Please tell me this guy is the one responsible for the daily calls I get from numbers that sort-of look like mine.
FCC fines robocaller record $120M
121–130 of 175 posts
Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M
#122Earlier 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.
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.
I believe it's an Android Oreo feature, not specific to the Pixel. I picked up a Nokia 6 for my dad and was surprised to see it blocking.
Google Voice has had spam lists forever, it's likely they are pooling the data from there.
T-Mobile does have the ScamID/block thing that can be controlled by shortcode. Documentation here https://explore.t-mobile.com/callprotection
Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should be technically possible to have ”these numbers can originate from this operator”. I’ve learned that if a phone looks to be from my area code, it’s actually from China. No idea what the robocaller is saying. My operator should be able to have a short list of teleoperators in this zip code, and drop other calls.
I've had the same phone number for over 20 years now, since LNP became a thing I've moved it a couple of times to different providers. Most recently I've parked it with a non-local voip provider which gives me a great deal of flexibility. It sounds like under your proposal no one would receive my calls?
No matter what solution is proposed, there's always a subset of people who depend on that very behavior (see https://xkcd.com/1172/ ).
I think no-one receiving calls from parked non-local voip numbers would be an acceptable price to pay for the elimination of voip spam. You are free to disagree, tech is all about making compromises.
Incidentally, this quickly follows the path we took with SMTP. I can no longer telnet into a random SMTP server and dump incoming mail, which no doubt ruined the carefully honed scripts of many sysadmins.
Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M
#124Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
Telcos charge for connecting phone calls and routing voice packets. Even robocallers have to pay those fees.
Not only that, but they also charge for Caller ID name lookups.
This is interesting. So if I get a strange number and search 800notes.com or whatever the carrier is getting paid?
Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I used Nomorobo for 6 months and it was NOT useful, i have a phone number from a area code + prefix that i dont live at, yet I get about 5-10calls/day from similar looking numbers. Nomorobo would mark them as ‘unblockable’ because of the areacode+prefix match, so i would have to manually block each one. I switched to ATT Call Protect which works much better. Now i get 1-2 calls/week. I would go back to nomorobo if it…
We updated the app based on that feedback.
We used to show "unblockable" because there was a problem with false positives. Lots of families had sequential numbers that were accidentally getting blocked.
Now, if you give us access to your contacts (local processing only, never transmitted to our servers) we can completely block them.
Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I already have a /dev/null contact with a silent ringer but the telemarketers (especially the neighbor dialing) almost never uses the same number twice. Still hopeful the ATT app helps though.
Their list automatically updates based on whatever mysterious processes happen in their end, so it should be an improvement over manually blocking numbers after you get a spam call. Hopefully it will help a little bit. It's definitely not a cure, but we have to take what we can.
Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used Nomorobo for 6 months and it was NOT useful, i have a phone number from a area code + prefix that i dont live at, yet I get about 5-10calls/day from similar looking numbers. Nomorobo would mark them as ‘unblockable’ because of the areacode+prefix match, so i would have to manually block each one. I switched to ATT Call Protect which works much better. Now i get 1-2 calls/week. I would go back to nomorobo if it…
We updated the app based on that feedback. We used to show "unblockable" because there was a problem with false positives. Lots of families had sequential numbers that were accidentally getting blocked. Now, if you give us access to your contacts (local processing only, never transmitted to our servers) we can completely block them.
I’ll give it another go. Thanks for the info.
Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 fal…
Actually, the FCC clarified their rules a few years back that carriers CAN block robocalls. More details here: https://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/fcc-clarifies-robocal... Note that Ajit Pai (then a commissioner, not chairperson like now) voted AGAINST this. Full disclosure: We (Nomorobo) advocated to the FCC to allow carriers to block robocalls.
It's worth reading Pai's actual dissent: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-72A5.pd.... Among his reasons for dissenting is that the Commission was unwilling to "establish[] a safe harbor so that carriers could block spoofed calls from overseas without fear of liability."
All this occurs against the background of the Communications Act's common-carrier obligations, and the FCC's call-completion rules, which generally prohibit blocking calls. What the FCC did in the order you linked is to simply say "nothing in the Communications Act or our rules or orders prohibits carriers or VoIP providers from implementing call-blocking technology that can help consumers who choose to use such technology to stop unwanted robocalls."
Is that a safe harbor? No, as the next sentence clarifies, what can be blocked depends on the nature of the call: "Additionally, in the interests of public safety, we strongly encourage carriers, VoIP providers, and independent call-blocking service providers to avoid blocking autodialed or prerecorded calls from public safety entities, including PSAPs, emergency operations centers, or law enforcement agencies; blocking these calls may compromise the effectiveness of local and state emergency alerting and communications programs."
As explained in other posts here, it's hard for a carrier to tell what is a robocall. What is an "unwanted" robocall is even harder--it's a heavily-litigated issue in the TCPA context. (In fact, the rest of the order was about expanding what counts as an unwanted robocall in violation of the TCPA).
That leaves carriers between a rock and a hard place--it they block over-inclusively, businesses who think they fall into a TCPA exception could sue them for violating their common-carrier obligations. Then they get to litigate whether that business falls within the scope of the "unwanted robocalls" the FCC referred to (but did not define). Carriers have a huge incentive to not wander into that morass by offering call-blocking features.
Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M
#130Robocallers seem to be getting a bit more savvy too. I just got one today, articulately told it "fuck off", and it actually immediately stopped! I just thought that was cool.