News:

"The phone is a remarkably complex, simple device,
and very rarely ever needs repairs, once you fix them." - Dan/Panther

Main Menu

The TeleZapper and Rotary Dialing

Started by rp2813, September 03, 2014, 08:10:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

rp2813

I've had it with junk calls from Do-Not-Call List violators, so last week I bought a TeleZapper.  I used to have a V-Tech answering system with cordless phone and built-in TeleZapper, but that was probably ten years ago and I must have gotten rid of it after it resolved the telemarketing problem and the DNC List went into effect.

For those who aren't familiar with it, the TeleZapper is a small cigar shaped device that connects to any phone jack and whenever a phone goes off hook, it generates a single tone or the standard three-tone signal that precedes a not-in-service recording.  When the phone is answered either by hand or by the answering machine, it triggers the TeleZapper to play the tone(s).  Supposedly, dialers used by telemarketers respond to the tones by hanging up and removing your "bad" number from the telemarketer's database.  It did a great job for us in the pre-DNC List days.  They're NLA, but you can find them on Amazon.  Once connected, a single TeleZapper will activate on all phones in the house.  I have mine plugged into a spare jack by itself.

I guess I didn't have any rotary phones in use except the D1 in the guestroom when I last had a TeleZapper, because I've discovered something a little annoying.  Due to the nature of rotary dialing, the TeleZapper goes into tone-generating action after each return of the finger wheel.  It doesn't cause a mis-dial, but it's going to take some getting used to.

I doubt this has anything to do with the type of switch I'm on, but I'm in AT&T territory now and was in Verizon territory when I used the TeleZapper before.

I don't think there's a work-around, but would be interested in hearing about experiences anyone else may have had.

I'm really hoping the TeleZapper is as effective as it was last time, but have heard that the equipment used by some of the telemarketers these days can't be fooled.  Just last week I had five calls in one day and it prompted me to take action, so I'm hoping for the best.

Ralph

xhausted110

#1
I had one of those, built into a vtech phone, and it did the same thing. both on AT&T (Michigan Bell, DMS100) and Comcast. I finally got tired of it, and removed it.
- Evan

Greg G.

We screen all our calls, and I've noticed most of our junk calls hang up as soon as the answering machine kicks in, but they're still annoying.  Our phone company has a call blocking feature, which I use for the repeat junkers, but it has a 25 number limit.  There have been a few times that I went in and gave all of them "amnesty" when the list reached the max 25 numbers and I needed to add to it.  The phone company also has a "no solicitation" feature, which I've tried in the past, but it's confusing to legitimate callers, so I quit using it.  I noticed that there are phones on the market now that have their own built-in call blocking feature of upwards of 100 numbers, but right now the junkers are at a reasonable level of management, and I never give our home phone number when ordering online.  If I have to give them a phone number, I give my cell.  I use YouMail with my cell which makes it easier to manage junk calls.
The idea that a four-year degree is the only path to worthwhile knowledge is insane.
- Mike Row
e

rp2813

Thanks for sharing the experiences. 

So far, the zapper isn't working on the irritating calls from "Card Services."  This entity is by far the most abusive and persistent of all telemarketers in the history of the telephone.   We had an unexplained reprieve from them for several months, but now they're back to calling on a daily basis.  The only thing different is that it's not "Rachel" calling now.

I'm hoping the zapper will work on scammers with less sophisticated equipment and bring the number of calls down to a somewhat tolerable level.  I want the annoyance of hearing the zapper in action to once again be worth it.





Ralph

unbeldi

#4
Quote from: rp2813 on September 10, 2014, 01:19:37 AM
Thanks for sharing the experiences. 

So far, the zapper isn't working on the irritating calls from "Card Services."  This entity is by far the most abusive and persistent of all telemarketers in the history of the telephone.   We had an unexplained reprieve from them for several months, but now they're back to calling on a daily basis.  The only thing different is that it's not "Rachel" calling now.

I'm hoping the zapper will work on scammers with less sophisticated equipment and bring the number of calls down to a somewhat tolerable level.  I want the annoyance of hearing the zapper in action to once again be worth it.

I am afraid that will have little effect anymore.  It's not that "less sophisticated" equipment will honor your zapping, quite the opposite.  It is the more sophisticated technology that honors it, and builds do-not-call lists automatically to maximize the answer-seizure ratio (ASR) and thus maximize equipment throughput and therefore reduce operating cost.  The ASR is a key measurement for call success rates.

It is instead that many more bulk callers are using cheap, less sophisticated equipment today, that simply ignores your zapping and attempts to call again. Today, with software like Asterisk, it is possible for anyone with very little experience or resources to generate telephone calls in bulk.

Getting one or two calls per day from unwanted callers, is not so bad. Hardly worth getting into a state of aggravated irritation.

I had a persistent caller who called approximately every two hours during the day for several weeks. They called a Google Voice number, so I could simply block the calls by callerID. Google Voice does the same "tele-zapping" for blocked numbers. But the caller changed originating numbers every other day or so, and required a few web clicks to block them again.   Google's tele-zapping had no effect, as I could see the blocked calls in the call records later.