Sonic.net

Late to the party, but <applause!>

I knew something was different about today. It was quiet.

I have been receiving 6 to 8 spam calls a day every day for as long as I can
remember. Thanks!

Guest wrote:

Guest wrote:

Guest wrote:In this case, default to "on" results in an invisible loss of service, i.e., the ability to receive phone calls from certain numbers. To me, that's the wrong default.

And you could also argue that, no default "on" results in an invisible loss of fusion service features as well. Assuming you're talking about those who don't read their email or what not and don't know of the service change, in which case those same people not reading wouldn't know they have the ability to have those numbers blocked. Two sides of the same coin.

You know about it, so it's not invisible to you.

sonic.net prides itself on privacy policies. I unsubscribe to announcement mailing lists. I got this announcement anyway because it said it is "mandatory". The question was asked but not answered, why was this mandatory? I conjectured that it is because the feature was enabled by default. If this is true (as yet unconfirmed), then unnecessary enabling by default disrespects the clear preference to be left off of mailing lists. Leaving it disabled and emailing those who have said they are happy to get these notifications disrespects nobody.

Your argument is invalid. Leaving it disabled results in no change, not a loss or gain.

Guest wrote:

Guest wrote:

Guest wrote: And you could also argue that, no default "on" results in an invisible loss of fusion service features as well. Assuming you're talking about those who don't read their email or what not and don't know of the service change, in which case those same people not reading wouldn't know they have the ability to have those numbers blocked. Two sides of the same coin.

You know about it, so it's not invisible to you.

sonic.net prides itself on privacy policies. I unsubscribe to announcement mailing lists. I got this announcement anyway because it said it is "mandatory". The question was asked but not answered, why was this mandatory? I conjectured that it is because the feature was enabled by default. If this is true (as yet unconfirmed), then unnecessary enabling by default disrespects the clear preference to be left off of mailing lists. Leaving it disabled and emailing those who have said they are happy to get these notifications disrespects nobody.

Your argument is invalid. Leaving it disabled results in no change, not a loss or gain.

In hindsight, I think you are right. For those who get our newsletters, I should have enabled the feature and sent the notice. For those who have unsubscribed from the announcements, we should have left the feature disabled, silently. They don't want notice of new free features, so they would just miss out.

dane wrote:.....

Per-customer configurable call blocking is the final portion, and we will be adding that too at a future time.

This is where the real power of the system will benefit customers.

Until then please add my kudos to the Sonic team!

Also,here are some other CIDs to block.

WIRELESS CALLER
WINNER
FINANCIAL CTR
PHONE SERVICE
LOWER INTEREST
CUSTOMER SUPPORT
PUBLIC SERVICE
FLORIDA CALL
CNTRY HERITAGE
CARD SERVICES
USF
IND SUR GROUP
POWER ONE
ISG
CLUB MONETIZE
THE MUSIC COM
PACIFIC TEL

Yes, I've kept a list, with time/date too.

I don't see that anyone has quite posed the question this way, but are you considering suggestions via this thread to add to the list? Are they most useful as CIDs or as numbers?

My ideal would still be the ability to add to the list as an individual user.

ravens wrote:I don't see that anyone has quite posed the question this way, but are you considering suggestions via this thread to add to the list? Are they most useful as CIDs or as numbers?

My ideal would still be the ability to add to the list as an individual user.

There was talk of a *86 code to add numbers to a per-line blocking list some time ago, but I'm not sure where that ultimately fell on the feasibility scale. As somebody who isn't keen to wade through a phone tree or wait for a human to get off somebody's list, this would be my ideal option, personally.

Or if we could nominate robo-callers for drone strikes, physically diminishing the call-center capabilities of people who unlawfully make automated voice calls to California Residents... But I think I've said too much.

The initial list encompasses the very highest volume telemarketing callers. But it is by no means complete, so if you have standouts that you continue to get calls from, post the tel number here and we will research it and add it if it validates as a telemarketing source.

A per-customer list will come too, but it will be some time. Requires us to complete a new voice switch deployment which is underway, but will take quite some time.

dane wrote:

Guest wrote:
sonic.net prides itself on privacy policies. I unsubscribe to announcement mailing lists. I got this announcement anyway because it said it is "mandatory". The question was asked but not answered, why was this mandatory? I conjectured that it is because the feature was enabled by default. If this is true (as yet unconfirmed), then unnecessary enabling by default disrespects the clear preference to be left off of mailing lists. Leaving it disabled and emailing those who have said they are happy to get these notifications disrespects nobody.

In hindsight, I think you are right. For those who get our newsletters, I should have enabled the feature and sent the notice. For those who have unsubscribed from the announcements, we should have left the feature disabled, silently. They don't want notice of new free features, so they would just miss out.

Thank you. I had two arguments against the enable-by-default:

1. It represents a small but silent loss of service.
2. It forced (as just now confirmed) sonic.net to send the email announcement to people who had unsubscribed to these sorts of announcements.

In fairness, after having read the more detailed explanations in this forum of how the feature is implemented, I no longer believe my first argument. The implementation is such that I can't imagine any customer, including myself, suffering in any way from the change.