Robocalls would be much easier to address if you could block/report the actual number they come from.
1) Caller id was conceptually flawed from the beginning so was implemented as an honor system instead of something required to communicate (like an IP address)
2) Caller id is unregulated, so there is no penalty for spoofing
My previous comment on it:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19303931
From the linked article:
Unlike phone numbers and domain name service (DNS), wherein there are internationally recognized databases that are authoritative sources, there is no central authority or regulation for caller ID. No FCC guidelines regulate carrier accuracy, and although federal regulations exist regarding telemarketers and spoofing, carriers can maintain their caller ID databases as they see fit.
https://www.onsip.com/blog/how-caller-id-works-why-it-might-...
Pair that with creating an access restriction to the US PSTN for any entity that originates a call with a spoofed number that is enforceable with technology rather than by voluntary or compelled action, and much of the problem will be mitigated.
It's very different from a packet switching network where data is cut in small chunks with a header meant to be routed across the graph (and in which case you need to be able to find your way back for the reply somehow).
Of course I expect that modern phone networks have evolved massively from the early days but I'm sure that this original design decision still makes what you're proposing difficult. There's a lot of historical baggage.
Caller Id came about in '68. It was built around an honor system because that's the environment that's how telephone lines used to be operated. They weren't able to predict the future.
10 times per day?
You will. And the company that will bring it to you is AT&T."
It's sad how well that fits into their line of old commercials from the 1990's. And yes, I was inspired by this post from yesterday [0].
Phone numbers can also often be associated with a physical address which can be a problem for people who legitimately don't want to give away their location.
Sometimes you want someone else to call on your behalf. But if they need to call back, you want them to reach you.
This is a relatively small company with 2500 employees. Imagine something much, much larger, with offices worldwide, VOIP routing internally, least cost routing of phone calls, etc.
That said, I don't know why we still haven't fixed this. We've had plenty of time. I guess the answer just comes down to it costs money to fix it and the phone companies historically haven't cared. Though at this point, given how many people outright refuse to answer numbers they don't recognize due to spammers, you'd think the phone companies would be feeling financial pressure to work towards restoring trust in the phone system.
What financial pressure do the phone companies feel when I never answer my phone?
I still have to give them identical amounts of money to maintain my internet connection.
I imagine it's the kind of issue where there are still enough people answering the calls where if they dealt with the issue it would have a noticeable, measurable financial impact, so nobody in the company can propose it. But by not fixing the issue now it will also destroy all future business.
So short-sightedness.
But spoofing to a number that you don't own? No, I don't know of any legitimate use for that.
When making calls on behalf of an entity that does own that number. Happens all the time, a company hires a bunch of call centers, they make outbound calls, then those return calls go back to a number owned by the original company. They can then answer them in-house, transfer them to a certain call center, transfer them round-robin, whatever they need to do. Plus it gives them the flexibility to drop a certain call center if needed, without having to worry about losing control of that number.
I got a call just yesterday from my DR's office reminding me of a scheduled appointment. Have no way of knowing for sure, but I have no doubt that it's a service spoofing their office phone number so the calls get answered. It was a computer generated voice and automated response processing.
Phone companies can CHOOSE to stop routing calls without more identity/registration from the caller but it’s just not implemented, maybe for legacy compatibility reasons. I believe for some countries on twilio, phone number registrations require additional verification, but for the US you just need credit on twilio.
https://www.fcc.gov/call-authentication
https://transnexus.com/whitepapers/understanding-stir-shaken...
So my guess is that the protocol they use asks the caller for the "from" number.
Isn't that exactly what T-Mobile is doing with their scam blocking? Or did you mean something a bit different?
a) CallerID: This is the numeric part of the info displayed on the callee's phone. Is provided by the calling party, DOES NOT have anything to do with the second part. IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NAME THAT SHOWS ON THE CALL
b) CNAM: This is the Name part that gets delivered to the callee's phone. This is essentially a reverse lookup on the CallerID part of the call IN THE CALLEE'S PROVIDER'S DATABASE
Back when (today's) AT&T ran the whole phone system, those two databases were essentially the same. Now that they aren't, hilarity ensues.