Read the forum guidelines
In the last 25 hours, my phone has called itself. I was wondering who kept calling me. Went to Call History and saw it's my own phone number calling itself. What the f^^k Cox?
I'm having the same issue - It's a scammer claiming to be a Microsoft representative. The caller ID is MY land-line number so I can't block it (...or CAN I?)
Locally, yes. Why would you ever call yourself?
You might want to call yourself to hear your voice mail messages (*298 will do the same thing). However, while I can add numbers to call screening (*60), adding my own number didn't prevent me from calling myself. So, it would appear you can't block your own number, at least not from calling it from your own phone. I can't say what happens if it's a scammer calling from another phone.
I disagree. If you prefix a call with an asterisk, (Star Code (*298)), you're initiating a telephone-service feature...not a telephone call.
If your local exchange "hears" the tone for an asterisk, it moves your call "upward" into the telephone hierarchy as opposed to "outward" towards another exchange or another telephone connected to the same exchange.
This upward connection is into the telephone-service-feature system of your provider and ultimately, in this case, to the Cox Voice Mail server or gateway. When you include your telephone number with the Star Code, it's just informing the server or gateway which account to check.
This upward direction...as opposed to outward...is why Star Codes are technically called Vertical Service Codes (up vs. out).
Perhaps entering your own telephone number into Selective Call Rejection confuses the Cox terminating switching-system. Cox should fix this discrepancy. However, you can't "call yourself" because at most you'd get a busy signal.
MSN home page URL, I do hope your question was answered. Your original post seems to have taken a turn, but in the process, maybe we'll figure out a solution for you.
Bruce, I feel like your interpretation of what I said didn't sync up with my intended meaning. My comments were a description of what I tested with my phone and an assessment of what I observed. When I said calling my own number gets my voice mail messages and entering *298 does the same thing, it was to inform anyone who might not already know, that entering *298 gets the same results as keying in the phone number, i.e. voice mail messages. (Other voice mail options are also available). I didn't say, imply or in any way intend to convey the notion that keying *298 into a phone will initiate a phone call.
Accessing voice mail by calling my own number on my own phone isn't anything new because it worked the same way on the old platform. The one thing I noticed that is different is that calls to my own number were logged in "Voice Tools" call history on the old platform, but are not logged in the new one.
Calling my own Cox phone number from my own Cox phone does not get a busy signal.
Bruce, have you tried calling your own Cox phone number from your own Cox phone recently?
Other Cox phone customers, do you get a busy signal when you call your own Cox phone number from your own Cox phone? (There may be something easier to test than this, but nothing comes to mind at the moment). Please test it and post back. If you don't mind, please indicate whether you have voice mail turned on. Thanks.
Bruce, I wouldn't necessarily interpret not being able to block your own phone number with Selective Call Rejection as a discrepancy. Cox may have done that intentionally so that customers don't inadvertently disable the ability to access their voice mail. However, before accessing voice mail, Cox must determine that the phone number entered is the customer's own number and verify that it was entered from the customer's own phone. So, if they're able to do that, theoretically, Cox should be able to identify when the sending number is the customer's number, determine when the call was not originated from the customer's phone and block it by default. That would prevent scammers from being able to spoof the phone number of the call recipient. Maybe someone at Cox could consider queueing this up for evaluation and if deemed to be an accurate assessment, move it through their program change process.
I did dial my number 5+ years ago to test stuff. For example, I wanted to test the new Caller ID on TV (No Go) and although I was getting a dial tone after a 5-day power outage, I couldn't connect. The line was static and echoes. This was on the "old platform" (pre-Voice Mail and circuit-switching).
I dialed my number this morning and I did connect to the Voice Mail system. I don't have Voice Mail enabled and my on-line Call History didn't log the call.
This may be a new feature after Cox upgraded my service (packet-switching, VoIP, eMTA) or a relatively-new feature after Cox began offering Voice Mail. I wouldn't know because I've never used Voice Mail, but I'll assume it's relatively-new based on your experience.
However, I did distinguish between your 2 original options to either "call yourself" or dial *298 for Voice Mail. I understood it's two different inputs on your telephone. I didn't know dialing your number would access Voice Mail. You wrote it does, I believed you and had no reason to discredit you. However, even if dialing your number did access your Voice Mail, my explanation was calling yourself is not a CALL. As with a Star Code, dialing yourself initiates a service feature; as with a Star Code, dialing yourself is not a CALL.
My point was, to Wireless' scenario, "...It's a scammer claiming to be a Microsoft representative. The caller ID is MY land-line number so I can't block it (...or CAN I?)," is, yes, just block your number because you'd never CALL yourself. You can't connect to your off-hook phone.
Today, dialing your number...or prefixing an asterisk...initiates a service feature at your local Cox exchange, but it's not classified as a call. You must distinguish between a call and a service feature. I suppose the basic logic for Voice Mail with dialing-your-own-number is as follows:
IF...Call Type = OutgoingANDPhone Number = (Your) Telephone-NumberTRUE: Switch to Call-Feature SystemFALSE: Switch to Call-Routing Tables
That's you on your local exchange bypassing the public switched telephone network (PSTN); therefore, no restrictions or call-rules (blocking, forwarding, logging) would be applied.
However, if YOUR number is coming from the PSTN, just block it. It's not you. You can't connect to your off-hook phone. It's a useless or bogus call.
You mildly contradicted yourself with "...not a discrepancy... theoretically, block it by default...spoofing the recipient..." First, Selective Call Rejection (SCR) only applies to Incoming calls (to you) from the PSTN...not Outgoing calls from your phone.
Second, Cox can't block you dialing your number with SCR because dialing-your-own-number won't reach the Cox Voice Gateway. The Cox Voice Gateway holds your SCR list for Incoming calls. Instead, your local Cox exchange redirects dialing-your-own-number to the Service-Feature Gateway. Therefore, SCR not blocking calls from your number at the Voice Gateway is a discrepancy.
Personally, I'd opt for *298 over dialing my phone number because it'd be less digits (4 vs. 10)...unless your number is on Speed Dial.
Bruce, I continue to defer to you on "how" keying your own number and *298 works. My point on this subject has always been the final result, not how it technically happens. I just wanted to inform others that it's possible to enter their own phone number into their own Cox phone to get to their voice mail, if it's turned on, not a busy signal. However, I too prefer *298 to check voice mail because it's shorter than entering my 10 digit phone number.
I've accessed voice mail by entering my own phone number for quite some time. I used to do it that way all the time until I learned about *298. I was informed by Cox that I was migrated to Cox Digital Telephone on 6/16/2019. On 5/4/2019, my Voice Tools call history lists an outgoing call to my number and a missed call from my number a minute later. This would have been me accessing voice mail. It shows that "Cox Voice" logged it in call history. CDT doesn't. Entering your phone number to access voice mail has been available for a while because it was available with "Cox Voice". I can't say when that platform was started because I didn't have a Cox phone then.
Bruce, keep in mind that I know I'm way out of my lane here, but I'm still not quite clear why Cox would be unable to identify as a spoofed number any incoming call from the PSTN that appears to be from the same phone number as the recipient. Why couldn't Cox just block it by default? Is it not possible or is Cox just choosing not to do it?
Bruce, you can call the fact that Selective Call Rejection can't block you from entering your own number a discrepancy, but there's no benefit to doing it and there would be a downside if it prevented one of the ways to access voice mail. I think Cox meant for it to work that way.
Through my own testing, I know that adding your own number to Selective Call Rejection (AKA Call Screening) doesn't affect your use of your phone. Bruce's posts explain why. If Cox can't or won't block these scammer calls, then individuals wishing to block incoming calls that appear to be coming from their own phone number, can block them by adding their own phone number to Selective Call Rejection/Call Screening by entering *60 and following instructions provided.
Bruce said:However, if YOUR number is coming from the PSTN, just block it. It's not you. You can't connect to your off-hook phone. It's a useless or bogus call.
This will prevent scammers from spoofing your number to call you.
Not to continue being persnickety: Cox Digital Telephone is the old technology with circuit-switching. Cox Voice is the new technology with packet-switching, VoIP and an eMTA.
Logging. Since you're a new customer, you were immediately issued an eMTA. I, on the other hand, was a new customer in 2005 and issued a big, clunky, coal-burning voice port. It was so old when I exchanged it at the Solution Store, it was no longer listed on my account and none of the reps knew what it was. One guy described it as a car battery.
Anyway, in May, you initially had your new eMTA on the old circuit-switching technology. On 16 June, Cox finally re-provisioned your eMTA for the new technology. It's interesting how each of your setups logged calls differently...especially the back-to-back entries using Voice Mail (Outgoing & Missed). I don't know if that was "normal" logging or just a quirk during your transition from old to new. Good stuff.
During my calling-myself tests 5+ years ago, I think I vaguely remember seeing my calls listed only once as Outgoing...but not followed as Missed. When scammers spoof my number, I do see those as Incoming.
Default Blocking. I don't believe Cox wants to be in the business of blocking calls without subscriber consent. I don't blame them; just stay out of it. Instead, they offer subscriber-initiated services, such as Nomo and SCR. I'm mixed about SCR.
SCR. I feel adding your number to SCR would be a benefit. SCR blocks Incoming calls but not Outgoing calls. I think our confusion is the entries on the Call Logs. You noticed Missed with Voice Mail...which essentially means Incoming on a busy line...so if you add your number to SCR, any "Incoming" call with your number...even checking Voice Mail...COULD be blocked. However, dialing your own number is the same as a Star Code to initiate a feature...not to mention an Outgoing "call." Even if it did block you, just use *298.
I never liked the concept of SCR because not only do you have to pay for it, your list is limited. The last I read, it was a $1 a month for 31 numbers. What would really irk me is adding my own number. Why should I pay...and consume a valuable entry...to block my own number? What about blatantly fake numbers? Should I pay to block (000) 000-0000, (123) 456-7890 and (309) 000-0001? I actually received those calls...and 77 other fakers...but they're not even real numbers and I'd have to pay to block them. That'd be insane.
So, back to default blocking, not only would Cox have to block our numbers, but also block blatantly fake Area Codes as well as legitimate Area Codes with fake exchange numbers. That'd be too many lookups, too much processing and too much responsibility to own default blocking. Cox is better off to just stay out of it.
It's easy to reverse the terms. "Digital" sounds new, such as digital vs. analog. "Voice" sounds old, such as voice vs. data network. I understand why Cox renamed it Voice but during the changeover, it just sounds older.
The reactions to my old voice port were equally chuckling. I kinda thought a younger rep wouldn't know what it was so when I walked in with the voice port, I asked..."Know what this is?" [No. Where'd you find it?] Pathetically, it doesn't take much to amuse me.
Thanks for the follow-up with your eMTA install. I didn't feel just connecting an eMTA during a transition period would be so effortless. You need a tech at your house to reconfigure the demarc, test for ingress and re-provision your adapter. I just assumed a previous occupant jumped through all the hoops.
Although mine was a self-install, I was hit hard by Hurricane Cox-Buffoonery and without a working phone for 26 days. I wonder if you could also poll our readers for their downtimes.
Cox officially terms SCR as Selective Call Rejection and Anonymous Call Rejection but markets it as Anonymous Call Rejection. Probably a little PHYOPS there. Anonymous Call Rejection has a credit to being automatic and effortless (Ooo!) while Selective Call Rejection has a stigma to being difficult and effortful (Boo!). They're just selling the automatic side of it.
I own my call-blocking process. No SCR; no Nomo; no help. I recycled an old laptop equipped with a dial-up modem, loaded PhoneTray Free v1.39, connected to a phone jack...done. I've been blocking calls since 2011 and tinkered with every blocking scheme imaginable: wildcards, legit Area Codes, fake Area Codes, legit and fake exchanges, no numbers, my LATA, etc. Unless you enjoy tinkering, it's a lot of upkeep. After 8 years, however, I feel Permit Only is the only effective method. I decide who can leave a message on my answering machine.
Bruce, swapping out my modem during a transition period most likely was a contributing factor in the downtime I experienced. But, had there been no faulty hardware or if Cox had escalated the issue to a qualified tech with the proper equipment to identify the faulty hardware quicker, the downtime would have been much less. That's why I've advised people to insist upon an in-house tech when they're having persistent issues.
I contacted firstname.lastname@example.org today and asked them to confirm my understanding of Anonymous Call Rejection. According to Cox: "Anonymous Call Rejection allows customer to reject incoming calls from callers that intentionally block their caller identification information. Anonymous Call Reject does not block unknown or out-of-area callers".
Incoming calls using Caller ID Per Call Blocking or Caller ID Per Line Blocking would be blocked. When ACR is opted on, its purpose is to block all calls from callers who intentionally block their identification information. SCR blocks calls from 1-31 selected callers that you identify who have identification information (although possibly fraudulent). Cox prices them differently. ACR is available in the Premier Feature Pak, but it's an extra $0.99 per month.
I also asked about costs for Selective Call Rejection and was told it costs $4.00 per month, but it's included in the Premier Feature Pak at no additional charge. Cox also said Selective Call Forwarding is included at no extra charge in the Premier Feature Pak. I wasn't provided an a la carte price for SCF, but my guess would be it's the same as SCR. For those customers with a package that includes SCR at no extra cost, they might as well use it if they want to screen calls.
Please note: the costs I referenced are for my market. I don't know if Cox prices their phone features the same in all markets.
For me personally, if someone wants to reach me by phone, I'd better be expecting their call or recognize their identification information as someone I know. A spammer would have to do some research to identify someone to spam from whom I would take a call. Frankly, there's just no reason anyone would ever want to call me that badly. Everyone else will have to leave a voice mail and I'll call 'em back if they're legitimate (and I want to talk to them).
Bruce, I think I understand why you do your own thing. It's not so much about where you're going as how you get there. It's something you enjoy doing and I get that. My own version of tinkering leans toward doing stuff with Microsoft Excel workbooks and macros... but that's way off topic for this forum.
I noticed ekhawaii started a thread to update his findings and he had kind words for Bruce and me. Thank you for that, ekhawaii.
On another note, I wonder what, if anything, the OP did about his spammer issue. He never did post back here. Maybe he just wanted to vent a bit. Bruce and I have mostly kept content related to the OP's subject. Hopefully he got some ideas about how to handle it from something we said because we really did pretty much hijack his thread.
Happy birthday, America!
Hijack Away! Thanks for the distinction between call features. Ever since computers connected to our phone systems, I never liked the limitations of ACR.
If a legitimate Caller wants to hide their number, they can use a service of their local provider: *67 (Per Call), Per Line Blocking (always) or just signing up for an Unlisted Number (archaic?).
Although the Caller requests to hide their number, the number is actually sent within the data stream. However, also within the data stream, the local provider of the Caller sets a flag (Presentation Withheld) to inform Cox of the request to hide the number. Cox will honor the request, remove it and display a standard term (Private or Withheld). If you pay for ACR, it'll just dump the call. $4? Yikes!
Anyway, that's the standard and legitimate processes of Calling Line Identification Restriction (flag) and Anonymous Call Rejection.
However, since computers connected and can call from behind Private Branch Exchanges (PBX) or IP phone services, they don't need to set that Presentation flag to be "anonymous." In fact, administrators behind those PBX and services can enter whatever they want in the name and numbers fields...and providers will just pass it on. That's why Cox made the distinction from Unknown or Out-of-Area callers because they don't involve flags. I've also seen other non-standard terms, such as Anonymous, Private Number and N/A...and Cox just allows it.
I've also received calls from incomplete numbers: 97281609, 70381609 and 81609. What are those? They're just fragments...not callers...and Cox just allows it.
That's why I don't like ACR because it's limited to only the Presentation Withheld flag. It doesn't fix the bigger problem of non-standard terms and incomplete numbers. For ACR to be effective, Cox needs to redefine "Anonymous" on this service: if it's anything other than a 10-digit number, it's anonymous so reject it.
I love Excel! Excel IS my tinkering tool. Excel created my blocking schemes and I've got spreads with heat maps, heat calendars, charts, trends, plotters, etc. I just import my 8-year history from PhoneTray.
The "latest" trend is spoofing numbers only once from your local exchange(s). That's why Nomo doesn't work. Since Nomo launched on 1 Oct 2013 (2,102 days), 705 of 1,902 calls (37.1%) have been from one-time numbers for an average of 10.22 calls per month or .34 calls per day. (Excel!) My total calls (1,902) is low during this 5-year history of Nomo because I never give out my number. I guess I should to get more data for Excel.
Yeah...Happy Birthday, America! Don't listen to the Demmy Downers! Tanks, rallies and salutes...oh, my!