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

Verified by Twilio

twilio.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 247 posts

Re: Verified by Twilio

#191

Post by lxgr »

blackbrokkoli wrote: post #68

FFS USA, not every problem is a problem to solve by "the free market". You can see the America-Is-Great Mindset in a lot of these comments: Even the US has a problem with robocalls, so that must mean it's an unsolved problem obviously. So we have to solve it with our superior technology!! Just no. Almost nobody else in the western world has this problem. How? Regulation. In Germany, if you get reported for unsolicite…

Germany has "CPP" (calling party pays) billing, compared to RPP (receiving party pays) in the US.

Effectively, a call to a mobile phone costs at least about 0.01 EUR per minute. This puts a lower bound on the cost per robocall.

I wonder how much of the difference in the number of robocalls simply comes down to economics rather than to efficiency of regulators and legal frameworks.

Re: Verified by Twilio

#192

Post by sbarre »

elahd wrote: post #188
Jolter wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks cool but wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to just outlaw robocalling like the rest of the world has?

The telephone network is international. The US is limited in its ability to enforce anti-spam laws against operations running out of other countries. (They also seem unwilling or unable to enforce these laws domestically, but that's a completely separate issue.)

TL;DR is that it's "unwilling by way of almost unable".

The cooperation needed between telcos, who already have overly complex and archaic internal systems to manage themselves, would be almost impossible to coordinate.

Re: Verified by Twilio

#193

Post by Theophraustous »

kylek wrote: post #4

Is anything preventing debt collectors from being Verified by Twilio?

I've work for a debt collection company.

Typically, they do not handle their own phone numbers, their vendor for the dialer does. This is entirely dependent on the priorities of the vendor.

Due to the FDCPA, we are unable to give out the reason for our call as that would inform any 3rd party that the person we are calling to speak to is in debt.

The agents on the front line are scripted to advise them that we are calling in regards to a personal matter, or in response to the letter they received.

This gets even worse if your company name includes "Collections" or any variation of that, as they cannot give out their company name in that case unless prompted (UDAAP requires them to answer direct questions not about the loan in a straight forward way).

Re: Verified by Twilio

#194

Post by RandomBacon »

juskrey wrote: post #115

Huh? "We’re partnering with leading call identification apps" Are that those shady apps which require your address book access just to start, aren't they?

How do you think those companies identify numbers? I'm guessing they see if any of their other users have the number saved.

Of course they could still be doing shady things with people's contact lists beyond that...

Re: Verified by Twilio

#195

Post by [deleted] »

spacehunt wrote: post #142
clmckinley wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most robocalls are illegal in the US. We have a do not call list and everything. I believe is it a name change is currently working its way through to change the name to "seriously, do not call... please list". [ https://www.forthepeople.com/class-action-lawyers/robocallin... ] The problem is that determining the source is difficult and even if you did it is most likely over seas where enforcing the fine is impossibl…

There is a simple economic solution. Make the caller instead of the receiver pay for all calls.

[deleted]

Re: Verified by Twilio

#197

Post by JoeAltmaier »

Theophraustous wrote: post #193
kylek wrote: post #4

Is anything preventing debt collectors from being Verified by Twilio?

I've work for a debt collection company. Typically, they do not handle their own phone numbers, their vendor for the dialer does. This is entirely dependent on the priorities of the vendor. Due to the FDCPA, we are unable to give out the reason for our call as that would inform any 3rd party that the person we are calling to speak to is in debt. The agents on the front line are scripted to advise them that we are cal…

All that sounds like an attempt to harass the recipient, with falsehoods and deceit. Which I suppose is the main business of a debt collector.

Re: Verified by Twilio

#198

Post by k__ »

0xJRS wrote: post #189
k__ wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some countries it's illegal for companies to call random people, they need to gather opt-ins from all people they wanna call.

And its working well, I only get 3-4 random calls a day instead of 5-6 now.

I only get 2-3 per month and they are from recruiters.

Re: Verified by Twilio

#199

Post by underdown »

fortran77 wrote: post #175
HugoHobling wrote: post #19

I know it's overkill, but this is my current setup for my phone numbers. I treat phone numbers the same way I do my email address: I use different numbers for different purposes. 1. I have a "clean" phone number I only share with friends/family. Certain prefixes and phone number actually receive next to zero spam calls. This number has received 2 calls in the years I've had it. 2. I have a phone number I share with c…

I provision fresh DIDs all the time from my VOIP vendor. Robocalls don't work off a list of numbers, they just call every number in order. The best strategy -- get an area code that's not local and where you don't know anyone. That's what I have on my personal cell phone. Any call that comes in from that area code I know is spam. I don't answer it.

Robocalls absolutely work off a list of numbers. Sure you could just load up a list of all numbers.

Re: Verified by Twilio

#200

Post by RandomBacon »

astura wrote: post #150
dazc wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am in the same situation yet I know people who are plagued by such calls. There must be something that triggers this off? Having said that, these people will also give their phone number and email address to anyone who asks whereas I do not. If I have to enter a phone number on a form and it's isn't immediately obvious why I should do that then I'll make-up a number.

I'm in the US and I almost never get spam/scam calls, yet people here say they get them multiple times a day. I don't know why some people have such an issue and some people just don't.

I think it's a combination of

- people giving their phone number out to companies that share this data, and

- people answering spam calls. Even if you hang up immediately, they probably have an internal metric that says call that number back more frequently.

I don't do either of those, and last week I had more spam/unknown calls than usual: 4

For online forms that require a phone number, I just insert that company's own number.

Post reply on HN