Kitz Forum
Announcements => News Articles => Topic started by: sevenlayermuddle on February 11, 2016, 11:35:12 AM
-
Encouraging, perhaps?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35545914
:fingers:
-
Will be good if all provide something e.g. Plusnet
-
Will need to wait and see how good it is.
Simply blocking calls based on the number presented to the end-user wouldn't achieve much as these are too easily spoofed and faked. In the long ago days I worked in PSTN protocols there were various network parameters, easily visible to BT's switches, that might be inspected to identify some of these spoofed calls. But I've no idea how that translates to the modern IP age, and also no idea how much effort BT or other CPs would really want to put into it.
It's been a quiet day here, no calls at all so far. Yesterday was non-stop, I got two recorded messages from PPI reclaims and loans management, the fake guy from Microsoft in India wanting to install a virus, and somebody with a Brummie accent trying to get hold of my health details in exchange for M&S vouchers. :D
-
funny enough I was only talking about this to my sister yesterday and we both reckon the majority of calls done on landlines are now nuisance calls.
This seems to at least indicate its probably at the least well into double figures % wise.
It said it will use huge computing power to root out 25 million unwanted calls a week.
-
And by diverting them to voice mail BT still get their call revenue. We signed up at home to the TPS register years ago and I can't remember thd last time we got a nuisance call. I don't even get them on my personal mobile, but I get a lot on my works mobile, but I have software that just diverts the ones I've blocked to my voice mail.
-
Will need to wait and see how good it is.
Simply blocking calls based on the number presented to the end-user wouldn't achieve much as these are too easily spoofed and faked. In the long ago days I worked in PSTN protocols there were various network parameters, easily visible to BT's switches, that might be inspected to identify some of these spoofed calls. But I've no idea how that translates to the modern IP age, and also no idea how much effort BT or other CPs would really want to put into it.
It's been a quiet day here, no calls at all so far. Yesterday was non-stop, I got two recorded messages from PPI reclaims and loans management, the fake guy from Microsoft in India wanting to install a virus, and somebody with a Brummie accent trying to get hold of my health details in exchange for M&S vouchers. :D
I don't hold out much hope, it will be like trying to nail fog!!
-
Leave the phone off-hook, see if you can rack up a bill for them. These morons must be having to pay for this activity somehow?
-
Btw I didn't understand the article, is this something about the BT retail PSTN provider? Or BT wholesale PSTN services whoever you pay your PSTN bill to? I'm just wondering how many people will get the benefit, or whether this is a "sign up with BT" thing?
-
I don't have any PSTN at all myself now, just VoIP, with my ISP, Andrews and Arnold, providing the service and a DECT IP phone. Not even any SSFPs any more.
BTW, I can redirect the VoIP to Janet's mobile phone too, so in fact we could manage without any additional VoIP hardware.
-
There are very few nuisance calls received at The Cattery. When the odd one does occur, I like to toy with the caller . . . depending upon how grumpy I am that day! ;)
There was a spate of calls following on from the TalkTalk affair last October. I was very close to putting together a 400 Hz audio oscillator, to inject the equivalent of NU tone at +10 dBm into the circuit whenever such nuisances occurred. Having a suitable oscillator, it was just a question of making up an AC coupling, DC blocking interface. There are currently ten unused axial, polyester, non-polarised, 2.2 microFarad, 250 V working capacitors in the grotto . . . :angel:
-
I remain undecided as to the origin of these calls, i.e. random or attributable to leaked data.
Many of the calls we receive will address us by the subscriber name (which is not me), and they know our street address, so they could either be random from the phone directory, or leaked data.
Others will address me as 'Mr Muddle', which appears in no directories and so are clearly attributable to data leakage. On one occasion many years ago, I pinned a marketing call (from one of the energy providers) to a certain National hotel chain, where I had checked in with a slightly different name, and the caller addressed me by that name. The reason I did that is a long story, but I promise nothing embarrassing or sinister. :D
But with PPI calls and the likes, it is just a recorded message, 'You are entitled to compensation, press 5 to talk to an advisor'. When I press 5, the advisor has not the slightest idea to whom or to what number he has been connected, and so I suspect they are just calling semi-random numbers. Not totally random obviously, they'd restrict themselves to valid UK dialling codes and the 'random' numbers would be valid formats, but nothing more than that.
-
i am on the TPS list and get about 5-10 nuisance calls a week
-
I don't have any PSTN at all myself now, just VoIP, with my ISP, Andrews and Arnold, providing the service and a DECT IP phone.
Did you port your original number onto SIP? I'm half considering that myself so we can keep our number. On the other hand I don't see how porting to SIP would remove nuisance calling.
-
One problem I have recently with increasing frequency, when buying from internet traders, or making online hotel bookings and the likes is that they insist on a valid contact number
so that they can sell it on to all and sundry "so that they can contact me in the event of a problem with my order".
I would never give a false number, as that would be grossly unfair if it happened to be a real number that belonged to somebody else. But I have found, in pretty much all cases, the online forms will accept a number with the last digit missing. :graduate:
Even my local Indian takeaway has recently adopted a computerised system for taking orders, and they now ask me for a contact number when I place an order. So far, they have always accepted a polite 'No' to that request, otherwise I'd stop using them. Strange that they can't just get it from the calling ID, I don't withhold. Perhaps by asking, and by me responding, they can in some way claim that I consented to its use?
-
FWIW we've had a TrueCall unit for a few years now.
Our call stats run as follows :
Rejected numbers /automated dialers - 86.4% (this is pretty much consistent year on year)
Fake CLID - 72.1% (this is up over 200% in the last year).
There's a lot more stats than that but I think that for 500-1000 incoming calls/year those are the two most salient figures.
Now obviously SOMEONE knows who to bill for the calls and that "someone" will be renting capacity from a major teleco. Presenting a fake CLID with an automated dialer should be grounds for instant termination of service but of course none of the UK telecos is willing to take the hit in revenue.
I applaud the decision BT Retail has taken but can't help feeling its going to have a limited effect as it doesn't address the main problem.
-
How does it determine that the presented public CLID is fake?
Surely to do this you need access to the 'real system billing CLID' to compare it with - which I understood only BT as network operator have and will be accessible to them and to the emergency services only.
-
I know on spam emails, if you look at the properties of the email it says something like 'not designated sender'. So the email systems let spam through even though it fails some of the checks. I guess so as not to mistakenly block any genuine emails.
I'm thinking the phone blocking system will be like that. I suspect that instead of enforcing automatic blocks they will have people put it on a block list individually. Then if they get a certain amount of individuals blocking they could move that number on to a nationwide block list.
-
If you're talking about a standard analogue line, what information is actually presented with the incoming call? I wonder if the "fake" designation is actually based on reports from elsewhere, not the properties of the call itself.
-
It's a while ago now that I actually worked on PSTN protocols. My memory is hazy and whilst I could dig out the protocol specs I'm not sure I could face it, my recollection is as follows...
When a legitimate user wants to display a number that is not the calling party's number, it gets passed an entirely different parameter, 'presentation number'. This calling party number is still present all the way to destination exchange, and could be used by BT switches to identify the rogue caller, regardless of 'presentation number'.
Note also that Calling Party Number is normally present too, even if it has been 'withheld'. Callers who 'withhold' their number simply cause a bit to be set, indicating it should not be presented to the called subscriber.
-
I have used Sipgate's VOIP service for years now. After a year of having the line, I decided to try to change the phone number. Unfortunately I ended up with an additional phone. So I kept both lines, and always give out the original VOIP line to anybody that wants that a phone number to call me. I VERY rarely get junk calls on that number. But I still get an occasional call on my original landline number even now........ But I have found TPS has helped a lot. Another reason I think that people don't pester me with junk calls is that I am quite abusive to unwanted callers................
-
There's official fake phone numbers you can give out without the risk of sending nuisance calls to someone else:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/numbering/guidance-tele-no/numbers-for-drama
-
It's a while ago now that I actually worked on PSTN protocols. My memory is hazy and whilst I could dig out the protocol specs I'm not sure I could face it, my recollection is as follows...
When a legitimate user wants to display a number that is not the calling party's number, it gets passed an entirely different parameter, 'presentation number'. This calling party number is still present all the way to destination exchange, and could be used by BT switches to identify the rogue caller, regardless of 'presentation number'.
Note also that Calling Party Number is normally present too, even if it has been 'withheld'. Callers who 'withhold' their number simply cause a bit to be set, indicating it should not be presented to the called subscriber.
My question was how much of that information is presented down an analogue line. Not much I suspect, and in fact I suspect it's not presented to the called subscriber on ISDN either.
-
If CLI is to be restricted, it won't be passed out of a signalling connection that goes outside BTs control.
If anyone wants to see the NICC rules, take a look at ND1016
http://www.niccstandards.org.uk/publications/public-net.cfm
-
I'll just keep the CPR call blocker installed as it seems to be 100% effective and I miss those international Indian calls fake or withheld caller ID's NOT :congrats:
-
There's official fake phone numbers you can give out without the risk of sending nuisance calls to someone else:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/numbering/guidance-tele-no/numbers-for-drama
When pushed, in a not much time to think situation, I have actually quoted the main switchboard number for New Scotland Yard!
(020 7230 1212 is the modern-day equivalent of WHItehall 1212)
-
Just had a look into BT blocking cost ->
BT has a "Choose to Refuse" service which will cost you £90 a year, whereas the CPR Call Blocker costs just £39.99 as a one off payment. CPR Call Blocker is the most cost effective way to stop any unwanted calls to your home or office.
-
My question was how much of that information is presented down an analogue line. Not much I suspect, and in fact I suspect it's not presented to the called subscriber on ISDN either.
The only part of the PSTN that has been analogue, since early 1980s, is the last hop to subscriber. The terminating exchange would thus make a decision as to which (digital) signalling parameter should be presented... 'Calling party number' or 'presentation number' or neither. That is then signalled to the called party on the analogue line, with analogue encoding, as a pre-emption to the 'ring' signal.
But the point is, BT are suggesting they will do diversion within their own network and they can do that entirely on digital parameters, the analogue hop to subscriber is not really relevant
I stress again though, I am working from hazy memory here. My involvement in these issues was quite some time ago. :)
-
I stress again though, I am working from hazy memory here. My involvement in these issues was quite some time ago. :)
VOIP is also blocked in these units if that is were your concern lays ?
-
I stress again though, I am working from hazy memory here. My involvement in these issues was quite some time ago. :)
VOIP is also blocked in these units if that is were your concern lays ?
Sorry I don't follow, or see the relevance to anything I posted? :-\
-
I stress again though, I am working from hazy memory here. My involvement in these issues was quite some time ago. :)
VOIP is also blocked in these units if that is were your concern lays ?
Will need to wait and see how good it is.
But I've no idea how that translates to the modern IP age, and also no idea how much effort BT or other CPs would really want to put into it.
Sorry I don't follow, or see the relevance to anything I posted? :-\
It can block IP or VOIP calls
-
It can block IP or VOIP calls
Now I am truly lost. ???
We are discussing a new Service, to be released by BT, according to BBC, that will automatically divert nuisance calls, claiming to kill them by the millions, and will be free.
It quite different to a call blocker - that is something quite different, usually a separate piece of kit or a special phone in your own home, and have signfifcant restrictions in functionality compared to filtering within the network.
-
Touch wood I dont get too many. Ive been TPS for years and Im ex-d and no with-held.
Ive had one of the "Your computer has a virus" and a "You have won a Florida holiday" which must have been random dials.
My parents got very little until about 2/3yrs ago when on Sky despite being TPS.
We also suspect Swinton Insurance [or someone related to them] has been selling data. My dad was involved in someone smashing into the side of him 2 years ago.
Because it was in Tesco carpark and dad was only doing about 15mph when a woman turned straight into him. No-one was hurt and all he wanted was his car repairing. After that he started getting a lot of calls about it saying he should claim personal injury. I'm not talking the generic calls, these were specific and knew the date and place etc and knew mum was also in the car.
These calls became a bit too much, like several per day so dad enquired at Swinton who denied it was them. However, I do supsect they do have something to do with it.
The event Im about to tell is no word of a lie and draw your own conclusions.
Last March dad put me on his insurance and provided my details.
When dad was in hospital mum was repeatly getting upset as the calls to the point she would stop answering the phone.
On the 23rd of October I was round at Mums having just dropped her off and the phone rang so I answered
The convo went something like
Indian guy "Im ringing about your accident on Jan 'x' at 'y'"
Me "Look please just stop these calls - take us off your list. We've just been told dad is terminal go away. Never call again".
I went straight home after this and as I was walking through the door my phone rang
Indian guy "Im ringing about the accident last January in your 'enter dads make of car'
Me: Hang on a mo. Didnt I speak to you 5 mins ago on my fathers phone number.
Me: "I told you my father was terminal with cancer and not to bother us again "
Indian guy: "Yes you did. I am sorry. Hope your father gets better soon".
Kitz goes totally balistic. "You do understand terminal - like he has hours left. Go on eff off.
Indian guy: "I am so sorry - Please not scream at me".
So how the heck did they know
1) The date of the accident
2) The make of dads car
3) My telephone number, which dad only gave them when adding me on his insurance.
-
@Kitz
I believe these details would all appear on CUE (Cliams and Underwriting Exchange) database, accessible to anybody in the industry.
When I had a no-fault crunch a few years ago, then insured through AA, they automatically passed all my details on to a PI company, insisted I claim for a bad elbow. And also a car-hire company, got me a nice BMW for a few weeks. And AA's brokers no doubt got a whack of commission from both.
You can submit a CUE Subject Access Request, for a small fee of £10 or so I believe, maybe that would reveal who else has accessed the data? I'm not going to give a link as most of the top hits on Google seem to be from fakers trying to intercept. Last time I looked the genuine link was obvious, but not any more.
-
CUE could explain them having access to details about the accident. However surely this type of information shouldnt ever get into the hands of ambulance chasers. :(
The other thing which I think is important to note is my phone number should not have been linked anywhere to the accident. Dad would normally renew things like this himself, but it was only after he became ill last year that he started giving my details. He was too poorly last year to drive himself there so had to be taken and he'd gradually been adding my details as authorised to speak on his behalf for things he thought mum wouldn't understand.
Someone somewhere is making a nice sideline selling personal data. :(
-
I'd not be at all surprised if the contact phone number, related to a claim, were stored on CUE. Many insurance contracts that I've bothered do read assign pretty sweeping rights to the insurance companies, for storing and sharing of customer's personal data.
But regardless of the details, Kitz's example of ambulance chasers is one reason I think the BT proposal probably won't work....
...Most of would agree that calls from ambulance chasers are in the 'nuisance' category, but if they are not doing anything illegal I don't see that BT would be able to block them. Conversely, if they were doing something illegal it would be a matter for the courts... BT would not be allowed to be 'judge and jury'. :(
-
For me its a result of having domains which I manage myself. As part of the zonefile you are required to enter contact numbers for both tech and admin contacts and for some domain suffixes (.org being one, .eu being another) those numbers are periodically checked for accuracy. Unfortunately they also get harvested - perhaps not quite so much now as RIRs & LIRs keep a tighter grip on bulk "whois" requests. However for me that particular stable door is long past bolting.
So my landline number has been "in the wild" for 15+ years and is probably on every English language telephone spamlist in existence.
Its been on the TPS for that timescale and TPS has had zero effect - ever. No surprise as self-regulation NEVER works in the UK.
The way the current generation of autodialers work (last year or so) is to initially present a blank CLID (NB - not withheld, but blank). If the call is rejected then the autodialer redials about 1 hour later with a number (invalid) which is geographically close to you. However the CLID is invalid because the last digit is never presented.
If faking the CLID to gain pecuniary advantage were a criminal offence then it'd be a different story....
-
I think I understood the VoIP comment.
I have a normal telephone number (01747 xxxxxx) associated with my VoIP phone from Sipgate. Depending on where BT do the filtering the calls could be blocked before they get handed off to Sipgate.
-
BT charging to block calls that they encourage :)
funny isnt it.
-
The way the current generation of autodialers work (last year or so) is to initially present a blank CLID (NB - not withheld, but blank). If the call is rejected then the autodialer redials about 1 hour later with a number (invalid) which is geographically close to you. However the CLID is invalid because the last digit is never presented.
Why do the 1st call with a blank number, why not just do the 2nd with a geographically close number?
-
The way the current generation of autodialers work (last year or so) is to initially present a blank CLID (NB - not withheld, but blank). If the call is rejected then the autodialer redials about 1 hour later with a number (invalid) which is geographically close to you. However the CLID is invalid because the last digit is never presented.
Why do the 1st call with a blank number, why not just do the 2nd with a geographically close number?
The blank number will get them past landlines/phones which don't accept CLID withheld calls and isn't generally possible for the end-user to block without some form of dedicated callblocker.
The whole issue is simple enough to fix - enforce the correct CLID presentation (this is NOT rocket science) and enact "Do Not Call" legislation such as the USA has where the end-user gets compensation for every illegal call made to them. Won't happen in the UK though, not in a million years. Edit - or until its no longer profitable for (mainly) Tory donors/peers to run such hellholes.
Annoys the hell out of me mainly because I have to pay a ridiculous "line rental" charge ostensibly for a "voice service" which has been abused to the extent that few people (I know) will pickup unknown calls on their landline. In fact I'd say perhaps 30% of the people I know in the UK have nothing other than a router/modem plugged into their landline.
-
Now obviously SOMEONE knows who to bill for the calls and that "someone" will be renting capacity from a major teleco. Presenting a fake CLID with an automated dialer should be grounds for instant termination of service but of course none of the UK telecos is willing to take the hit in revenue.
I applaud the decision BT Retail has taken but can't help feeling its going to have a limited effect as it doesn't address the main problem.
Aren't the vast majority of unwanted calls meant to originate from outside the UK?
OFCOM acknowledges this and also state that they account for a "significant and growing proportion of nuisance calls" when it comes to CLI spoofing.
Overseas calls is where TPS is useless and OFCOM are powerless to act. :(
Out of curiosity does the UK telco's benefit from overseas nuisance calls?
I applaud the decision BT Retail has taken but can't help feeling its going to have a limited effect as it doesn't address the main problem.
Ive no idea how spoofing can be stopped. As you say, the proposals doesn't tackle the whole issue. But I suppose something is better than nothing.
In a way, it sounds like what BT are doing could be the equivalent of SFS when it comes to forum spam. SFS (http://www.stopforumspam.com/) isnt fool proof and there are ways around it - such as the Indian guy sat in a cyber cafe working for peanuts. But even those do eventually get caught.
The spammers are constantly looking for new ids or new (proxy) IPs, but it only takes one member of SFS to report them, then they are flagged for all others. On the whole it works pretty well.
When it comes to forum spam, I not only access project honeypot (http://project honeypot) database, but have a honey pot running to catch bots and this info is fed to the main database. Over the past few years Ive caught 364125 bots (just checked my stats) which have been added to the central database.
I suppose this would be the equivalent to catching CLI spoofers. I wonder if there was any way some sort of honey pot could be set up for CLI spoofing. Your thoughts on this?
-
BT charging to block calls that they encourage :)
funny isnt it.
Im afraid I dont understand what you mean. We are talking about the same subject ie BT to divert nuisance calls for free (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35545914)
But the new service will identify some of the 5 billion unwanted calls made each year before they arrive.
They will then be diverted automatically to a junk voicemail box.
Customers will be able to add numbers they don't want to hear from, for free.
The hope is that action from BT will turn the tables on nuisance callers.
I thought the issue under discussion was although it will help a bit, it doesnt tackle the root cause and CLI spoofing.
OFCOM is supposedly working with other international regulators to find a solution (http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/phone/tackling-nuisance-calls-and-messages/phone-spoof-scam/).
Unfortunately I dont hold out much hope here when it comes to regulation. There will always be certain countries which become a soft touch and safe haven. Just like how China/parts of India/parts of the old Eastern Bloc are now when it comes to spam and bots.
-
I don't have any PSTN at all myself now, just VoIP, with my ISP, Andrews and Arnold, providing the service and a DECT IP phone.
Did you port your original number onto SIP? I'm half considering that myself so we can keep our number. On the other hand I don't see how porting to SIP would remove nuisance calling.
No, I chose a new vaguely geographically correct number.
I don't see how porting to SIP is going to help.
-
I'm sure @Kitz that it would follow the BT privacy option model
That is to say free for a while
...and the suddenly it becomes only free with a new contract term
-
International gateway exchanges certainly don't simplify things.
For a while in the 90s and early 0s iirc, the UK and some European exchanges would completely strip/depopulate the CLI parameter (as opposed to just marking it as 'presentation restricted') at international gateways for calls bound for the USA.
The problem then was, privacy regulations in the US were different. Specifically, if a caller withheld the number (prefixed 141, or just asked BT to withhold always) but was calling a freephone US number, US apparatus might not honour it and might present the callers the number anyway - the reasoning being, if they pay for the call they have a right to see who's calling. Not wrong, you can see their point, but different, and might surprise UK callers.
Note also again, there are valid reasons for presenting a number that is different to genuine CLI, such as when a local branch of a big company calls a customer, they might want the corporate number to be displayed. That is why the protocols allow it.
-
BT charging to block calls that they encourage :)
funny isnt it.
Im afraid I dont understand what you mean. We are talking about the same subject ie BT to divert nuisance calls for free (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35545914)
What I mean is BT make money from all these illegal calls, and they clearly dont care much about them as they allow the calls to go through their voice network.
The whole situation is a farce.
Millions of people only have a voice line because its required for broadband and no other reason.
This voice line is abused by cold callers.
BT propose a new service to charge for blocking these cold callers.
BT encourage cold callers by not doing things like blocking clid spoofing and not rate limiting outbound calls from a location.
Hope you understand now.
If a voice line wasnt a requirement for broadband these cold callers would have a lot less live numbers to ring. In turn BT would have less revenue.
-
@chrysalis, if you only have a voice line because it's required for broadband, why not just unplug the phone? But I seriously doubt if the number of people inclined to do so would be 'millions'.
And stress, stress again, BT are not 'proposing a new service to charge for blocking'. They are planning a new service to divert the calls for free, at least according to the Beeb, who's article is being discussed in this thread.
Surely that's in best interests of both customers who get less nuisance calls at zero cost, as well as shareholders if BT can still get the revenue from the call centres, by still terminating the call?
-
You right I could keep the line unplugged.
BT shouldnt have any charged for service period, and they should be blocking CLID spoofing without needing to be pushed to do so.
Did you read rizla's post at what could be done?
-
Just to point out they are planning to divert the calls to a junk box, which to me implies you need call minder which is chargeable.
-
Did you read rizla's post at what could be done?
Have you read mine properly? I worked in the industry, specifically PSTN signalling, for a decade and a half. When your phone rings, and the voice says 'PPI reclaims', there is a distinct possibility the call is being propagated by software that I personally wrote. :-[
Wow, there's a confession. :D
Thankfully, other (most) customers put my software to more respectable uses.
-
Now obviously SOMEONE knows who to bill for the calls and that "someone" will be renting capacity from a major teleco. Presenting a fake CLID with an automated dialer should be grounds for instant termination of service but of course none of the UK telecos is willing to take the hit in revenue.
I applaud the decision BT Retail has taken but can't help feeling its going to have a limited effect as it doesn't address the main problem.
Aren't the vast majority of unwanted calls meant to originate from outside the UK?
OFCOM acknowledges this and also state that they account for a "significant and growing proportion of nuisance calls" when it comes to CLI spoofing.
Overseas calls is where TPS is useless and OFCOM are powerless to act. :(
Out of curiosity does the UK telco's benefit from overseas nuisance calls?
I applaud the decision BT Retail has taken but can't help feeling its going to have a limited effect as it doesn't address the main problem.
Ive no idea how spoofing can be stopped. As you say, the proposals doesn't tackle the whole issue. But I suppose something is better than nothing.
In a way, it sounds like what BT are doing could be the equivalent of SFS when it comes to forum spam. SFS (http://www.stopforumspam.com/) isnt fool proof and there are ways around it - such as the Indian guy sat in a cyber cafe working for peanuts. But even those do eventually get caught.
The spammers are constantly looking for new ids or new (proxy) IPs, but it only takes one member of SFS to report them, then they are flagged for all others. On the whole it works pretty well.
When it comes to forum spam, I not only access project honeypot (http://project honeypot) database, but have a honey pot running to catch bots and this info is fed to the main database. Over the past few years Ive caught 364125 bots (just checked my stats) which have been added to the central database.
I suppose this would be the equivalent to catching CLI spoofers. I wonder if there was any way some sort of honey pot could be set up for CLI spoofing. Your thoughts on this?
The vast majority of "problem calls" are from "within" the UK kitz but this is only analysed on complaints received and that requres a valid CLID last time I submitted one :) As to who talks to you if you pick the call up.... could be anyone, anywhere.
TrueCall have a community thing* where you can just basically sub to that (think of it as SpamHaus/RBLs but for CLIDs) and that was a huge success. Given BT licensed part of the TrueCall "IP" for their "callblocking handsets" then it can't have taken long for the beancounters to work it out mmm?
The Do Not Call legislation in the USA is the way to go - they tried everything else possible & you can imagine the lobbying from the industry mmm :D
*go look at their site, my unit is "too old" for that "feature".
Edit - oh and you have to consider the downside of using a service which will log/filter calls in a completely different way. Just like an email spamfiltering sevice it will "learn" what is normal for your landline and what isn't. Not a hop skip & a jump very far off a police state wet dream mmm?
-
I think there are a number of things worth re-emphasising. They are all based on recollections of not too long ago but, I suspect, still relevant...
1). The number seen on a subsriber's caller display is only one of several parameters available for an exchange-side check.
2). When a call arrives in the BT network, and it is lacking a calling party number, BT can send a message back towards the originator, requesting calling party number. If it is not provided, BT can reject the call.
3). There is a difference between 'CLI withheld' and 'Calling Party Number Not provided'. If it is merely withheld then it is available, in all its glory, to BT switches... They just don't signal it to the end subscriber. But they could use it in deciding whether or not to allow a call to proceed.
4). Caller ID 'spoofing' doesn't necessarily mean that calling number was spoofed, the calling number may still be present as well as the spoofed number, but it would be visible only to BT, not the end user. Thus again, BT could use the real Calling Party Number to decide to ditch the call.
5). All number parameters are accompanied by additional qualifiers, that say whether the number was 'user provided' or 'network provided', or 'network verified', etc. Again, these are only visible to BT, not their customers. But could be useful in decision making.
6.), 7.), 8) and more would be provided if I could be bothered digging out old protocol specs. But I'm retired, and I won't. :D
For all of above reasons, a properly executed BT diversion process could in theory be infinitely superior to a customer premise call-blocker. It remains to be seen whether they would or could do so, and whether it would be legal for them to do so, or legal to act as judge and jury in deciding who wins and who loses.
With that, I'm probably withdrawing from this debate. Glad to see it has stimulated interest. :)
-
My question was how much of that information is presented down an analogue line. Not much I suspect, and in fact I suspect it's not presented to the called subscriber on ISDN either.
The only part of the PSTN that has been analogue, since early 1980s, is the last hop to subscriber. The terminating exchange would thus make a decision as to which (digital) signalling parameter should be presented... 'Calling party number' or 'presentation number' or neither. That is then signalled to the called party on the analogue line, with analogue encoding, as a pre-emption to the 'ring' signal.
But the point is, BT are suggesting they will do diversion within their own network and they can do that entirely on digital parameters, the analogue hop to subscriber is not really relevant
Sorry, maybe I was unclear but my comments were I was referring to Rizla's on-premise call blocker which reported "fake" CLID, and started some questions about how a fake CLID could be determined by such a device. I think we still don't know, in that context, unless these were simply outside the range of valid numbers. I think it's understood that inside the network there's more information available.
-
sevenlayermuddle you have just confirmed BT could have nipped this in the bud already, by never presenting spoofed numbers, and automatically rejecting calls which dont present the number.
But I suspect if they did just that then they would have less revenue as these calls generate revenue.
-
My question was how much of that information is presented down an analogue line. Not much I suspect, and in fact I suspect it's not presented to the called subscriber on ISDN either.
The only part of the PSTN that has been analogue, since early 1980s, is the last hop to subscriber. The terminating exchange would thus make a decision as to which (digital) signalling parameter should be presented... 'Calling party number' or 'presentation number' or neither. That is then signalled to the called party on the analogue line, with analogue encoding, as a pre-emption to the 'ring' signal.
But the point is, BT are suggesting they will do diversion within their own network and they can do that entirely on digital parameters, the analogue hop to subscriber is not really relevant
Sorry, maybe I was unclear but my comments were I was referring to Rizla's on-premise call blocker which reported "fake" CLID, and started some questions about how a fake CLID could be determined by such a device. I think we still don't know, in that context, unless these were simply outside the range of valid numbers. I think it's understood that inside the network there's more information available.
Sorry I hadn't realised you were asking me :)
The Truecall unit doesn't "detect" a fake CLID - I do and its as you say, mainly invalid numbers (last digit left off is flavour of the month) and number ranges not assigned/not released in the UK. I simply label them as "Fake CLID" and that allows stat generation showing percentage of "Fake CLID" on the Truecall control panel.