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

FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

fcc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 184 posts

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#61

Post by duxup »

hedvig wrote: post #52
duxup wrote: post #37

According to Ars they want to leave it up to the carriers if they want to charge for it, if that is accurate and the robocall problems escalate then you could end up paying for it by default ... or just get robocalls all day. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/ajit-pais-roboca... "It will cost $X a month for service, and $Y more if you want to be able to use it..." And as a revenue stream I worry this could…

The more I look at things as I age, the more I see market based solutions as only benefiting the supplier and always hurting the consumer.

I really wish there w as a party interested in free markets and fostering competition.

Rather the GoP whose rhetoric talks about free markets, is really just all about picking winners themselves and legislating profits for their allies.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#62

Post by dpcan »

j-c-hewitt wrote: post #46

Robocalls are a constant annoyance for me (I get maybe 1 per day on average) and almost all of them are criminally fraudulent solicitations of some kind including calls impersonating the Social Security Administration etc. It's like being forced to read my spam folder with an audible alert. I have to field calls from a lot of clients that I have never spoken to before or have only called them a couple times, so only…

One!!?!? I am keeping track, and my biggest day was 29 robocalls about 2 weeks ago (all between 7am and 6pm).

I don't always use privacy protection when registering domain names, so my number is out there, and after I get a new domain I get crushed over the next few days with robocalls.

I am in the same boat where I have to answer all the calls or I lose business, so it's a nightmare. Also, I can't even do anything productive on my phone because the calls interrupt everything.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#63

Post by thfuran »

bduerst wrote: post #35
adamch wrote: post #32

I'm curious why robocalls aren't protected by freedom of speech. This is the government censoring small businesses from doing direct marketing. I don't actually believe this argument, but I'm curious what self-described free speech absolutists think.

The government isn't censoring anything, they're allowing private organizations to block spam calls by default.

When all channels of communication are owned and operated by private companies, it's not quite so clear cut as that. The only means of long-distance communication not operated by a private company is the USPS and that's simply not comparable to email/IM/telephony.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#64

Post by mrguyorama »

howard941 wrote: post #29
dymk wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is a consumer supposed to reliably block robocall without help from the provider? The provider is the only entity in this system that has the information needed to curb robocalling.

I too dislike carrier-hosted block. Pass the SHAKEN/STIR validity flag to me along with the CID data and let me decide whether to trash the call. Or give me ANI in place of CID.

How do I explain that to my 80 year old grandmother using a landline from the late 2000s?

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#65

Post by carriers »

microcolonel wrote: post #8
paulgb wrote: post #2

Direct link to the news release (PDF): https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-357464A1.pdf tl;dr the action would allow carriers to default to blocking calls on the part of their customers. Once SHAKEN/STIR (caller ID authentication) is available, this means carriers can block calls that don't include authenticated caller ID. Presumably they already could do this if the customer opted in. This all seems like a g…

Does this authentication rely on devices, or is the authentication at the carrier level?

It's at the carrier level. I believe that at least some part of it is noticing that the calling number is a number that doesn't exist. For example AT&T might be given phone numbers 555-0000 through 555-1000, and they know they've only actually given out 555-0000 through 555-0782, but the caller ID claims the number is 555-0999. They can tell it's not a legitimate call because that number couldn't be making an outgoing call because it's not assigned.

I don't think that's all of it by any means, but there are a number of ways that the carriers can tell that some percentage of the calls are bogus without having to ask the receiver if they want to receive it.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#66

Post by hanniabu »

mehrdadn wrote: post #43
bcheung wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that would probably be a good thing. They seriously need to fix the problem of being able to listen to other people's voicemail by merely setting the caller id to the target's cell number and calling them.

Wait is that a thing right now?!

You bet it is, I think the first time I tried this was around 2007 or something like that.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#67

Post by maxerickson »

raverbashing wrote: post #60
maxerickson wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think the letter carrying monopoly is reducing prices by 10x? Or are there subsidies I don't understand that you think are doing that?

https://www.usps.com/business/prices.htm See how much a stamp cost vs. "Commercial"/"Direct Mail" options (though maybe 10x is an exaggeration)

Oh, I misunderstood what you were saying. But they are getting a volume discount and have to meet stricter requirements and aren't getting quite the same level of service and so on.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#68

Post by r00fus »

mabbo wrote: post #51
js2 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anveo Call Flow. Numbers not on a whitelist get a recording "press 1 to be connected" which repeats three times a couple seconds apart. If they don't press 1 they get sent to voice mail. I also have a blacklist that gets a captcha which says "press 1 to leave a voice mail" and hangs up if they don't.

On the one hand, that's so smart I can't believe it's not widely used by everyone. On the other hand, if it was that common, there would be a market for systems that defeat it for the spammers.

If bypasses were common (mostly just sending "1"), then a configurable number you could cycle would work fine. Everyone would have a different number and you only get 3 tries.

Anything more complicated like actually following the voice prompt isn't going to happen soon.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#69

Post by the_pwner224 »

hedvig wrote: post #52
duxup wrote: post #37

According to Ars they want to leave it up to the carriers if they want to charge for it, if that is accurate and the robocall problems escalate then you could end up paying for it by default ... or just get robocalls all day. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/ajit-pais-roboca... "It will cost $X a month for service, and $Y more if you want to be able to use it..." And as a revenue stream I worry this could…

The more I look at things as I age, the more I see market based solutions as only benefiting the supplier and always hurting the consumer.

The market works pretty often when it is fair. The cell phone market is not, at least in the US. The providers maintain high costs of switching via contracts and phone leases and radio fragmentation (Verizon/Sprint/TMo/ATT use different frequencies, all but the highest end new phones generally only work on one or two) and carrier locking. If I could just put a different SIM in my phone anytime to switch carriers, there would be much more space for good carriers to exist - the cost of switching would just be spending an hour at the store porting your number.
Post reply on HN