Cox refuses to implement protocols to prevent Spoofed Callers

Your suggestion of hooking up to computers will never be done by 98% of people over 65.

My suggestion is superior to anything mentioned herein.

You sound like a Cox employee.

Tiffany-

I emailed the addy you gave me.  Here is their response.

"Hi - Our team does not have access to phone switch details in order to troubleshoot anything of that nature. I do know that we are in compliance with this phone standard as of 2019 though. I am escalating a request to the team that would have further phone switch capabilities and have listed your number in your email as the callback number. You should hear back within 24-48 hours.

I want to make sure a Cox rep sees my post, so I anm repeating it.

Bruce- I agree why is Cox letting calls through with NO caller ID, and NO phone number????

My Repost:

I receive 6-8 spoofed calls a day.  Today is Monday  12-6-21, I have already received 2 spoofed calls by by 7:04AM.  The numbers are 323 430-6398  at 6:01 AM and 606 2838485 at 7:04 AM.  I will also provide you with the numbers of 469 other blocked spoofed calls on my Panasonic call blocking machine.

COX-you must contact me (you have my number) because I phoned Cox multipile times on this issue and only one person knew a little about Stir/Shaken the rest had never heard of it.  That person was not helpful either

Please contact me today my Cox landline is currently worthless to receiving important doctors calls.

EDIT:  Just received my third spoof call at 7:59 AM from 931 810-8215.  THREE SPOOFED calls today by 8:00 AM is that enough proof for you?

To tell the truth, I've never read the FCC sales pitch for STIR/SHAKEN.  When I originally read about STIR/SHAKEN, articles had terms like authentication, verification, digital signature, cryptography, etc so I assumed this protocol to be a "certification authority" like other network validation processes.  Meaning, only a completed validation process would allow a 2-way communications session.

However, the FCC sales pitch doesn't mention anything about stopping spoofs, blocking spoofs or preventing spoofs from ringing my phone.  There isn't a hint of Access Denied.  The key phrase is as follows:

"...it will give Americans more confidence that the caller ID information they receive is accurate and will allow voice service providers to provide helpful information to their consumers about which calls to answer."

More specifically "...the caller ID information they receive..." & "...which calls to answer."

This means spoofs will still happen and spoofs will still ring our phones.  All Cox is doing is "stamping" the Caller ID info with their seal of approval.  If you don't see the seal, be cautious.

My point is if had to look at the Caller ID in the first place, why do I need a seal?  If I don't recognize the number...or think the number is fake...or just feel something is off with the Caller ID, I'm already not answering the call.  Moreover, with or without STIR/SHAKEN, why is Cox allowing (000) 000-0000 to ring my phone?

The problem with spoofs is scammers are creative to lure you.  For example, these are real spoofs:  Untd St Govt, Police, Rebate, CoxComm.  With STIR/SHAKEN, couldn't a scammer just spoof a seal of authentication and verification?  Couldn't a scammer just prefix the spoof with , [AUTH], , [CERT], , [VAL], etc?  I mean, Cox is already allowing the spoofs.  Will Cox edit the spoofs to remove the spoofed seal?  Did Cox ever train us to verify if a seal is their seal?

Bottom line:  Nonsense will still ring your phone and Cox will still gladly take your "extra for my 30 blocked number feature."

There are 3 ways to "verify" the numbers.  One is to fully verify from where the call came and another to partially verify from where the call came.  There's a third but I forget its adjective.

I'm getting calls from fully verified......and the numbers are legit, but I'm also getting calls without any prefix.  Calls without prefixes are just ringing my phone.  I also don't understand the point if spoofs are still ringing me.  It's another Do Not Call Registry flop.