The spoofing game is stacked against us because the Internet was the worst thing to happen for telephone consumers. With POTS, a scammer needed advanced knowledge and expensive equipment to spoof. With VoIP, you only need free software and a tolerant provider.
Providers (Cox) will accept any Caller ID info sent with a call. If no name is sent, the provider will insert generic info, such as City/State or Name Unavailable.
No service (Nomo) would manage a list of 10 billion telephone numbers (10-digit). You can't block them all but you can spoof any of them. Nomo also relies on subscribers to report a nuisance number. However, by the time it's reported...if at all...a scammer would have already moved onto another spoofed number.
Anonymous Call Rejection (ACR) only works with a "...number blocked or set to private..." but most modern phones can do this. ACR does not work with calls displayed as Unknown, Unknown Name, Unknown Number, N/A or Out of Area...or any other customized anonymity, such Private Call, Private Number or Unknown Caller.
It's easy to block a number...but you can't block a spoof. Stacked!
Pretty much as before- I understood that. The point of this discussion was to evoke what I expected- formulaic responses from mods- deftly sidestepping the crux of the post- that being the new law that among other things is described as holding service providers like Cox to a higher standard in offering some sort of verification service to the targets of what amounts to harassment.
The official replies went as I expected; formulaic pat answers aimed at what is clearly calculated to be an ignorant and easily pacified customer base. I was particularly amused when one response extolled the grandiose service of anonymous call blocking- which addresses nearly none of the calls in question- making me wonder if the individual Cox employee posting it kept a straight face doing it.
The answer to be extracted is as I expected- another placebo button on par with the ineffectual DNC list- put out there as little more than a placebo button to placate a market seen as little more than possessing farm animal mentality- and it's fairly evident that both the corporate universe and elected officials share in this disdain for the general population.
We are little more than a money garden.
I think it (new law) is a work in progress (verification).
I'd be easy for over-the-top providers (ATT, Verizon, Cox) to provide "authenticated" callers but the problem is...what happens if providers receive an unauthenticated call? Drop their call?
My Gam-Gam in rural Fogo Island, Canada!
The responses (Cox's) were not any reflection of any knowledge of the new law- just the old pat answers. I suppose I erred with the phrase "deftly sidestepping the crux of the post" because that suggests they actually read it. Artfully avoiding something involves a level of acknowledgement.
Moderators answer technical issues and cite approved policies. I'm sure they're aware of the pending FCC rules (Shaken/Stir) but they're limited to only citing approved policies. Anything in-work or within a process would the responsibility of a media relations or newsroom entity to distribute.
For example, 1 moderator...years ago...provided "policy"...which was completely wrong...and we thought it absolute. A second moderator contradicted the first and it snowballed into all of Cox doesn't know what's happening. The post was deleted and...lesson learned...moderators have to be careful what they post. I wish I could remember the post. I think it was during the mandatory Mini Box phase.
Kevin has been moderating for a while and my unwise adjective..."unknown"...left him to recommend ACR. I'm sure the mods would gladly dish on any rumors and hearsay within Cox but they'd have to correct any snowballed misunderstanding later. Why bother?
