000-000-0000

Bruce, 

What you're seeing isn't anything being blocked by Cox. It sounds like either that phone number is blocking their caller ID information from displaying or they are literally transmitting the word "Blocked" as the name and/or number. What are you seeing in the Caller ID display on the telephone handset?  If the caller is blocking their info from displaying on your caller ID,  subscribing to and turning on Anonymous Call Rejection should do the trick to stop these calls from coming through.  

http://www.cox.com/residential/support/phone/article.cox?articleId=c4dd03a0-69b5-11df-5fca-000000000000

I got the same thing.  It said "Name Unavailable" 000-000-0000.  I have Cox Selective Call Rejection. It is a nice service but it has quirks. It won't let you reject "Unknown" "Unavailable"    calls.   

Also,  it won't let you reject any toll-free numbers (800, 866,877) and it won't let you reject most Unavailable numbers. Which means that it lets a lot of spam-scam calls get thru. 

It is also limited to 29 numbers. You will fill up that list quickly.  It is not unusual to get 5 spam calls per day. 

My telephone and Caller ID on TV logged both fields of the caller ID information:  000-000-0000 Name Unavailabl.  I understand how spoofed names and numbers work.

Everything on my end displayed 000-000-0000.  The only thing that logs the number differently is the Call History in my Cox account.  It just logs the number as "Blocked."

Why is your Call History system labeling it as "Blocked?"

Selective Call Rejection is a waste of money.  With spoofed numbers on VoIP, the numbers are fake, random and volatile.  These robocallers use multiple fake numbers.  How can Cox limit what we can block?  I could block 43 fake numbers from any area code beginning with 5.

Anonymous Call Rejection is a waste of money because it's based on callers who have blocked their caller ID information.  If a caller blocks their caller ID information, it's machine coded as either "Unknown" or "Private."  With spoofed caller ID on VoIP, the anonymous names are fake.  Scammers create fake machine-coded names, such as Name Unavailabl, PHONE, TEST, TOLL-FREE, Unavailable and Unknown Name.  Does Anonymous Call Rejection block fake anonymous names?

The Anonymous Call Rejection does not block the scammers. It only stops someone who has set their phone to Private.  i paid for it and used it for a while. It only stopped those friends who had set their phone to Private ..... it did not stop the Unavailable Unknown or other spammers. 

Alot of it is limitation of Cox's residential phone system. It doesn't have some of the modern features required, IE, simultaneous ring. There is also the limitations of the phone modems themselves and what features they are capable of at the firmware level. So it's not a matter of not offering something they have, but not having something they want to offer. Im hoping Cox upgrades the system, something similar to their proprietary system they use on the Cox Business side. About a year ago they completely upgraded their Voicemail system, so it's not without precedence, but I also wouldn't hold my breath. 

@Bruce. Another note. When the scam call arrives, it says "name unavailable" on my phone's Caller ID.  When i go to look at that same call in my Call History on my tv set, it sometimes says Blocked.  I didn't check what it says on my online account.

I don't know what Cox is trying to do.  If they want to block nuisance calls, block the calls.  But my phone rings...the caller ID reads Name Unavailabl 000-000-0000...but my Call History logs "Blocked."  What is Cox blocking for me?  Even more amazing, they don't know about this glitch.

Hi Bruce and Yak,

It sounds like the "blocked" label is being picked up due to the way the caller is masking their identity.  As you know, VOIP technology allows telemarketers and other fraudsters to spoof the Name, Number, and Location of calls.

The call itself isn't being blocked; it rings to your phone. Caller ID tries to interpret all of the information sent along with the VOIP transmission, including Name Unavailable, 000-000-0000, and Blocked. The information sent depends on how the VOIP call is made—what hardware, software, and protocols are used—and it’s possible that Caller ID may not be displaying that info correctly in the call history.

Unfortunately, Anonymous Call Rejection isn’t able to block calls when the identity is spoofed in this way. I continue to get calls from “Carmen, from Cardholder Services” that come in from different numbers and different states. I’ve been reporting these calls to the FCC and the FTC.

• Report the call to the Federal Communications Commission, which enforces laws regulating caller ID spoofing and unwanted telephone calls: www.fcc.gov/complaints or 1-888-225-5322. 
• Report the call to the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces the National Do Not Call Registry and takes action against deceptive business practices: www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov or 1-877-382-4357.

Becky, why do you think Cox doesn't offer a more complete Selective Call rejection feature set? It seems in high demand and I bet people would pay decent money. Something like being to report a call as "Spam" from inside Internet Tools > Call History would be very handy. I just don't understand why Cox would drag their feet when there is money to be made. The FCC do not call list does almost nothing, as you yourself can see since you keep getting the telemarketer calls. 

Even handier, Cox should make their Caller ID on TV interactive.  For example, provide options with the caller ID banner on my TV screen:  A (Allow)...B (Block)...C (Cox Block)...D (Directions).  Of course, pressing A wouldn't do anything unless you subscribe to Selective Call Acceptance.  Cox Block?  Imagine the trending potential!

To keep storage space low, our Block option could block the call for 30 days.  Reporting as Cox Block would provide feedback to Cox for a network-wide block.

What if your TV isn't on or you receive the call while away from home?  Make the options also available in the Call History on my TV.

If Cox developed this feature, I'd seriously consider staying while evaluating other providers.

Hi Bruce,

I really like your "Interactive TV Caller ID" idea! It certainly sounds like there is room for more product development there.

I can only speculate why Cox doesn't offer more phone tools for residential customers. However, no matter what technology is developed in the future, scammers, spoofers, crooks, and cons will continue to look for ways to exploit average folks like us.

The FTC is so desperate to find ways to protect consumers that it is hosting Robocalls: Humanity Strikes Back, a contest that asks tech gurus to create tools people can use to block or forward unwanted Robocalls automatically. Also, as part of the National Day of Civic Hacking on June 6, 2015, the FTC is challenging the tech-savvy public to DetectaRobo.

After reviewing my call history for the past 3 years and 6 months, the number field in the caller ID always contains one of three entries:

  - A Number
  - "Private"
  - "Unavailable"

The caller ID equipment on my end (telephone and telephone modem), has always logged the calls as one of those entries.

However, if the scammer spoofs the number as "Blocked," my equipment can't interpret the spoof so it defaults the number field as 000-000-0000.  The conflict in my original question comes from the Cox equipment being able to display the spoof:  "Blocked" vs "000-000-0000."

Another win for fraudsters toying with their robodialers.

Can Cox create a network-wide logic rule to filter these types of spoofs?  

If Number Field contains a number...
  TRUE:  Permit
  FALSE: If Number Field contains "Private"...
         TRUE:  Permit
         FALSE: If Number Field contains "Unavailable"...
                TRUE:  Permit
                FALSE: Block

Vigilance is too exhausting.  The only effective way to combat nuisance calls is to create an Allow List.  This is...only specific numbers can call you.

The contest sponsored by the FTC is disappointing.  The National Do Not Call Registry has not only wasted our tax dollars but also our immeasurable time filing complaints.  This contest has proven the FTC as ineffective, unimaginable and powerless.  The FTC has given up and now looking to the public for help.