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

131–140 of 175 posts

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#131

Post by s73v3r_ »

gruez wrote: post #104
Paul-ish wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FCC at some point considered requiring authentication numbers or attaching names to numbers. They ultimately rejected the idea. There were multiple reasons why they rejected it, but from talking to someone at the FCC one of the reasons they rejected connecting numbers to identities too strongly is that victims of domestic abuse may need to call their abuser (eg about child support), but do so without giving away…

payphone? also, can't you call as a blocked number?

What would stop a spammer from using those tactics too?

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#132

Post by greedo »

ddebernardy wrote: post #108
greedo wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That disables notifications.

That's a good thing if you don't want distractions until you check your notifications, no?

I don't want to disable alerts or alarms either. I just don't want robocalls...

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#134

Post by reaperducer »

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…

>What I don’t understand is why no major mobile carrier is offering a solution to this.

I remember at one of the WWDC keynotes, Tim Cook announced this as a new iPhone feature. But he also noted that it was only available in China. I wonder if whatever the Chinese carriers have done can be imported to the United States.

My wife's iPhone will occasionally get an incoming call with small text below reading "Possible spam." She never uses her phone for voice, so she never answers the phone anyway.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#135

Post by reaperducer »

nikanj wrote: post #80
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…

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.

Something that helps is having an "undesirable" area code.

Telemarketers have learned that certain area codes convert at much higher rates than others. 202, 203, 212, 213 are prime targets. 242, 246, 406 and 701? Notsomuch.

If your NPA isn't important to you, get a number in those areas. (Some carriers will let you choose your area code as long as you're within the same billing center.)

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#136

Post by willstrafach »

niyazpk wrote: post #92

I use Google Fi (for 3 years now) and _never_ get Robocalls. Am I just lucky or is Fi doing the spam filtering for me?

Some marketers perform lookups to remove inactive / non-cellular numbers from their lists in order to save on costs/time. I believe Google Fi and Google Voice are marked as VoIP in these lookups.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#137

Post by joemag »

acdha wrote: post #88
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…

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.

The “Spam Likely” determination is fairly unreliable, IMO. They have labeled my doctors office “Scam Likely”, while many “Scam definitely” calls have not been labeled.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#139

Post by e40 »

lopatin wrote: post #130

Robocallers 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.

I always asked to be put on the DNC list, and 99% of the time they hang up on my before I finish my sentence.

Lately, I've taken to wasting their time, and at the end, telling them if you had put me on the DNC list, this wouldn't have happened.

Post reply on HN