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

US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

thecentersquare.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 223 posts

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#111

Post by munk-a »

karagenit wrote: post #103
lamontcg wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, it's not always obvious which robo calls are legitimate and which aren't. I can make this real simple. I don't want any robocalls.

I feel you. Still, there are legitimate uses for robocalls. My doctor’s office uses robocalls for lab test results, so that patients can get their lab results as soon as the lab tech puts it in the computer instead of having to wait for a person to make the call. Sure, you can email/text these results for most people, but there are still some older folks who don’t know how to email/text.

That's cool - we can wait two extra days for a call from our doctor if it's warranted. I don't need instantaneous feedback on my bloodwork.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#113

Post by Ensorceled »

katbyte wrote: post #47
cr1895 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does “accessible to all” mean in this context? Why do I in Europe get almost zero spam calls or text while in the US it seems like a plague?

In Canada and while I do get some it’s fairly rare. Maybe 1 a month.

I get 4-5 a week on Bell, my SO gets 1-2 a day on Rogers.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#114

Post by MichaelCollins »

kabdib wrote: post #83
onetimeusename wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over the last few years the FCC rules on carriers were relaxed so that they can discriminate against calls originating from domestic networks. Previously they could not block calls even if it was obvious it was a scam call. However, it's not always obvious which robo calls are legitimate and which aren't. The bigger issue though is not about domestic origin calls, it's about foreign originated calls that the FCC has…

I never, ever get legitimate calls from overseas. Just turn those calls off for my phone. Well, perhaps callbacks from helpdesks located in other countries, in which case give me time-boxed control over foreign calls, and perhaps a passcode that I can communicate along with my callback number. There are billions of dollars at stake, of course. This is a solvable problem, and the FCC doesn't even need to get involved.…

I want the ability to block all overseas calls, and I want that ability in a way that is easy enough to opt into that most people choose to. This would resolve the overseas helpdesk problem by forcing domestic companies to use domestic call centers to succeed in reaching people.

I have never received a legitimate phonecall from overseas, and I don't expect I ever will. In every case that I've had a legitimate reason to talk to somebody overseas, we used voip-to-voip, never telephones.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#115

Post by r00fus »

lamontcg wrote: post #90
onetimeusename wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over the last few years the FCC rules on carriers were relaxed so that they can discriminate against calls originating from domestic networks. Previously they could not block calls even if it was obvious it was a scam call. However, it's not always obvious which robo calls are legitimate and which aren't. The bigger issue though is not about domestic origin calls, it's about foreign originated calls that the FCC has…

> However, it's not always obvious which robo calls are legitimate and which aren't. I can make this real simple. I don't want any robocalls.

Politicians exempted themselves from the do not call list: https://www.khou.com/article/news/verify/verify-yes-robocall...

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#116

Post by happyopossum »

katbyte wrote: post #47
cr1895 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does “accessible to all” mean in this context? Why do I in Europe get almost zero spam calls or text while in the US it seems like a plague?

In Canada and while I do get some it’s fairly rare. Maybe 1 a month.

Anecdotes do not constitute data. My family in Canada gets tons of robocalls and spam calls, to the point that nobody answers unrecognized numbers unless they're expecting a call...

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#117

Post by cuteboy19 »

orev wrote: post #97

Phone companies are trying to turn this problem into a revenue generation “opportunity”. Not only do they get paid for the calls that traverse their network, but now they also want you to sign up for their “premium” blocking services, at a monthly cost, to stop them. This screams for not only a crackdown on the bad carriers who initiate the calls, but also on the big telcos who are double-dipping.

That's a protection racket

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#118

Post by LordDragonfang »

nus07 wrote: post #13

90% of those scam calls originate from one city in India- Kolkata. It’s a state that has had communist rule for over 30 years and now a government which also runs on anti-corporate agenda. As a result there are no industries and all jobs have dried up in that state of West Bengal. This is the only industry left and the local government and police turn a blind eye since they get kickbacks and is the only source of inc…

The communist party was ousted from control of government in West Bengal in 2011[1]. Manufacturing growth is actually down since then[2]. And relevant to the current topic, Indian scam calls have only been an issue in the past decade. A decade of non-communist rule seems to either not improved things much or made things worse. The issue is more complicated than "communism bad".

[1]https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2011/5/13/defeat-rocks-in...

[2]https://www.ideasforindia.in/topics/macroeconomics/west-beng...

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#119

Post by brk »

munk-a wrote: post #105
brk wrote: post #18

It is unfortunate that the cellular companies have allowed their core product (voice calls) to be so devalued that they need to be forced to solve this problem instead of just doing it naturally. The carriers are clearly customer-hostile, as this is really a very solvable problem. Instead, we now are moving to alternate mechanisms to manage audio calls (eg: Signal, Whatsapp, Facebook, etc.). My wide-open Verizon cell…

It's also unfortunate that robocalling isn't bannable across the board because politicians want to continue to have the ability to spam call constituents. It's really unfortunate that all sorts of automatic calls need to continue being permitted just so we can have the delightful luxury of getting spam fundraising calls from politicians. This has real world consequences, last year a lost hiker ended up declining call…

Yes, there are lots of solutions if there is a genuine attempt to solve the problem and not just dance around it.

Political calls and texts should absolutely be blockable by users if they so choose.

Cost-based calling may not be practical, IMO. I look at the amount of junk mail I get from the USPS and I am not sure a "sender pays" approach would result in a meaningful reduction with a cost structure that didn't also impact regular users. A rate-limiting approach on call origination could work, but in the end I still think that a simple that gives the users control to block unwanted calls/texts, coupled with an origination source validation would solve most of the problem. There is nothing preventing us from capturing and passing accurate call origination data.

Post reply on HN