Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 227 posts

Re: Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

#121

Post by eru »

derefr wrote: post #48
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as it's a fairly consistently timed window (and I assume it is), it doesn't matter if it's just a few milliseconds. On a related note, I'm still surprised to find that telephone operators haven't fixed the scenario "someone calls me and I just miss it, I call them back while they're trying to call me for the second time, and we both get a busy signal". As a naive outsider, seems like it wouldn't take much to…

Under that scheme, if I called my own line by dialing my own DID, I'd end up with a completed loopback call rather than a connection to my voicemail inbox.

Just have an exception for that case?

Re: Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

#122

Post by function_seven »

kolencherry wrote: post #114
function_seven wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know, they just spoof the originating number. This makes reporting the numbers useless, as well as any kind of blacklisting. Imagine if you could send spam emails from any arbitrary IP address or domain you wanted to. Blacklisting would be meaningless in that case.

The spoofing happens frequently and it's incredibly frustrating if you are the unfortunate person whose number gets spoofed. My number got spoofed by a robo-dialer who called the ENTIRE +1 469 prefix. I received dozens of calls a day from angry people who got called.

I’m afraid my number might be used as the originator someday. Often when I get these calls, I keep them on the line as long as possible, feigning interest in whatever they’re selling. I figure as long as I tie them up, maybe I can waste a bit of their resources. Probably futile, but makes me feel better.

Except they might retaliate one day and set their outgoing ANI to my number...

Re: Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

#123

Post by IgorPartola »

extrapickles wrote: post #4

The article doesn't describe how the technology works. Due to the slow speed (100 voicemail/min) its likely what they are doing is initiating a call far enough for the phone system to busy out your phone, then very quickly placing a second call that the phone system sends straight to voicemail as your phone is busy. Once this call starts to hit voicemail, the original call is dropped. I doubt phone companies let peop…

Back in the day, I remember Verizon Mobile had a thing where you could dial into your voicemail and then they had an option to leave a voicemail for another VZN subscriber just by punching in their number. I used this a couple of times to listen to an unknown caller's outgoing message.

Re: Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

#124

Post by dentemple »

kaybe wrote: post #47
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #46

Anyone else in a situation where you're receiving robocalls ten times a day? Hard to believe, but I can show screenshots as proof. I just counted. It's four times per day, like clockwork. Then there are various other robocalls that come in every couple days. So sometimes it's 4 per day, sometimes it's up to 7. It's mildly annoying, but is there any other option than to just ignore it or keep blocking the endless new…

Is getting a new number a bad option for you?

It never helps.

Re: Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

#125

Post by tlb »

coding123 wrote: post #118

Marriots is a company that should probably be bombed into oblivion. I signed up for a free night at a hotel. Ever since, I have probably received 2000 calls over the years from them. I think it's not just them but affiliates and other scammy/scummy businesses. If anyone is out there, please please do not ever pay Marriots a single penny. They need to go under.

When a particular company calls you, just ask to be put on their "do not call" list. Real organizations always seem to honor that list, and there are large fines from the FCC if they don't. (The robocallers described in the article are a different beast, who spoof numbers and pop up under a new identity as soon as they are shut down.)

Re: Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

#126

Post by Macha »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #92

My first impression is that having the government regulate them is unnecessary, since you can block them on your phone(and phone providers can sell phones that block them by default). All you need is one company to sell a "telemarketer-resistant" phone with an automatically-synced blocklist and some other settings enabled by default.

If they're using the approach described elsewhere in the thread, sounds like you can't.

Re: Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

#127

Post by spc476 »

tormeh wrote: post #26
smacktoward wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is fascinating. It never occurred to me until now that there might be a window in the call process between "line is flagged as busy" and "phone rings." I assume we're talking about a very narrow window here, right? How narrow? Is it something that has always existed, or something that crept in because of the transition from phone-as-mechanical-device to phone-as-software?

Could be a second or two. The traditional phone systems are dog slow. Often takes 15 secs from A starts ringing to B does.

I can confirm. At work I have to deal with call processing [1], and the time guard [2] is 15 seconds on the originating side [3] for CDMA [4].

[1] We provide enhanced caller ID---a name in addition to the phone number. Our new product will also mark known telemarketers.

[2] The amount of time we have to do what we do

[3] The calling party---the one initiating the phone call.

[4] which may be enough to identify the carrier we work with.

Re: Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

#128

Post by spc476 »

extrapickles wrote: post #41
tomjen3 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would this work when my phone declines their call? I assume it would hang up on the first call, then be available to hand up on the second call? Because if not, I need to disable my voicemail.

This entire process occurs before your phone is even aware of the call to decline it. They are taking advantage of the fact that it takes at minimum a few dozen milliseconds to route a call to your phone. If you have one of the carriers others have mentioned, they are calling your voicemail directly, completely bypassing your phone.

A few seconds actually. There's quite a bit of features that need to be checked along the path (said as someone working in the telecom industry providing name information).

Re: Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

#129

Post by rdtsc »

function_seven wrote: post #122
kolencherry wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The spoofing happens frequently and it's incredibly frustrating if you are the unfortunate person whose number gets spoofed. My number got spoofed by a robo-dialer who called the ENTIRE +1 469 prefix. I received dozens of calls a day from angry people who got called.

I’m afraid my number might be used as the originator someday. Often when I get these calls, I keep them on the line as long as possible, feigning interest in whatever they’re selling. I figure as long as I tie them up, maybe I can waste a bit of their resources. Probably futile, but makes me feel better. Except they might retaliate one day and set their outgoing ANI to my number...

I do the same. A few of them got very angry, yelling quite creative obscenities. Some were amusing and I had never heard of. I took it as a an enriching cultural exchange. But did realize they have my number and could do something like what you suggested.

Re: Ringless voice mails from telemarketers

#130

Post by jimhefferon »

> Regulators are considering whether to ban these messages. They have been hearing from ringless voice mail providers and pro-business groups, which argue that these messages should not qualify as calls and, therefore, should be exempt from consumer protection laws that ban similar types of telephone marketing.

What's the point of a death penalty if not for this?

Post reply on HN