Spam number block requests post here

[mbabco]

FAXHALT at 720-449-3728

[Guest]

619-555-8869 Obviously not a real number but it's the one that's been spamming my phone this morning.

[wa2ibm]

619-555-8869 Obviously not a real number ...

I've seen these types of numbers (aaa-555-eeee) getting through quite often. Another one I see is aaa-1pp-eeee where the first digit of the 'prefix' is a one.

Do either of these match any possible numbering schemes in the North American Number Plan? What would be the consequence, if any, of blocking both of these number patterns?

[Guest]

Robocall, CID shows 707-921-0234 / Private
"Google" recording

[Guest]

Robocall, hang-up, CID 763-710-8525

[Neil]

619-555-8869 Obviously not a real number ...

I've seen these types of numbers (aaa-555-eeee) getting through quite often. Another one I see is aaa-1pp-eeee where the first digit of the 'prefix' is a one.

Do either of these match any possible numbering schemes in the North American Number Plan? What would be the consequence, if any, of blocking both of these number patterns?

Not claiming to be the subject matter expert, but I worked at ROLM back in the nineties, and modified software to be in compliance with NANP-95, so I know a bit about this topic.

Generally, "555" numbers are assigned to directory assistance type services, but there are some special arrangements that use that prefix for other services. It would never be assigned to a garden variety POTS line. For example, somebody (like Google or Bing or TellMe) had a voice recognition-based phone number lookup service back in the last decade that used a "555" exchange code. (The proliferation of smartphones reduced the need for such a service, and they're pretty much extinct.)

There is, AFAIK, no case where a seven-digit phone number would start with a "1", or a "0" for that matter. Since the "1" prefixes domestic area codes, and "011" prefixes international country codes, assigning a "1" or "0" as the first digit causes routing problems in deciphering whether it's a local call (i.e. seven digits), NANP-compliant long distance call or non-NANP international call. You might remember when it wasn't necessary to prefix area codes with the "1", but back then area codes had to have "1" or "0" in the second digit, and an exchange code never could have "1" or "0" in that second position. NANP muddied that, allowing any digit in that second position, and thus mandating that area codes be prefixed with the "1" to identify them as area codes. The benefit was the increased number of combinations it made available for exchanges, and the quintupling of available area codes, but it also added that constraint of requiring the 1 or 0 prefix to make clear what kind of call it was intended to be.

[Guest]

Robocall, CID shows 816-406-0620

[sebmama]

More numbers to block

707 4005266 May 14 @ 909 am
541 3829571 May 12 @ 819 pm
202 4558888 May 12 @ 953 am

No message-Just hangups

The top one I believe has been reported by me before

[mcberch]

I just got Fusion Voice recently, and I was fairly sure that it enabled blocking of callers by number, but I have read through everything and all there is, apparently, is a blocklist maintained by a third party (Nomorobo) which is very inadequate -- so far as I can tell you can't add numbers to it, and it only works on robocalls.

Maintaining a block list by having people post numbers in a forum seems like an amazingly inefficient way to solve this problem. Mobile carriers enabled personal block lists at least 8-10 years ago. Surely Sonic has access to the same voice software through XO or otherwise; why is this not available to us? Even AT&T would block numbers (for a fee).

Anyway, if anyone is listening, the robospam I got today was from 510-671-8297.

[Guest]

"Google Listing" robocall, CID shows 845-6139055