It took them a long time to figure out they only got calls from your number after they called you. That worked well because they also eventually figured out they had to pay their 800-number provider for all those calls that came from you.
"The calling number (CNUM) field is in many cases under the control of the caller (PBX/VOIP)." ... " ... and phone system administrators may populate the CNUM field pretty much any way they like."
There is no reason why the TSP they connect to cannot match the numbers in the CNUM field to the TSP's records of assigned/allowed numbers. If the CNUM does not match an assigned number, the call should not be allowed, or the TSP can replace the number in the CNUM with one from the records. I know toll-free numbers might come from a different TSP, but those numbers should be included in the allowed numbers at the connecting TSP.
It tied up their phone and their people as well as them having to pay for the calls. This was before the DNC registry and the police were telling me that I'd have to sue or take other expensive/time consuming actions. If they complained, I had proof that the police had already contacted them on my behalf and that, anyway, don't all companies have fax machines? They had only to receive the fax. But it never came to that. The biggest downside was that I couldn't receive phone calls while this was going on. But that wasn't that big a deal, particularly when I had the satisfaction of knowing what they were going through. As I recall, I happened to be out of town during the worst of it.
So, this was before 1977? Because that is when the FDCPA took effect. Oh and the DNC never did, was never designed, nor never will ever cover debt collectors because they are clearly covered by their own special law (as previously mentioned).
You make an excellent point, and in fact some providers do exactly that.
One consumer friendly provider (Callcentric) which has received much unwarranted criticism here from those without a firm grasp of the technical aspects of telephony, has a history of requiring proof of control of any number you wish to use off account. Others have similar policies. The problem is that, in general, regulatory solutions do not cross international boundaries, and many VOIP providers exist who are catering to the tele-scam market. Finally, even if we could enforce some sort of requirement like you describe, there are alternatives to outright spoofing that are equally effective. For example, many scofflaw collection agencies hold vast pools of numbers in exchanges all over the country. Much of what is reported as spoofing here is actually the result of these pools, and the fact that they often dead end calls to those numbers. It would be trivial to create a front entity to hold such numbers, and in fact there has been at least one business created which sold such services to tele-predators. Somewhere on this site there is a heated exchange with this operator which, if I recall correctly, wound up in litigation and death threats. Perhaps Resident or one of the other old timers will have a clear enough recollection to find those threads and point them out.
As is so broadly true with these problems, there are plenty of responsible players doing things like you so astutely suggest, but their efforts are obviated by difficult to control predators who exploit the technology.
Best Regards,
-LS-
0
sue
on my last bill from ATT there was a note that said to dial *61 after an unwanted call and they would block that number. I think many of the scam callers are using spoofed numbers so I'm wondering if it will block the real scammers or just the spoofed number.
i have an iphone, and i just click on the info icon (the letter "i" inside a circle), then scroll down and hit the Block Caller link. Unfortunately, sometimes these spoofed numbers have NO NUMBER attached to the call whatsoever... the number part is a complete blank (how is that even legal?)... therefore my iphone cannot block them. like a previous poster said about carriers limiting the amount of blocked numbers, sprint does too but thankfully my iphone will do it so long as there is a number attached to the call. All the unknown callers with no number still ring and I cant figure out how to make it stop.
And just an FYI, I've had my number over 15yrs and never had problems until i posted my resume on Indeed.com looking for a job. That when this all started.
iPhones, Android phones, and even the call blockers for landlines should add a feature to just silently hang up on calls with no CNUM. Maybe I'll make a feature request and send it to Apple and Google. Is there any legit reason for a call to come in with no CNUM? I know about private numbers, but with them a private caller message still comes up on CID. Even with private numbers blocked these no number calls get through, so this is something different.
Detroiter, scammers are happy to scrape numbers from any source they can. If they can tie the number to a name and a few pieces of personal info to try and make their scam sound more realistic, even better.
} number part is a complete blank (how is that even legal?)
The absence of a Caller ID entry is not spoofing, so it gets a pass on that front. However, telemarketers and commercial fundraisers are required by the TSR to transmit at least an accurate number as the CNUM.
I won't speak for all services, but the ability to blacklist dud CNUM and "unknown name" CNAM and the like is commonly featured in call management software. If you can't pattern-match the CNUM, maybe try the CNAM, or look for a workaround not documented officially.
You're hardly the first to report a spate of junk calls due to a job hunt. It's best I believe to sacrifice a phone number you don't care about, since inevitably it will be abused. That's one reason I've invested in VOIP the past year, to apply the same address aliasing principle which had rid me of 90-some percent of spam email.
> Verizon will effectively block these numbers but WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO BLOCK MORE THAN 20 NUMBERS FOR SOME IDIOTIC REASON.. Any suggestions on how to force Verizon to allow more than 20 numbers would be very appreciated.. I have over 200 numbers that need to be blocked.
Last time I was on Verizon, not only did they only allow blocking a very short list of numbers, each number expired 90 days after it was entered. I was furious, but spoofing is apparently so easy, it was pretty rare to get a tele-scammer call from the same number twice, so the Blocking List was mostly useless, whether it could hold 20 numbers or 20,000, or if the entries would expire after 90 days or never.
This thread -- thanks y'all for the introduction to CNUM and CNAM. It suggests how the phone companies will implement spoof-blocking and save us all a lot of trouble, some day, if they ever get off their duffs.
Reply to topic