US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force • Hacker News Board

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#121

Post by njarboe » Wed, Aug 03, 2022, 5:27 PM UTC

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…

I've thought this would be a good solution for years. I would like if you could choose the amount to charge people to call you that aren't on your white list. You get 90% of that and the phone company gets 10%. A win-win-win for you the, the phone company, and people trying to talk to you. I would probably set to a dollar or two. Warren Buffet or Elon Musk could set it to $10 million put you would probably need and escrow account for that amount of money.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#122

Post by MichaelCollins » Wed, Aug 03, 2022, 5:29 PM UTC

cr1895 wrote: post #39

lotsofpulp wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>My wide-open Verizon cell-phone number is my least preferred method of contact by far, due to the fact that I cannot trust that unknown numbers are high-value incoming calls. I thought it was a legal requirement for phone network operators to leave phone numbers accessible to all, and hence their inability to effectively fight spam. Otherwise, what would stop the situation from becoming like email, where email is mo…

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?

When you target Americans, you can use a single language to hit 239 million people with their native/first language. You can't do that in Europe.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#123

Post by cptskippy » Wed, Aug 03, 2022, 5:31 PM UTC

cr1895 wrote: post #39

lotsofpulp wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>My wide-open Verizon cell-phone number is my least preferred method of contact by far, due to the fact that I cannot trust that unknown numbers are high-value incoming calls. I thought it was a legal requirement for phone network operators to leave phone numbers accessible to all, and hence their inability to effectively fight spam. Otherwise, what would stop the situation from becoming like email, where email is mo…

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 the US, one of the loopholes in rules requiring STIR/SHAKEN and other protections was that smaller carriers, usually serving rural or under served markets, were exempt. This became a profit center for them as they became one of the only means for these spam calls, which originated in overseas call centers, to connect to US callers.

Thus the smaller carriers were incentivized by profit to connect the calls.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#124

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 03, 2022, 5:32 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#125

Post by alberth » Wed, Aug 03, 2022, 5:32 PM UTC

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…

> The carriers are clearly customer-hostile

It’s actually not the carriers. The carriers actual try to actively block spam.

It’s actual the Twilio’s of the world that originate the bulk of the spam.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#126

Post by boredumb » Wed, Aug 03, 2022, 5:33 PM UTC

hangonhn wrote: post #12

nikanj wrote: post #7

1) Let my filter out all calls not originating on an US/Canadian landline/mobile carrier 2) Yes, I’m happy to lose all calls that come via VoIP. 3) I don’t answer my phone anymore, so I miss those calls anyway 4) I’m very happy to sacrifice 1% of signal for 100% of noise

Similarly, if my phone would just allow me to do some simple filtering based on number or location, it would filter out 99% of all spam calls. I have a Florida number but have lived outside of Florida for about 2 decades. No one who I have any relationship with has a Florida number except for my family who are all in my contacts. Simply filter out my own area code but not in my contacts would eliminate the vast major…

^ The fact I haven't lived in my numbers area code for a few decades as well I've noticed the exact same thing. If I don't have a contact for a number from that areacode it is 99.99999% chance of being a scam.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#127

Post by Scoundreller » Wed, Aug 03, 2022, 5:34 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #56

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?

Accessible to all meaning the rules for being part of the public switched telephone network: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_switched_telephone_netw... Again, I am not sure and very well may be wrong, but I think I recall reading or maybe just assuming that the FCC or maybe a global agreement bars individual network operators from not accepting calls from others within the network. I imagine this gets very hairy…

Depends on the country. I think it comes down to availability of cheap labour for call-based vectors.

French numbers can get tons of spam calls, because there’s no shortage of impoverished French speakers in the world.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#128

Post by kube-system » Wed, Aug 03, 2022, 5:35 PM UTC

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…

Aren't the robocallers paying for VoIP services now?

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#129

Post by nightski » Wed, Aug 03, 2022, 5:36 PM UTC

brk wrote: post #73

lotsofpulp wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>My wide-open Verizon cell-phone number is my least preferred method of contact by far, due to the fact that I cannot trust that unknown numbers are high-value incoming calls. I thought it was a legal requirement for phone network operators to leave phone numbers accessible to all, and hence their inability to effectively fight spam. Otherwise, what would stop the situation from becoming like email, where email is mo…

There is nothing preventing them from providing users with more granular call-rejection controls. Their networks need to be "accessible" on the incoming call side, but that does not mean as a customer I should be forced to have every call intended for my number to be routed through to my phone. An iptables concept with a user friendly UI would address much of this problem, particularly if we could filter on useful ca…

The major carriers have this but charge for it. Like $5/mo. It's pretty sad.

Re: US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

#130

Post by kube-system » Wed, Aug 03, 2022, 5:36 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #111

karagenit wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, grandma does need her bloodwork results. And she's the one most likely to fall for a robocall scam anyway.

And do you think illicit callers are going to follow the law? They're already committing wire fraud, and the software already exists.