|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Verizon wireless > February 2008 > Text blocking preferences and Amber alerts
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Text blocking preferences and Amber alerts
|
|
|
| After lots of back and forth with Customer service, I finally found that a
phone's ability to send and receive text messages can be turned off by VZW.
I also found that via "my account" on their website, you can register each
phone with "text.vzw.com" and set "preferences" for texting. Under the
heading of "text blocking" you can control the following:
Keep unwanted messages from being sent to your handset from specific e-mail
addresses, domain names and websites.
Message Blocking Preferences:
Block all messages sent from e-mail? Yes No Block all messages sent from
the web? Yes No Allow messages sent to my Nickname@vtext.com only. Yes
No
The issue I and others have, is that we wanted to be sure that setting these
preferences to "yes" would not prevent subscribed to "alerts" such as "Amber
alerts" from reaching our phones.
Sadly and pathetically, VZW customer service is clueless. This is not to say
that they can't answer this question, but that each rep gives a different
answer, usually completely contradicting each other. They also say there is
no way to test this system. In my opinion, there should be no reason that I
can't subscribe to text alerts and still set preferences to deny unwanted
web and email based texts from being sent to my phone. As a text I
subscribed to weather alerts, while having my preferences set to deny web
and email based texts from being sent to my phone. They worked just fine. My
guess is that all subscribed to text alerts will work regardless of the text
preference settings, including Amber alerts. Anyone with any additional
information on this would be welcome to share it.
RBM
| |
| Larry 2008-02-02, 10:33 pm |
| "RBM" <rbm@noemail.com> wrote in news:47a4d622$0$2503
9$607ed4bc@cv.net:
> Sadly and pathetically, VZW customer service is clueless.
Hey, watch it! This is a NEWSgroup. This statement isn't news....(c;
We already knew that....(c;
| |
| P.Schuman 2008-02-19, 7:33 am |
| and how exactly do you suggest that the "filter" know that your so called
"alert"
is actually valid.... it's only an "alert" to you, for the rest of the
world, it's just an email.
So - you would have to be able to say NO to email, and YES to specific email
address exceptions.
| |
|
|
"P.Schuman" < pschuman_no_spam_me@
interserv.com> wrote in message
news:5nAuj.1186$pl4.641@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> and how exactly do you suggest that the "filter" know that your so called
> "alert"
> is actually valid.... it's only an "alert" to you, for the rest of the
> world, it's just an email.
>
> So - you would have to be able to say NO to email, and YES to specific
> email address exceptions.
>
It seems to be that you're denying any email or web based texts that are not
requested via VZW, by signing up for them
>
| |
| D. Stussy 2008-02-20, 10:33 pm |
| "P.Schuman" < pschuman_no_spam_me@
interserv.com> wrote in message
news:5nAuj.1186$pl4.641@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> and how exactly do you suggest that the "filter" know that your so called
"alert"
> is actually valid.... it's only an "alert" to you, for the rest of the
world, it's just an email.
We know (and they know) because "amber alerts" are sent from a single [telco
wireless] location - Short code "1112". I see no reason why they couldn't
exempt it.
|
|
|
|
|