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

FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

docs.fcc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 281 posts

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#71

Post by RankingMember »

_fat_santa wrote: post #49

Before I got my phone number, a woman by the name of "Sade" has the number. Recently I've been getting at least one call per day from the same company regarding an extended auto warranty. I've told them politely that this is the wrong number, they keep calling. I've asked them to take my number off their list and they happily agree to, but they keep calling. I've threatened to contact the FCC is they keep calling yet…

I never answer any calls from non-contacts because I assume answering automatically flags the number as "a live one" meaning "potential target who picks up their phone" in any number of nefarious databases. If an outside/unknown number needs me they can leave a message and I'll call them back if the message reveals them to be legit.

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#72

Post by SilverElfin »

reactordev wrote: post #50
SilverElfin wrote: post #45

I get relentless text and phone spam calls - both robotic and with humans - from just a few voice over Internet platforms. Bandwidth.com, Neutral Tandem, and ALL the brands associated with Sinch ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinch_AB ) like Inteliquent. Many of these companies got cease and desist orders in the past from the FTC. It didn’t help anything. We need to see them fined, shut down, and executives jailed.

Shut one down, another pops up in its place.

Sinch just keeps acquiring one company after the other and turning them into the new spam channel. Weirdly the only responsible player seems to be Twilio. The others refuse to identify the spammers that are their customers, and keep saying it’s not their responsibility since they’re a “wholesaler” (their words).

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#73

Post by schmidtleonard »

coldpie wrote: post #70
schmidtleonard wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, labeling is not enough, options are not enough, unattested communication needs to go silently to spam by default . Anything else encourages the spam. "We let spammers ring your phone unless you tick an option 5 menus deep in your phone that gets automatically reset every 3 months at update time and moved every 2 years between names/locations that range from awful to insane" doesn't cut it.

The beautiful thing about default-deny for internationally-sourced calls is it fixes the spam problem for everyone, including those who opt-in. If 90% of the spammers' calls are just immediately dropped, they're no longer going to get enough hits to be worth the effort, so it also protects those who actually do have a legit reason to receive international calls.

Yes, but we don't even have to go that far: international != unattested. Legitimate overseas telecoms should be able to sign their communications. The point isn't to seal off the USA, the point is to have someone to ban if they start abusing access.

Most international telecom operations aren't facilitating scam call centers, and of the ones who are I suspect very few are so eager to turn a blind eye that they will continue to do so when staring down the barrel of actual consequences.

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#74

Post by Linkd »

SilverElfin wrote: post #45

I get relentless text and phone spam calls - both robotic and with humans - from just a few voice over Internet platforms. Bandwidth.com, Neutral Tandem, and ALL the brands associated with Sinch ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinch_AB ) like Inteliquent. Many of these companies got cease and desist orders in the past from the FTC. It didn’t help anything. We need to see them fined, shut down, and executives jailed.

uhhh I use Bandwidth at high volume for non-spammy reasons in my app. Please give me a heads up before they're shut down :P

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#75

Post by [deleted] »

ajross wrote: post #69
coldpie wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can someone from outside the US make my phone ring? Why can't I opt out of calls sourced internationally? Seems like an easy way to fix the problem. There is no reason for anyone overseas to call me, and if someone US-based does phone spamming, we can prosecute them.

An easy way to "fix" the problem for closet dwelling US nerds like us who've decided we don't want to use the telephone anymore. Everyone else in the world isn't like us, and have to actually use their phones to talk to real people everywhere. Pretty much everyone has family abroad, etc... This just isn't a serious suggestion. Which is why this is likely to end up getting rolled back. Surely most of these providers a…

[deleted]

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#76

Post by unsignedint »

The PSTN is simply not sustainable. It’s a relic of a time when there was no practical way to authenticate or validate calls. Today, with malicious actors able to dial in from anywhere in the world at negligible cost, the system is fundamentally unequipped to handle the abuse it faces.

Efforts like STIR/SHAKEN exist, but they’re little more than a band-aid—and not a particularly effective one—because the underlying network was never designed with resilience or trust in mind.

I know some people push back on this view, often pointing to edge cases where PSTN’s ubiquity still provides value. But as trust in the system erodes, so does its relevance. And if the majority of people already avoid answering calls from numbers they don’t recognize, its practical utility is clearly diminished.

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#77

Post by singpolyma3 »

SilverElfin wrote: post #45

I get relentless text and phone spam calls - both robotic and with humans - from just a few voice over Internet platforms. Bandwidth.com, Neutral Tandem, and ALL the brands associated with Sinch ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinch_AB ) like Inteliquent. Many of these companies got cease and desist orders in the past from the FTC. It didn’t help anything. We need to see them fined, shut down, and executives jailed.

These are all platforms with many different products built but others on top of them. Shutting down all abuse is a cat and mouse game and not something they can "just do" if given tighter rules

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#78

Post by singpolyma3 »

SilverElfin wrote: post #72
reactordev wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shut one down, another pops up in its place.

Sinch just keeps acquiring one company after the other and turning them into the new spam channel. Weirdly the only responsible player seems to be Twilio. The others refuse to identify the spammers that are their customers, and keep saying it’s not their responsibility since they’re a “wholesaler” (their words).

Twilio has historically been a customer of these other companies, so not really at the same level. Though that's been changing recently

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#79

Post by charliebwrites »

SilverElfin wrote: post #45

I get relentless text and phone spam calls - both robotic and with humans - from just a few voice over Internet platforms. Bandwidth.com, Neutral Tandem, and ALL the brands associated with Sinch ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinch_AB ) like Inteliquent. Many of these companies got cease and desist orders in the past from the FTC. It didn’t help anything. We need to see them fined, shut down, and executives jailed.

How would one discover which VOIP providers are the source of calls?

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#80

Post by ratelimitsteve »

nativeit wrote: post #59
msgodel wrote: post #23

Just kill the phone. It's a terrible anachronism. If you insist on voice you can attach an ogg/mp3 file to your email.

I'm not one of the people down-voting this, I'm inclined to sort of agree with you. Where you lost me was attaching files to an email. Are you really suggesting this solution has fewer problems than telephones?

I'm here for the explanation as to how attached voice clips are equivalent to real time two-way voice communication
Post reply on HN