Live data from Hacker News

FCC fines robocaller record $120M

techcrunch.com

61–70 of 175 posts

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#61
post #3

The real problem is the lack of security and authentication on telephone networks, which enables number spoofing with virtually no chance of reprisal -- foreign callers (realistically out of the FCC's jurisdiction) use VoIP services to create calls that originate from an IP address from the telephone network's perspective, and the phone network makes no attempt to authenticate the metadata (like the phone number that…

What I don’t understand is why no major mobile carrier is offering a solution to this. It’s a pretty competitive market and this could be a big selling point. When the isp wars were going strong, before broadband put everyone under the thumb of monopolists and also before gmail, spam filtering was a serious competative advantage. Why can’t phone companies take an RBL like approach? If your VoIP service garners too ma…

Blocking calls from certain VoIP services is almost certainly going to be a violation of common-carrier rules (which still apply to phone service no matter what happens with broadband).

At a technical level, spam filtering relies heavily on analyzing email text. Doing similar analysis on voice calls is way harder. Also, there's UI issues. You can redirect suspected spam emails to a folder the user can inspect for false positives. What do you do with a call that hits the robocall filter?

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#62
post #56
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the correct approach is economic, not technical. Make a rule that, if you get a spoofed call, then your telco owes you $100, not subject to any arbitration clause or other contractual waiver. Give a way out to avoid actually killing the telcos: annual penalties are limited to a few percent of annual gross revenues. The telcos will find a technical solution real fast.

How would you prove the call was spoofed? Record all calls? Prove it with statistics? No telco will pay. This is a technical problem.

>> I think the correct approach is economic, not technical.

> This is a technical problem.

IMHO, it's both. Economic sanctions need to be put in place to motivate the telcos to create and adopt robust technical solutions.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#63
post #8
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've suggested in the past that every instance of provable spoofing where they did not control the claimed number should result in a fixed fine. $100 sounds about right. Every phone network will then quickly begin passing on that cost to anyone they "peer" with and it will be a non-issue soon enough. Is there a compelling reason to allow such spoofs?

>Is there a compelling reason to allow such spoofs? A few use cases to spoof the number: * Appointment reminder systems - if I see the caller ID is from my doctor's office, I'm going to pick it up and hear the reminder. When the calls come from some other number, people think it's spam. People still expect reminder calls even if you/HN crowd would prefer an email/text. * Outbound call centers on behalf of others comp…

I get far more spam calls than I do calls from any of those exceptions you listed. I'd be okay with changes that would break all of those use cases.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#64
post #56
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the correct approach is economic, not technical. Make a rule that, if you get a spoofed call, then your telco owes you $100, not subject to any arbitration clause or other contractual waiver. Give a way out to avoid actually killing the telcos: annual penalties are limited to a few percent of annual gross revenues. The telcos will find a technical solution real fast.

How would you prove the call was spoofed? Record all calls? Prove it with statistics? No telco will pay. This is a technical problem.

You have a call received on your monthly bill from a number and the owner of that number does not have the call on their bill.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#65
post #50
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are legitimate reasons for spoofing to work given how fucked up the PSTN is. Mobile roaming is one for example - when you roam on another carrier and place a call, that carrier directly originates the call and “spoofs” your caller ID to make it look like the call originated from you. Some companies may use different carriers for either load balancing or least-cost routing and so both of these carriers are requi…

I think the correct approach is economic, not technical. Make a rule that, if you get a spoofed call, then your telco owes you $100, not subject to any arbitration clause or other contractual waiver. Give a way out to avoid actually killing the telcos: annual penalties are limited to a few percent of annual gross revenues. The telcos will find a technical solution real fast.

[deleted]

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#66

Can we please get phone OEMs to enable a feature to only allow calls from people in our contact list? Baked in. No apps that scrape your phone book to do it. If you're not on my contact list, go to voicemail and I'll decide if you're legit. And have an option like DND where if you call in rapid succession then I'll pick up.

Setup default ring tone to silence. Setup a ringtone for your phone book contacts to something else. Done.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#67
post #47
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

T-Mo has two larger and one smaller national competitors. Do they want the $0.50 they get from robo callers more than the $70 they get from luring a user away from Verizon or AT&T?

Even if they wanted the 70$, at the moment there’s nothing they can do about robocalls without cooperation from the entire industry. A robocall doesn’t look any more shady than a normal call from a receiving carrier’s perspective; whatever solution they come up with will have tons of false positives.

> A robocall doesn’t look any more shady than a normal call from a receiving carrier’s perspective; whatever solution they come up with will have tons of false positives.

Doesn't that undermine a major premise of the OP's post? That one should assume corruption, because it's technically easy to filter robo calls and carriers don't do it only because they love the sweet, sweet, robo call inter-exchange fees?

It sounds like filtering robo calls would require cooperation not only among telcos, but also with the VoIP providers that originate these calls.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#68

I really really hope this covers the infamous and elusive "Rachel from cardholder services"

That one bugs me a lot. I get a credit card call every day from a different number that's close to my phone number.

I wish credit card issuers would end their affiliate programs.

If they don't want to end the programs, they could at least clean them up. If I answer one of the Rachel calls and take them up on their offer for a different card, the credit card company should be able to track who referred me to them and close their account. But the incentives are all wrong.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#69

Can we please get phone OEMs to enable a feature to only allow calls from people in our contact list? Baked in. No apps that scrape your phone book to do it. If you're not on my contact list, go to voicemail and I'll decide if you're legit. And have an option like DND where if you call in rapid succession then I'll pick up.

Setup default ring tone to silence. Setup a ringtone for your phone book contacts to something else. Done.

I want callers that aren't in my contacts list to get a busy signal. I don't want voicemails from them.
Post reply on HN