.  My landline, which I think is provided by the same
telco as yours, is pretty good at giving SUSPECTED SPAM with
the caller ID.

-- 
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.dcom.telecom

csiph-web