Anonymous Call Rejection & Fusion

Fusion Voice service, features and help.
9 posts Page 1 of 1
by randyk7 » Wed May 25, 2011 11:23 pm
[color=#000000] Dane and the staff;

I did some deep research on this one last remaining issue just before I was to switch over to Fusion with as it was the only item missing ( temporarily I pray ) from the new phone service package that I was looking forward to so much in my quest to "finally" be free from AT&T's land line service. With the Fusion package the *only* missing service that was oddly absent was 'Anonymous call rejection'. For those of you who have not been tormented by phone stalkers across time before technology and tracking caught up to them, this will prevent anyone from calling you with what is called a "Private" number and forces them to unlock their ID temporary to connect with you at home via your LL at 1 ~ 8 am. etc. or at any time for that matter. Everyone must ID this way.

Is there is flicker of an eyelid of hope with this call feature and service on the horizon and or can it be codded into the existing package with some work with your provider? Let me know what you are able to determined as this is *very* important to me and I suspect others who have had to deal with this and more in their journey through life. Below are the technical details, history and codes for all LL providers.

by virtualmike2 » Thu May 26, 2011 12:48 am
Are you planning to port a long-used number to Fusion?

If so, some manufacturers have caller-ID boxes that can serve that function; i.e., if the incoming call has "Private" for the caller PD, then it answers and requires the caller to enter his/her number (or speak a name, depending on the model).

If not, then consider getting a Google Voice number. You can program it to require callers without ID to state their names before the call will be put through.
by tikvah » Sat May 28, 2011 11:05 am
You should be aware that caller ID does not work "properly" with Fusion so, even if they had this feature, it might not be what you want. I love Fusion and this caller ID stuff is my only complaint, though I know it's not Sonic's fault and it's not a deal breaker for me.

With AT&T, nearly everyone who hadn't blocked the feature had a name show up with a phone number in the caller ID. But with Fusion it just shows the phone number. People can block their numbers from going out so there is the "private" result (though on Fusion it's just zeroes for the phone number, "unavailable" with a bunch of question marks, or weird semi-blanks) but no one shows up with a name. Unless you have a fantastic memory for numbers, nearly every incoming call will be a mystery whether the caller has blocked or not.

When I asked Sonic about this (hoping getting the names back was something they could "turn on") they said the names came from AT&T's extensive databases and they didn't have access to them. This doesn't explain to me why when someone else with Fusion (Sonic Tech Support, for example) calls me it doesn't give a name though. They told me my only hope was a phone that at least gave the names associated with numbers in my stored phonebook (like my cell phone does).

Another thing to note is sometimes legitimate numbers show up weird. I got a call the other day from "a" with a phone number of "?" I almost didn't answer it but it turned out to be a close friend testing out her new Skype account that lets her call regular phones. With AT&T I could be sure that almost every caller ID that came through as all 0's or something else really weird was a scammer but now I just don't know.
by dane » Sat May 28, 2011 2:50 pm
Regarding anonymous call rejection: This is a feature we hope to add in future as an option, but we don't have it currently in development, so there is no time line for the capability. There are lots of nice capabilities that would could add, for example time-of-day (or night, for most) direct to voicemail, call screening, etc. The features of Fusion will continue to gradually evolve over time.

Regarding Caller ID w/Name: Currently about 50% of the calls which are not blocked or unknown are delivered with name, and the rest are number only. We have made arrangements for database dips to move this toward 100%, and this is in implementation now. You should see near 100% names in the near future.

Dane Jasper
by tikvah » Sat May 28, 2011 6:50 pm
Thanks Dane. The caller ID with name would be great. Certainly number one on my want list. I've had Fusion for a few months and don't recall *ever* seeing a name listed. When I had AT&T, my phone had no trouble displaying the phone number with a name on top. With Fusion the top line is a duplicate of the phone number only with no hyphens, parens, etc.

I just checked my caller ID queue to be sure. I think there are 50 calls stored and there were zero with names. Many of these I know for sure are from people whose names displayed no problem with AT&T.
by dane » Sat May 28, 2011 8:04 pm
Overall network stats show almost 50% have name text - but honestly we haven't looked into what all the text we're receiving is, so perhaps in some cases it's simply the number!

In any case, will be enhanced with full and consistent name display shortly.

Dane Jasper
by virtualmike2 » Sat May 28, 2011 10:05 pm
tikvah wrote:
With AT&T I could be sure that almost every caller ID that came through as all 0's or something else really weird was a scammer but now I just don't know.

Every phone call I've received on my Fusion line has had a valid number, or "unavailable" when the caller blocked the number. On the other hand, when I had C*ID from AT&T at a previous number, my box often (~20% of the time) displayed garbage, even when receiving calls from other AT&T subscribers.

Some VoIP systems allow the administrator to configure the outbound calling number, and some admins aren't very good at doing so (or are intentionally malicious).

The name database isn't the panacea that some want it to be. Friends have reported that when I call from the cell phone provided by my employer, their displays show some woman's name that has never worked for my employer (who has had the number for many years).
by Guest » Sun May 29, 2011 1:51 am
when I receive a call from outside my area code, the text shown is the phone # twice. first w/ out dashes and then the 2nd line of text is the full 10 digit # with the dashes

when I receive a call from inside my area code, the first line is the full 10 digit # without dashes; the 2nd line of text is the last 7 digits of the phone # w/ a dash

if the caller has blocked their ID i see "unavailable"
by virtualmike2 » Sun May 29, 2011 2:40 am
Guest wrote:
... a call from outside my area code ... first w/ out dashes and then the 2nd line of text is the full 10 digit # with the dashes ...

... a call from inside my area code, the first line is the full 10 digit # without dashes; the 2nd line of text is the last 7 digits of the phone # w/ a dash

I see the same, but that's due to my phone. I suspect yours is the same. Phones and caller-ID boxes reformat the data before displaying it. Otherwise, you'd just see a long string of characters that includes the name, number, date, and time. Try parsing that every time a call comes in.

Per the spec for caller ID data, the number is sent without any punctuation at all (i.e., no dashes in the number). Most modern phones will display the number in a user-friendly format, inserting dashes. My phone allows me to enter my area code. Incoming calls where the first three digits of the number match the area code will be displayed as seven digits, not ten.

Currently, it appears that is sending the number without dashes in both the field for the name and the field for the number. (I can't verify the content of the name field, because my C*ID box that displays the raw data is packed in a box somewhere.) (and all other phone providers) should be sending the area code on all calls, or else the data they are providing is out-of-spec and can cause invalid displays on some equipment.
9 posts Page 1 of 1

Who is online

In total there are 4 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 999 on Mon May 10, 2021 1:02 am

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests