Thank you for the links. I am glad to see that the matter is being addressed

Oh wow its loads of pages to read LOL

Paul

Paul

I don't expect many people outside industry will read them in depth. But many sections are just generic OFCOM speak and can be skimmed over.

The way some things are done has possibilities to affect nuisance call volumes but only if ALL calls are verified so International incoming calls also need to be checked against any database for spoofed CLI AND missing international markers. My opinion is that a missing international call marker means the call should be binned as it bypasses call filters that bar international calls. But the marker could just be added instead. This may cause me to actually respond personally ( although I don't believe that anyone outside industry is taken any notice of by OFCOM).

I route my DECT phones through a router that has 5 built in answering machines and call diversion. It is a simple matter to route calls from Unknowns; international numbers etc to an answerphone. The phone doesn't ring in these circumstances but I do get an email message that a call has come through. If the caller is genuine, then they will leave a message.

Then as our Australian cousins would say "there is always Lenny".

Yeah, like I said a little while back the only way to stop the spoofing numbers would be to allocated blocks to providers and if a phone number doesn't match a block of number for that provider then its spoofed and flag it as spoofed and block.

I was telling BT this a while back.

So at least it would be a step in the right direction.

Paul

If the number needs to match the provider how does this work for number porting?

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

If the number needs to match the provider how does this work for number porting?

That's easy, that number being ported gets added to their providers block of numbers.

I said this in my older post in this topic.

Paul

And if it is International, when none of the numbers calling will be UK ones?

Ah - in my mind block was contiguous blocks rather than individual ones.

Though this was meant to be part of a £700k blockchain investigation/study

Mr Saffron

Most of this is in one of the consultations. Only International part is acknowledged as missing.

I don't understand how blockchain tech is going to help with the millions of porting numbers ( low but still millions) that move each year. The transactional cost of dealing with these using block chain is likely to be too high. Only if you can limit the number of machines dealing with the block chain does it begin to make sense, there are too many operators to update a minimum of two machines for every operator to validate every transaction. Simple central database with updates to child databases for each operator is much simpler to run authenticate etc. Blockchain is just 'flavour of the month' for every inventory issue at present.