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

FCC fines robocaller record $120M

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 175 posts

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#81

Post by rectang »

wpietri wrote: post #40
Rjevski wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work in telecoms. The billable minutes thing is absolutely true. You might not directly pay for them as a customer, but carriers pay each other for inbound calls, so whatever carrier that is originating the robocalls is paying the next carrier in the chain, and that one pays the next, and so on until it finally reaches your phone. We’re not talking much on a single call (the prices are often around 0,01$ or even le…

I believe that for some carriers the billable minutes thing is significant. But what I'm really skeptical of is rectang's assertion that the FCC has been bought off by the same carriers for whom this is significant revenue. I certainly believe that the FCC is too influenced by large telcoms companies. As we see with the Michael Cohen thing, large companies believe they can buy influence. But those same companies that…

On the revenue side, robocalls provide telcos with lots of business opportunities. Start with the "billable minutes".

Consider also that the telcos offer premium services to counter robocalls. Verizon "Caller Name ID" is priced at $2.99/month; for their landlines they sell hardware such as the "Call Blocker Shield". Sprint "Premium Caller ID" (which includes blocking capabilities) costs $2.99/month. T-Mobile "Name ID" is $4/month.

Consider as well that many cell-phone plans are not unlimited and that depending on the plan, incoming calls may count against monthly minute quotas.

On the cost side: the technical solutions to tighten up the network cost money, whether it's implementing heuristic filtering on the existing unreliable network, or working to make the origins of calls reliably identifiable.

Between the revenue and the cost telcos thus have significant incentives to avoid solving the problem of robocalling.

The staggering negative externalities of robocalls, though, are borne by the public. We have a huge collective incentive to see the problem of robocalls solved.

Ajit Pai's FCC won't help the public, though -- it's fine with telcos privatizing profits and socializing losses.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#82

Post by ryanlol »

xigency wrote: post #38
egonschiele wrote: post #28

I also get robocalls all the time, and hardly got any till about a year ago. What changed?

The Equifax breach leaked phone numbers along with all of the other identifying information hence more spam calls from anyone (everyone) affected.

Do you have anything to back your assertion that the data from the Equifax leak is being actively exploited in this manner?

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#84

Post by greedo »

blang wrote: post #83
greedo wrote: post #57

I would be ecstatic if the next version of iOS had a whitelist feature for phone calls and SMS/iMessage. I would pay large sums for this...

You could always turn on do not disturb and allow calls from your contacts.

That disables notifications.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#85

Post by mikeash »

rconti wrote: post #75
mikeash wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AT&T has a Call Protect app which attempts to do this. It misses some, but my spam call volume has dropped quite a bit with it.

Thanks, looking into it now. iOS and Android app. I'm curious to see how this works. Probably can't get in the way of the calls on the device itself; pushes changes to the network maybe? https://www.att.com/features/security-apps.html

Some of it is just a matter of associating the name “Telemarketer” with a phone number. I still see those calls, but can immediately identify them.

Stuff it’s more confident about gets blocked outright. I think they’re automating what they’d do if you went into your account and manually blocked a number.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#86

Post by exhilaration »

mikeash wrote: post #74
bradleyjg wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

AT&T has a Call Protect app which attempts to do this. It misses some, but my spam call volume has dropped quite a bit with it.

I get almost no spam calls now, Google has call spam blocking built into Pixel phones and I went from a few spam calls a week to maybe 1 or 2 a month. And those 1 or 2 calls ring with a red warning that they're potential spam calls.

For reference, I've had the same New Jersey mobile number since 2001.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#87

Post by kevin_b_er »

rectang wrote: post #17

The FCC has dragged their scapegoat into the public square to torture in a big show for the brutalized masses. But how effective has the FCC been at actually curtailing the problem of robocalls? This FCC won't do anything meaningful because they've been bought off by the telecoms, and the telecoms make money hand over fist on robocalls: http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-fcc-ro... "The problem," he…

This is because Ajit Pai, along with his party, value corporate profit above service to the public.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#88

Post by acdha »

bradleyjg wrote: post #58
lend000 wrote: 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…

T-Mobile offers it as a free option with two levels: labeling the call as Scam Likely and blocking it outright. The latter is quite effective - I was getting 5+ calls per day and it’s now 1-2 per week.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#89

Post by ddlatham »

codazoda wrote: post #49

I've permanently turned on Do Not Disturb and configured it to allow calls from people on my contact list. This won't work for everyone but it works really well for me. I no longer get unwanted calls. People I don't have in my contact list are forced to leave a message without my phone ever ringing.

Same here. I'm just thankful that the robocallers rarely leave voicemails to sort through.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#90

Post by afo »

lend000 wrote: 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…

We (Nomorobo) protect you from both neighbor spoofing as well as "standard" robocalls. We add over 1,300+ new robocaller numbers every day. It's pretty crazy out there.
Post reply on HN