How can we cut off nuisance calls for good?

This is the question that keeps being asked and, apart from duncan, no-one – including Which? and the author has provided an answer – is there a technical solution that will stop all unwanted calls? So no good banging our heads against a brick wall if there is not a practical technical solution available. We need to concentrate then on making the best of a bad job and proposing ways of reducing the large majority of unwanted calls. For the remainder then buying a call blocker may be the best answer.

A bit like wanting to stop burglary; it is against the law, we don’t want it but we can’t stop it. But we can take precautions to minimise its likelihood.

Since you have replied to my comment, please can I ask what’s wrong with my suggestion?

Provide call blocking as an optional feature of the phone service rather than everyone having to install a call blocker.

There is nothing wrong with your, or any suggestion that can be practically implemented to block all calls. I question whether this is technically feasible or practical – a question that I would hope someone can answer.

Although I “replied” to you wavechange it was as much to keep my comment linked to the relevant bit of the convo so it can be seen in context. Sometimes people seem to think “replying to” to or quoting from a contributor is making an attack on their views; not so. It is the best way I can see to deal with keeping the thread. 🙂

Given that there is no way technically for a telephone system to recognise a call as being a nuisance until a recipient lists it or reports it as such, the holy grail of stopping nuisance calls is to have the blocking technology installed in the telephone system centrally and as soon as three subscribers [or whatever number is considered reasonable] report a call as a nuisance the number is blocked across the whole system both outgoing and incoming.

A good way to disrupt legitimate business if you (three or more) wish to, perhaps.

Earlier this year we learned of a company that made 46 million nuisance calls before it was fined. No doubt there will be some people who would act maliciously to get a company into trouble, but provided that there is real evidence of nuisance calls, I would like to see action and not wait for the problem to grow.

Maybe ICO staff could investigate the nuisance calls they receive rather than expecting us to report them.

wavechange -you were asking about using your line without a separate telephone circuit with fibre . Well no FFTC can supply that but if you get in FTTP with a box outside or up to your modem and then apply for – DOCSIS 3 broadband that would do the job . The problem is BT hasnt universally enabled that function in its equipment although Virgin has . Its a different method of exchange equipment communications . BT are doing tests in Bradford and Sky/Talk -Talk /City Fibre are enabling it in York so its progressing . First step would be FTTP to get you ready .

I realised, Malcolm, that anything relying on personal reports would be open to malicious use so assumed there would have to be some form of evidence and confirmation from the authorities before a total denial of service was implemented.

Now that I have fibre broadband I might take an interest in the technical side, but my current interest is in the possibility that switching from copper to fibre to convey phone calls might offer new ways of tackling the problem of nuisance calls. That might just be wishful thinking.

I’ve definitely got FTTP because I watched the engineer showed me the fibre in a box outside the front door.

I agree John. The same can happen reporting to Trading Standards (via the CAB). Someone has to spend the time to ensure genuine and valid complaints have been made before action can be contemplated.

I wonder how we could implement denial of service to overseas sources?

Apparently “Citizens Advice, previously Citizens Advice Bureau….is a network of 316 independent charities throughout the United Kingdom that give free, confidential information and advice to assist people with money, legal, consumer and other problems”. according to Wiki. If so I don’t know why names have to keep changing when the function is the same.

So long as the telecoms service provider was collecting revenue from a caller I suspect it would not be noticing any improper use of its network unless it was under a regulatory obligation to do so – i.e. by first having reasonable grounds of suspicion and then listening in.

It might be simpler all round for the government to pay for a free call-blocking device for every household that wants one [more useful than a smart meter in most cases so people should have a choice].