Anonymous caller reject...

[Mr Angry]

I've had this service for some time and, up until recently, it performed pretty well. Of late, however, I notice that there are calls getting through and when I 1471 I get the message "We do not have the callers number".

This happened this evening and I rang VM customer services (Punjab branch) only to be told that I should phone the (FREE) TPS (http://www.tpsonline.org.uk/tps/) and register with them to make sure that I didn't receive any further calls.

When I asked why VM were charging me for a service which the CS operator themselves admitted was not fit for purpose and which they advised the TPS offer for free "People can withhold their number and get around our system but not the TPS system" there was a stunned silence.

Can any of the "in house" boffins who frequent CF explain the rationale?

Over to you chaps / chapettes.

[Digital Fanatic]

I've had this service for some time and, up until recently, it performed pretty well. Of late, however, I notice that there are calls getting through and when I 1471 I get the message "We do not have the callers number".

This happened this evening and I rang VM customer services (Punjab branch) only to be told that I should phone the (FREE) TPS (http://www.tpsonline.org.uk/tps/) and register with them to make sure that I didn't receive any further calls.

When I asked why VM were charging me for a service which the CS operator themselves admitted was not fit for purpose and which they advised thre TPS offer for free "People can withhold their number and get around our system but not the TPS system" there was a strunned silence.

Can any of the "in house" boffins who frequent CF explain the rationale?

Over to you chaps / chapettes.

"We do not have the callers number" means just that, the caller didn't with-hold it, but just didn't transmit it, these are normally overseas call centres

If someone in the UK has their number automatically with-held, then they will not be able to call you, unless they release their number first.

Anyone dialling 141 before calling will also be rejected from calling your line.

[Mr Angry]

"We do not have the callers number" means just that, the caller didn't with-hold it, but just didn't transmit it, these are normally overseas call centres

If someone in the UK has their number automatically with-held, then they will not be able to call you, unless they release their number first.

Anyone dialling 141 before calling will also be rejected from calling your line.

Thanks for that.

However, if they "didn't with-hold it, but just didn't transmit it" then they are still,to all intents and purposes, anonymous.

I see someone else is getting nowhere on the same issue over on the official VM forum (http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/Telephone/Anonymous-Caller-Rejection/m-p/145768).

Plus ca change.

[Digital Fanatic]

Thanks for that.

However, if they "didn't with-hold it, but just didn't transmit it" then they are still,to all intents and purposes, anonymous.

I see someone else is getting nowhere on the same issue over on the official VM forum (http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/Telephone/Anonymous-Caller-Rejection/m-p/145768).

Plus ca change.

It's how it works though. It's the same on BT ( I had it on BT a few years ago). You can't stop all calls and it won't stop calls from overseas as they are not with-holding, they just don't transmit it.

If these type of calls are a problem, then caller display would better suit as you can see if it's with-held and if they are from overseas as it says "international" on the display.

Luisa is correct on the VM forum too.

[Peter_]

As DF says above these offshore call centres do not supply an ID and therefore slip through the net regardless of provider, also some UK companies use this when calling you so they leave no number for you to callback.

It can also be to do with the routing as certain operators will choose the cheapest route for your call, so for instance you could have a friend in Ireland call you but the system checks all switches and could route that call via Hong Kong or anywhere because the rate is the cheapest and sometimes because of that the number you see in caller display or even 1471 do not match the number they called from, complicated not half.

[Mr Angry]

It's how it works though. It's the same on BT ( I had it on BT a few years ago). You can't stop all calls and it won't stop calls from overseas as they are not with-holding, they just don't transmit it.


DF I appreciate where you are coming from on this but anyone not transmitting their number is anonymous to the intended receipient. How else could they be correctly described?

As such, someone who is paying Virgin Media not to receive anonymous (whether intentionally withheld or not) calls has reasonable grounds and cause to expect not to receive such calls.

Luisa is not correct. He / she asserts "Anonymous Caller Rejection (ACR) only prevents a caller who is purposely stopping their number from going through".

This is patently untrue.

A bonafide caller making a call through, for example, a work exchange will not be able to reach my number whether they intended witholding their number or not.

It is clear that someone somewhere has figured a workaround and Virgin seem intent on splitting hairs over someone who intentionally withholds their number and someone who intentionally withholds their number by not transmitting it.

Either way both instances have the same end result - an anonymous (whether that be unknown / untransmitted) number being able to call a subscriber who is paying their provider for a service to prevent such calls.

If these type of calls are a problem, then caller display would better suit as you can see if it's with-held and if they are from overseas as it says "international" on the display.

Well yes they are a problem because I'm paying not to receive them. I don't want the bother of having to screen my calls when I'm paying someone else to (supposedly) do it.

Luisa is correct on the VM forum too.

I beg to differ, as indeed does does ibstockpeter, obviously.

---------- Post added at 20:03 ---------- Previous post was at 20:01 ----------

As DF says above these offshore call centres do not supply an ID and therefore slip through the net regardless of provider, also some UK companies use this when calling you so they leave no number for you to callback.

It can also be to do with the routing as certain operators will choose the cheapest route for your call, so for instance you could have a friend in Ireland call you but the system checks all switches and could route that call via Hong Kong or anywhere because the rate is the cheapest and sometimes because of that the number you see in caller display or even 1471 do not match the number they called from, complicated not half.

Thanks for that insight Masque.

In effect they're offering a service they can't provide.

[Peter_]

Thanks for that insight Masque.

In effect they're offering a service they can't provide.
Sadly all providers are in the same boat, have a look at that link I PMed you.:erm::)

[Nedkelly]

These numbers that get through do you have caller display ? if so what does it say .:)

[Digital Fanatic]

DF I appreciate where you are coming from on this but anyone not transmitting their number is anonymous to the intended receipient. How else could they be correctly described?

As such, someone who is paying Virgin Media not to receive anonymous (whether intentionally withheld or not) calls has reasonable grounds and cause to expect not to receive such calls.

Luisa is not correct. He / she asserts "Anonymous Caller Rejection (ACR) only prevents a caller who is purposely stopping their number from going through".

This is patently untrue.

A bonafide caller making a call through, for example, a work exchange will not be able to reach my number whether they intended witholding their number or not.
It is clear that someone somewhere has figured a workaround and Virgin seem intent on splitting hairs over someone who intentionally withholds their number and someone who intentionally withholds their number by not transmitting it.

Either way both instances have the same end result - an anonymous (whether that be unknown / untransmitted) number being able to call a subscriber who is paying their provider for a service to prevent such calls.



Well yes they are a problem because I'm paying not to receive them. I don't want the bother of having to screen my calls when I'm paying someone else to (supposedly) do it.



I beg to differ, as indeed does does ibstockpeter, obviously.

---------- Post added at 20:03 ---------- Previous post was at 20:01 ----------



Thanks for that insight Masque.

In effect they're offering a service they can't provide.

We will just go around in circles, so I'll stop here :)

[Mr Angry]

We will just go around in circles, so I'll stop here :)

I wish the calls were as quick to stop. ;)

[Digital Fanatic]

I wish the calls were as quick to stop. ;)

he he :)

[danielf]

I wish the calls were as quick to stop. ;)


TPS really is quite effective in my experience, though it can take about a month to kick in. It's also quite funny to see how quickly cold callers hang up when you shout 'TPS' and 'illegal' at them ;)

[inneedofhelp]

The reason why numbers that are unavailable are allowed through is because (for reasons mentioned earlier) the caller isn't in a position to leave their number and so they would never be able to make contact at all. This is more of a problem than that of the OP because some of those calls can be for very important matters, whilst having to screen a sales call is merely inconvenient.

Virgin is now giving everyone free caller display so why not ask them for free call rejection too?

Besides, since it is now possible to fake the number transmitted, caller display has become less effective.

[arcimedes]

All the telecomms providors (UK and USA) I have looked at implement ACR in the same way. I have not been able to find an "official" definition and wonder if it is the exchange suppliers that decided how to do it.

[Digital Fanatic]

The reason why numbers that are unavailable are allowed through is because (for reasons mentioned earlier) the caller isn't in a position to leave their number and so they would never be able to make contact at all. This is more of a problem than that of the OP because some of those calls can be for very important matters, whilst having to screen a sales call is merely inconvenient.

Virgin is now giving everyone free caller display so why not ask them for free call rejection too?

Besides, since it is now possible to fake the number transmitted, caller display has become less effective.

Thank you :tu:

[AntiSilence]

I had the anon. caller rejection feature and noticed the same thing which defeated the point of me paying £2.50 a month extra. I had it removed and had caller ID instead (for only £2.00 a month extra so saving 50p :)) and it's much more useful.

---------- Post added at 16:29 ---------- Previous post was at 16:26 ----------

Besides, since it is now possible to fake the number transmitted, caller display has become less effective.

That they can, but if the number is not in my phone's phone book then it doesn't get answered, simple as that (the answer machine or fax will get it instead).