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.
