I want Caller ID Authentication now!

Call protect plus offers caller ID for a small subscription 

I would be very surprised if it can filter, prevent, block or identify spoofed calls as such.  

From the link I posted as part of my question:

October 26, 2016:

AT&T committed to immediately start working with vendors and to be ready for carrier interoperability verification by the 4th quarter of 2017. These standards will make it easier to mitigate robocalls and go after the bad actors. AT&T fully intends to meet this aggressive timeline.  

I'm demanding the promised Caller ID Authentication, not Caller ID or Call Protect Plus; why are you even bringing those up, here ACE?

You do understand that what I'm asking for would help filter, prevent, block & identify spoofed calls, right?  Or do you not understand what it is or do you dispute the claim?
Educational info at, e.g. https://www.acainternational.org/news/fcc-consumer-advisory-committee-approves-recommendation-regarding-caller-id-authentication

@AboutToGoPostal

     Your screen name says it all.  You can stamp your feet and insist “promises” were made, but did a date get put on this so called “promise”?   ?   

The technology is in development, it does not yet exist.  From the second article:

The technology is currently in development and, when it is finalized and ready to use, the approved recommendation states the FCC should ensure:

• All voice providers are encouraged to implement caller ID authentication as broadly and quickly as possible.
• Service providers and third-party call blocking services can offer consumers the ability to block, under appropriate circumstances, calls that fail to authenticate the caller ID information.
• Consumers have better protections from spoofed calls originating internationally, which accounts for a significant portion of fraudulent calls.

BTW at the time of the October 2016 meeting the laws had just changed, allowing carriers to block calls at the network level.  Prior to October 2016 it was not permitted for carriers to choose to not deliver calls based on source.  

    The existing options can identify and in some cases block calls from identified nuisance sources.  It still is not able to properly identify the difference between a call from a valid customer, vs from a computer in Singapore spoofing that same customers number.  

Im sure as quickly as they work on developing this technology, the spoofers are working on getting around it.  

AND... Identification is where it will end.  It’s unlikely carriers will allow auto blocking of all spoofed numbers at network level.  If such a services blocks valid spoofing, no one (carriers or customers) will put it to use.   Valid number spoofing is done all the time by smart watches, tablets using features like number sync and Verizon messages+ and T-mobile Numbers.  These spoofed options sell a lot of extra lines for carriers.

@AboutToGoPostal  I am diligent about keeping my contacts up to date with any new info like doctors and such. This way any unknown caller goes to voicemail if important, they will leave a voicemail. I have ATT Call Protect and it does a fair job of identifying spam and telemarketers. 

In in the meantime you can use ATT Call Protect or Nomorobo which are in Apple Apps and Gologle Play

What do you mean the technology does not exist.  SHAKEN doesn't exist?  There are 0 implementations of SHAKEN?   SHAKEN can't handle the case of the doctor who wants to return a call, using his cell, that appears to be from his office because he doesn't want to give out his cell #?

You seem to be upset that I'm pointing out that AT&T appears to have broken promises.

Why?

Actually I'm not seeing why I should continue to try to engage with someone who asks "did a date get put on this so called “promise”?   ?   " after:

A) I posted a link to a page where AT&T made a specific commitment by a specific date.

AND
B)I actually cut and pasted that date-specific commitment to this thread.

Thank, @FI_retire, but as I said in my OP:

Have AT&T Unlimited w/Call Protect; it doesn't block these attacks.

 

I don’t give a fig what you write about ATT.  I do have problem with facts and sticking to them as opposed to making stuff up.  You seem to be good and researching articles, where is the one PROMISING that ATT (or anyone)  has the solution for neighbor spoofing?

And that word “promise”.   It implies some kind of guarantee which I do not believe anyone has been given from ATT or anyone else.  

I ask where, when and how any such “PROMISE” was made, to you or ATT customers in general. 

There is a commitment made by the group, including Google, ATT and Apple to try and figure out how to reduce/control robo and scam calls.  That’s not a promise.  

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-robocalls/att-apple-google-to-work-on-robocall-crackdown-idUSKCN10U18L

As for ATT and “BROKEN promises”, they have a long standing history of politic speech which is expressly to avoid making promises they can’t keep.  

@AboutToGoPostal

The “robo call strike force” made no promises other than “committed to immediately start working with vendors and to be ready for carrier interoperability verification by the 4th quarter of 2017.”.  

As I wrote before, that’s politic speech, not a “promise”.   

Now as for SHAKEN And STIR...what their status as of feb 2017

The industry, including the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS), SIP Forum, and service providers, are working on the Secure Telephony Identity Revisited (STIR) Request for Comment (RFC) and Signature-based Handling of Asserted information using toKENs (SHAKEN). These efforts are an attempt to authenticate the calling number that is presented to the destination user. STIR has been around for a while, with SHAKEN being a more recent definition of how it will be implemented in practice. It is possible that due to the impact of spoofing, that these standards will be adopted more aggressively. However, even if they are, they will take some number of years to be deployed and there will be large gaps in their coverage, such as calls that traverse the legacy network. See the following link for more information:

Again....no “promises”.  Just a commitment to find a viable solution.  I fail to see how you see goal setting as a deployment date or promise.   

   I’m confident the FCC, Apple, Google and carriers will keep working on it.  Looking forward to a working solution as well.  

Again, kudos on your research.   (I am working through the rest of the documentation)