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

11–20 of 175 posts

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#11

Post by ikeboy »

wtallis wrote: post #10
dqv wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is there a compelling reason to allow such spoofs? A few use cases to spoof the number: * Appointment reminder systems - if I see the caller ID is from my doctor's office, I'm going to pick it up and hear the reminder. When the calls come from some other number, people think it's spam. People still expect reminder calls even if you/HN crowd would prefer an email/text. * Outbound call centers on behalf of others comp…

The question wasn't about why spoofing exists at all. It was about spoofing where they did not control the claimed number . If you want to place a call with spoofed caller ID info, your provider should require you to prove that the spoofed information is legitimate, not fraudulent. Otherwise, the telco should be obligated to strip the suspect caller ID information from the call so that the recipient can properly iden…

Yeah. I'm perfectly fine with e.g. Twilio being able to tell Verizon "oh, we have authorization to send from $x", Verizon going "uh huh, go ahead" because they trust Twilio not to mess around. But then, if there does turn out to be an issue, Verizon is on the hook, and they'll turn around and charge that to Twilio. So, they'll be fine with letting large companies like Twilio spoof on their network, but they're not going to let RandomCo spoof.

So forcing the fine on the last step in the chain forces everyone to carefully consider who they trust, which is as it should be. Nothing wrong with trust between trusted parties, but clearly the current system has untrustworthy parties given too much power.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#12

Post by dqv »

ikeboy wrote: post #9
dqv wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is there a compelling reason to allow such spoofs? A few use cases to spoof the number: * Appointment reminder systems - if I see the caller ID is from my doctor's office, I'm going to pick it up and hear the reminder. When the calls come from some other number, people think it's spam. People still expect reminder calls even if you/HN crowd would prefer an email/text. * Outbound call centers on behalf of others comp…

In all of those scenarios, one could prove they controlled or had authorization for the spoofed number, hence it would not be eligible for my proposed fine. I'm not suggesting no spoofing, I'm suggesting a fine on the carrier for unauthorized spoofing, which will force them to actually verify that there is authorization.

>had authorization for the spoofed number

You didn't make this clarification in your first post. In the first two examples, they don't control the claimed number, which is what I was responding to.

>I'm suggesting a fine on the carrier for unauthorized spoofing, which will force them to actually verify that there is authorization.

This makes sense. Legitimate companies will get authorization agreements signed etc.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#14

Post by dqv »

wtallis wrote: post #10
dqv wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is there a compelling reason to allow such spoofs? A few use cases to spoof the number: * Appointment reminder systems - if I see the caller ID is from my doctor's office, I'm going to pick it up and hear the reminder. When the calls come from some other number, people think it's spam. People still expect reminder calls even if you/HN crowd would prefer an email/text. * Outbound call centers on behalf of others comp…

The question wasn't about why spoofing exists at all. It was about spoofing where they did not control the claimed number . If you want to place a call with spoofed caller ID info, your provider should require you to prove that the spoofed information is legitimate, not fraudulent. Otherwise, the telco should be obligated to strip the suspect caller ID information from the call so that the recipient can properly iden…

>where they did not control the claimed number.

That's the thing though, a lot of times they don't control the spoofed number, but there's a legitimate use case for spoofing it. Authorization to spoof is not the same as having control of a number.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#15

Post by nonbel »

wtallis wrote: post #7
ikeboy wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've suggested in the past that every instance of provable spoofing where they did not control the claimed number should result in a fixed fine. $100 sounds about right. Every phone network will then quickly begin passing on that cost to anyone they "peer" with and it will be a non-issue soon enough. Is there a compelling reason to allow such spoofs?

> Is there a compelling reason to allow such spoofs? It makes telcos money. That's reason enough, since there are no economic downsides to the network operators that enable these crimes. If companies like AT&T and Verizon were also being subject to this $120M fine, we might see them decide to make caller ID trustworthy so that it could be used to block robocalls.

>"It makes telcos money."

How?

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#16

Post by JustSomeNobody »

I got an angry call from a real person the other day yelling at me for calling them so many times. I tried to explain to them, it wasn't me, but they hung up after they said what they had to say.

Has anyone else had similar happen? For some naive reason I just figured the spoofers were using blocks of unused numbers, not live ones.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#17

Post by rectang »

The FCC has dragged their scapegoat into the public square to torture in a big show for the brutalized masses. But how effective has the FCC been at actually curtailing the problem of robocalls?

This FCC won't do anything meaningful because they've been bought off by the telecoms, and the telecoms make money hand over fist on robocalls:

http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-fcc-ro...

"The problem," he said, "is that for the carriers, it's a conflict of interest. All of these robocallers represent billable minutes. From a revenue standpoint, anything they do to crack down represents a reduction of billable traffic on their networks."

Same way this FCC's purported "deregulation" of net neutrality is a sham which rigs the game so that the telecoms can leverage their market dominance in more verticals.

We know what the technical solutions are for the problem of robocalls. Corruption and legalized bribery are preventing the application of those technical solutions.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#18

Post by dbatten »

nonbel wrote: post #15
wtallis wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there a compelling reason to allow such spoofs? It makes telcos money. That's reason enough, since there are no economic downsides to the network operators that enable these crimes. If companies like AT&T and Verizon were also being subject to this $120M fine, we might see them decide to make caller ID trustworthy so that it could be used to block robocalls.

>"It makes telcos money." How?

Telcos charge for connecting phone calls and routing voice packets. Even robocallers have to pay those fees.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#19

Post by Sniperfish »

For us, the most frequent issue on our land line are out-of-country calls (so out of jurisdiction) trying to sell duct cleaning services. We've gone as far as booking a couple of appointments to identify the local businesses that use these providers, but nothing comes of the reports. Where the origin is foreign, there are still avenues for domestic enforcement but authorities appear uninterested - to me this is an easy way to increase the effective cost of foreign call centers that don't obey local laws.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#20

Post by Kliment »

dqv wrote: post #8
ikeboy wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've suggested in the past that every instance of provable spoofing where they did not control the claimed number should result in a fixed fine. $100 sounds about right. Every phone network will then quickly begin passing on that cost to anyone they "peer" with and it will be a non-issue soon enough. Is there a compelling reason to allow such spoofs?

>Is there a compelling reason to allow such spoofs? A few use cases to spoof the number: * Appointment reminder systems - if I see the caller ID is from my doctor's office, I'm going to pick it up and hear the reminder. When the calls come from some other number, people think it's spam. People still expect reminder calls even if you/HN crowd would prefer an email/text. * Outbound call centers on behalf of others comp…

All those are fine with the rule proposed as you can easily prove the consent of the holder of the original number.
Post reply on HN