I want Caller ID Authentication now!

So you claimed the technology does not exist.  Now you recognize there is existing technology that can be implemented and that handles the doctor use case.

Though, I notice you haven't directly answered any of those questions! 

As for the last post:  That's funny.   Fig this.  Fig that....

  You write:

 I do have problem with facts and sticking to them

 LOL.  Indeed, you do!   You do have problem with facts and sticking to them!  LOL!

I say, you made a Freudian slip there, my dear.

  You write:

 And that word “promise”.   It implies some kind of guarantee"

Then you demand that I tell you when and how any such a guarantee was made, to me or AT&T customers in general. 

Fig your attacks on straw men. 

 No.  A. Promise. Doesn't. Equal. An. Ironclad. Guarantee.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

 I, on the other hand, do like facts and sticking to them. Again,

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.

Again, here it is:

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.  

In the English language I speak, that commitment to be ready is a promise.  It's far more reasonable to consider commitment and promise to be synonymous than to consider guarantee and promise to be synonymous.  It's a commitment made by AT&T, ALONE.  And "by the 4th quarter of 2017" indicates a specific date. In the figwit language some seem to speak, those commitments aren't promises by a specific date or by a specific company, but promises are guarantees.  I'm not interested in conversation with folks that speak figwittery or "politic speach" . 

Please move along or go away.  And quit it with the straw man abuse!

Honey, you can update that screen name, you’re already gone.  

That’s not what I wrote, that’s not what ATT wrote.  

You keep posting their ‘commitment to start working on it’ and a goal to ‘make it easier to mitigate robo calls’.  How you boil the words, “promise to provide true caller authentication” out of that paragraph baffles.  

You continue to claim ATT wrote/said/promised something that they did not, because you choose to infer something from what they did say.  

The paid app, Call Protect Plus, has met with mostly good reviews.  https://www.att.com/features/security-apps.html?source=IC2Y0H0000000000L&wtExtndSource=security-app

Again, I provided a direct quote - this IS what AT&T wrote. Verbatim. And I quoted you verbatim as well.

Direct quote from AT&T corporate, verifiable at https://www.attpublicpolicy.com/fcc/fcc-hosts-second-meeting-of-robocall-strike-force-industry-delivers-short-and-long-term-solutions/:  (and archive URLs if AT&T should take it down.)

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.  

 

Was AT&T ready for carrier interoperability verification by the 4th quarter of 2017?  No. 

Did they honor their commitment?  No.

  You, indeed, wrote:

 I do have problem with facts and sticking to them

 LOL.  Indeed, you do!   You do have problem with facts and sticking to them!  LOL!

I say, you made a Freudian slip there, my pet.

You, indeed, wrote:

 And that word “promise”.   It implies some kind of guarantee"

Those are the facts.   Your ad hominem attacks and linguistic gymnastics are so foolish.

Again, quit it with the straw man abuse.

@AboutToGoPostal

Ah !   Now we’re getting somewhere... you admit they did not “promise  true caller authentication.”

I never disputed your direct quote.  I disputed what you inferred from the quote.  

  I’m not the one insisting they said something they did not.  

I would like to thank everyone for taking the time to post your comments and opinions related to this subject. The topic has been thoroughly discussed and will now be closed.

Thank you,

Dmitriy