PHONE FEATURE WISH LIST FOR THE HOLIDAYS 2015

1. *78 to change the number of rings did not work.  After dialing *78, there is no prompt to set the number of rings, only dial-tone.

2. *77 to block anonymous calls did not block calls without a name and number (i.e. unavailable).

3. There is no way to block calls other than to purchase the optional Selective call rejection feature.  That feature only blocks up to 30 numbers.  It's management interface is very antiquated, very time consuming, cumbersome and can only be used through a handset.  We have it.

4.  See my original wish list above.

Yes, call blocking of at least 300 numbers would be nice.

I recently bought a new phone and it has the ability to block up to 250 numbers, but it is tedious to use and I wonder what will happen if I have a power outage here and the phone loses power, will it lose all those blocked phone numbers?

So, yes, it would be nice if Cox would realize that our phones are under constant attack from scammers trying to call us, and they regularly spoof their numbers and completely ignore all federal laws regarding the Do Not Call Registry.  We can easily have more than 30 callers we would like to block.

TiffanyR said:
Hello RobH, 

The changing number of rings works in some areas. Check out our support article at http://www.cox.com/residential/support/phone/article.cox?articleId=aea8da80-eb8a-11df-ef43-000000000000 and thank you for your feedback.

Well I guess it's safe to say that, in spite of what your referenced article claims, it doesn't work for us.

Tukee said:

Yes, call blocking of at least 300 numbers would be nice.

I recently bought a new phone and it has the ability to block up to 250 numbers, but it is tedious to use and I wonder what will happen if I have a power outage here and the phone loses power, will it lose all those blocked phone numbers?

So, yes, it would be nice if Cox would realize that our phones are under constant attack from scammers trying to call us, and they regularly spoof their numbers and completely ignore all federal laws regarding the Do Not Call Registry.  We can easily have more than 30 callers we would like to block.

Sounds like you have a new Panasonic phone and if so, you should be able to block all calls that display no phone number.  That capability alone would cut our calls by at least a third.  I have been looking to order model no KX-TGE274S.  According to a Panasonic sales rep, I only have to program a number I want to block in one phone and it will populate into the rest.  Assuming you have more than one handset, does that hold true for your experience?

@RobH, what a wonderful wish list.  Cox "selective call rejection" is not much help in the fight against spammers and scammers.  It doesn't stop 800 numbers; won't stop "unavailable"; won't stop "unknown". It only takes 2 days to fill their 30-number maximum.

@Tukee.  Yes, if you enter the call block on one extension, all of the extensions will be set to block the number.  Yes, blocking the spam number on a Panasonic takes 5 steps.  But it is so much better than the alternative.  The default makes your phone ring once when the blocked number calls; then it hangs up.  You can easily change that (owners manual) so that the phone doesn't ring at all.  The silence is nice. 

When you program a cordless phone to block a number, you're programming the base unit...not the handset(s).  The base unit contains the Call Block List.  When a call comes in, the base unit compares the number to the List and if it's programmed to block, it disconnects the call.  The handset only programs the base unit.

However, as Tukee mentioned, a 250-capacity list would be tedious to maintain.  If you receive nuisance call #251, which number would you remove from the List?  There is no priority or metric assigned to the numbers.  It's just a list of numbers or meaningless data.

These call-blocking programs need a self-maintenance feature.  Meaning, if you block nuisance call #251, the program should remove the least-nuisance number from the List to make room for the new block.  However, the program would need to create and assign a unique "nuisance metric" to each number on the List.

I think the following metric would work:

((# of Times Number has Called) / (# of Days since Last Call from Number)) - ((Record #) / 250,000)

Note:  Record # is the record on the Call Block List for a particular blocked number, which would be from 1 to 250 for this Panasonic telephone.  It's a lookup table so the first number you've blocked would be #1, the second number #2, third #3, etc.

Therefore, if I block nuisance call #251, my Panasonic would automatically remove the least "nuisancey" number from my List based on its metric.

Bruce:

You are correct in that because call blocking is a shared feature, the list is maintained in the phone base.  More to the point, the list is centrally managed.  My guess would be, that being the case, the list is stored in non-volatile memory.  Therefore, Tukee should not be concerned about losing the list because of a power outage.

It turns out that the Panasonic Phone I have (Model KX-TGA652) on a non-Cox line has the call-block feature.  After locating a number on the CID I wanted to block, it then took me about 10 seconds to navigate through the menu to block that number.

According to Panasonic, the call block list is displayed chronologically.  Therefore, you have the option of deleting some of the oldest numbers and/or you can pick and choose.

A chronological list doesn't reveal the number of times they've called.  If the first number I've blocked has called every day for 2 months, and I later reach my 251st block, do I remove the first block?  The everyday spammer?   I don't want to remember numbers and recognize recurring callers.  I want to block-and-forget.  Blocking a number should remain the 5-step, 10-second, "better" process at all times.

However, even if I did recognize the number as a recurring caller, my 10-second process has evolved into a 3-minute assessment of which number I should remove instead.  I couldn't imagine having to review 250 numbers every day.  I would welcome a power outage to end the misery.

A nuisance metric would automatically remove the least harassing number without my knowledge.  Block a new number: remove the weakest number.

My bad, I misread your desire to have the Panasonic Call Block feature behave more intelligently.   That's a great idea.  Perhaps you should submit your own wish list to Panasonic.

My experience using the Cox Selective Call feature is that after a number has been blocked, our call history reflects that the telemarketer's system soon stops using that number.  Therefore, by removing the oldest numbers in blocks of 25 or 50 would likely prove to be a somewhat effective strategy for our household with the Panasonic system that blocks up to 250 numbers, all "unavailable" calls and by area code.   At the rate that we receive telemarketing calls from new numbers, it would take at least a year before we would have to start deleting old entries.

Speaking of call handling firmware/software that behaves more intelligently, I've noticed that since invoking call blocking, it has a clamming effect on the number of telemarketing calls we receive in a given day.  It's a if there is some inter-system communication going on among the telemarketing systems that indicates their ability to get through.  It appears to be cyclical in nature. After having blocked a set of say 10 numbers, the phone remains quiet for quite some time before we are bombarded by a new set of numbers.   And the cycle then repeats itself.

I'd rather submit it to Cox so I wouldn't have to get a new phone.

I don't think there is an "inter-system communication among telemarketers" sharing blocked numbers.  It's the same telemarketer bombarding you.  A person isn't calling you.  A computer is calling you.  The computer mass-dials thousands of numbers using a different caller ID with each blast.  Have you ever noticed different parts of the country will call you during a week?  Well, it's only one computer programmed with spoofed info trying to lull you.

It's cheap to build a war-dialing computer to harass and scam people.  Who going to stop them?  Nobody cares.

Bruce said:

I'd rather submit it to Cox so I wouldn't have to get a new phone.

I don't think there is an "inter-system communication among telemarketers" sharing blocked numbers.  It's the same telemarketer bombarding you.  A person isn't calling you.  A computer is calling you.  The computer mass-dials thousands of numbers using a different caller ID with each blast.  Have you ever noticed different parts of the country will call you during a week?  Well, it's only one computer programmed with spoofed info trying to lull you.

It's cheap to build a war-dialing computer to harass and scam people.  Who going to stop them?  Nobody cares.

I recently spotted crews burying fiber cable in our neighborhood which could mean that Verizon FIOS is not far away.  Verizon FIOS supports NomoRobo through Simultaneous Ring.  If so, it would be a pleasure to break our contract and pay the penalty for some peace of mind.

Bruce said:
person isn't calling you.  A computer is calling you. 

Ahh, the golden days of phreaking and war dialing. When all you needed was a access number and a 4 digit password to get into almost any system.

Wargames 

Number 3 sounds good to me.

And calls coming from Mexico should also be automatically unable to call me at all.

I did a reverse call look up, and there are several places in Mexico where some of these calls come from, even though they show up as inside the U.S.

This needs to STOP.

And no more of this, "For hust a dollar more a month" stuff.

I'm fed up with it. We should get a refund for everyone that gets through.

I bet it would stop then.

This should be a demands list, not a wish list.

Right now I look at my caller ID list, and see,

646-911-0208 unknown Call NY

978-775-6388 Andover Ma.

If I do a reverse lookup I bet there will either be no answer, or the area code will be mexico.