View Single Post
Old 05-10-2010, 21:32   #9
Digital Fanatic
Inactive
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Liverpool
Services: VM XL TV with VM TiVo 1TB x 2 > VM XL BB > VM XL Telephone
Posts: 8,384
Digital Fanatic has a nice shiny starDigital Fanatic has a nice shiny starDigital Fanatic has a nice shiny starDigital Fanatic has a nice shiny starDigital Fanatic has a nice shiny star
Digital Fanatic has a nice shiny starDigital Fanatic has a nice shiny starDigital Fanatic has a nice shiny starDigital Fanatic has a nice shiny starDigital Fanatic has a nice shiny starDigital Fanatic has a nice shiny starDigital Fanatic has a nice shiny star
Re: Anonymous caller reject...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry View Post
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
Digital Fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote