Read the forum guidelines
Thank you for contacting Cox Social Media. Simultaneous ring feature will be coming in 2018. The feature will allow you to filter out spam calls by using an external centralized database that keeps most current information on spam callers. When the feature becomes available you will receive notification on your statement under News and Views. Thanks
Hi Karen, I agree with others that this is an industry problem, and the industry - not just cox- has failed to help address it. Why not implement "white listing"- That is, allow me to build a list of acceptable numbers that I agree to accept without further inbound screening. Part of the reason we live with this scourge is the telcos who terminate VOIP( where the scammers generate their calls from) to DDD calls get paid for every call regardless whether it is terminated or not. This takes away the incentive to force presenters of calls to the DDD users that each and every call is valid and proveable back to a legitimate Billing Tel #, regardless of whatever BS the caller wants to put in the callee's Caller ID device. You give me that and watch how fast these scumbags dissapear from the game; They don't provide you with valid call data, they don't get to complete and you don't incur as much cost | engineering overhead attempting to complete bogus calls, against the loss of completion revenue. This validation is trivially easy to implement via the AIN/CCS network already in place, and used for caller-ID. The other idea is to offer a DMZ like call treatment that gives a caller, not otherwise tainted "the benefit of the doubt". Prove you are a legit caller to me, and get sent to voice-mail, or allowed through - at MY discretion.
No mo robo is a cool valid solution, but does not satisfy all the issues, nor is it able to support traditional DDD users who's providers cannot implement simultaneous ring capability.
8bolt said:That is, allow me to build a list of acceptable numbers that I agree to accept without further inbound screening.
I think they had that with the old system too. It was called "Selective Call Acceptance" Works up to 30 numbers.
8bolt said: They don't provide you with valid call data, they don't get to complete and you don't incur as much cost
That's what NoMoRobo does, and the norm is to use them instead of each provider creating their own system.
8bolt said:Prove you are a legit caller to me, and get sent to voice-mail, or allowed through - at MY discretion.
I am hoping that is how the new Anom. call rejection will work. It seems to work that way on their Business Voice platform.
The Selective Call acceptance 'almost' fills the bill. I guess what I'm pining for is "Selective Plus", that adds the DMZ feature I mentioned, rather than On or off. I didn't see that non-white-listed numbers could get any other treatment besides just rejection.
Prove you are a legit caller to me, and get sent to voice-mail, or allowed through - at MY discretion.
WiderMouthOpen Said: I am hoping that is how the new Anom. call rejection will work. It seems to work that way on their Business Voice platform.
What I am proposing is more sophisticated than just Anom, which is CALID value=RESTRICTED or UNAVAIL. This would be an industry wide implementation that requires each and every originator of calls to include token information that cannot be gamed, identifying the network originator to the network( along with already verified caller data). Additionally, any originator who is in the business of 'spoofing' CALLID data would be required to add or overlay their token onto the call data signaling the destination carrier that the call had received additional ID treatment. If a rogue spoofing operator tries to game this, they get removed from the SS7/AIN network, putting them out of business.( Think SPEWS for Telephony ) Now I, as the intended recipient of this call can tell the Terminating Carrier ahead of time, DENY SPOOFED/non-valid-number CALLS,. the way the network already works, those calls can be prevented from even leaving the Originator's bullpen, headed towards me, because I have already declared my intent. The upside of this scenario, in addition to no longer annoying me, is no network resources to support the voice path are reserved, or selected in preparation for the call. In the Telephone engineering realm this is a BIG DEAL, because those resources are what costs all the money to have in place, to support calls when they arrive, without being blocked. The receiving carrier is much happier because he does not have to expend reserved resources for a call that is to be rejected, since it never even gets to him. The originating carrier is "Electronically" told don't even bother requesting routing for the call, it WILL be rejected!!. Of course, the Spammers will try to figure out a way around this, but I'll wager it will force 80+% to either go-legit, or fold up their tents, and I still don't care cause my carrier will still give me ultimate control over the calls I'm willing to accept, send to voice-mail, other treatment, or deny the caller.
They don't provide you with valid call data, they don't get to complete and you don't incur as much cost
What NO-Mo does is leverage the Simultaneous ring capability to take your calls, based on displayed CALLID data, and 'swallow' them before you are even disturbed. They ignore known OK or not suspicious calls, so you can receive them. This is a great idea, and it works to a degree, but it's passive in the sense the callers keep getting away with having already originated their bogus call into the network, and I'm not sure how No-Mo treats false Positives. I still don't know how they are able to react to 'overnight' spam runs, or Neighbor spoofed, or the worst: actual legit working number spoofing! Yeah, try explaining to an irate caller who calls your just spoofed number back that you didn't just call them trying to sell personal enhancement products!!
I agree there should not be Ad-Hock solutions by each carrier. This needs to be something all voice service providers get on board supporting, and make the solutions standards based, perhaps documented by the international standards bodies. For one thing it would make the call prevention portions network / provider agnostic, because the callerID call setup functionality is now universal, or very nearly so, @ least in the U.S. where we are the biggest targets of the Spammers.
I'm still looking forward to being able to implement no-mo whenever COX activates the Simultaneous capability in my area.
THANKS for the input and suggestion about Selective call acceptance.