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

151–160 of 175 posts

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#151

Post by mark-r »

acdha wrote: post #88
bradleyjg wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don’t understand is why no major mobile carrier is offering a solution to this. It’s a pretty competitive market and this could be a big selling point. When the isp wars were going strong, before broadband put everyone under the thumb of monopolists and also before gmail, spam filtering was a serious competative advantage. Why can’t phone companies take an RBL like approach? If your VoIP service garners too ma…

T-Mobile offers it as a free option with two levels: labeling the call as Scam Likely and blocking it outright. The latter is quite effective - I was getting 5+ calls per day and it’s now 1-2 per week.

Interesting. I assumed that Scam Likely was a Google feature, not T-Mobile.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#152

Post by mark-r »

lend000 wrote: post #106
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?

The reason I would agree with a fine is not because a caller's identity cannot be unmasked, but because phone numbers are so closely connected with identity that robocallers are essentially engaging in identity theft and slander when they use people's legitimate numbers to spoof their calls.

I had someone call me once, claiming I had just called them. I hadn't of course, so the only thing I could think of was that someone had used my phone number for spoofing.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#153

Post by pandaman »

Rjevski wrote: post #147
pandaman wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While you cannot say for certain that a particular call is coming from a robot, being a major network you can make a very good guess. E.g. when the same origin hits every number with a caller ID in that number's exchange just block that origin from your network. If there is a legitimate reason for this - they will contact you immediately and sort it out. Bonus point - spammers will hit the competitors networks with m…

> when the same origin hits every number There is no real concept of "origin". Unless you're the direct upstream carrier of the originator of the robocalls, the robocalls will be diluted with legitimate calls in such a way no single inbound carrier stands out.

I see, are there second layer provides agregating multiple VoIP retailers? I thought VoIP route directly to the big telcos networks. But even in this case - just drop the whole 2nd layer provider and they will quickly deal with their spammer clients.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#154

Post by wtallis »

rayiner wrote: post #129
afo wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, the FCC clarified their rules a few years back that carriers CAN block robocalls. More details here: https://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/fcc-clarifies-robocal... Note that Ajit Pai (then a commissioner, not chairperson like now) voted AGAINST this. Full disclosure: We (Nomorobo) advocated to the FCC to allow carriers to block robocalls.

It's worth reading Pai's actual dissent: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-72A5.pd... . Among his reasons for dissenting is that the Commission was unwilling to "establish[] a safe harbor so that carriers could block spoofed calls from overseas without fear of liability." All this occurs against the background of the Communications Act's common-carrier obligations, and the FCC's call-completion rul…

> so that carriers could block spoofed calls from overseas without fear of liability

I don't really want my carrier deciding what calls to block. I just want them to ensure the veracity of caller ID data so that I can perform useful blocking at my end. There shouldn't be anything stopping them from removing fraudulent and unverifiable caller ID info from the calls they route my way. That leaves me free to block calls that lack caller ID info, and I'm assuming all the risks that entails.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#155

Post by kingnothing »

hunter23 wrote: post #117
pboutros wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the answer is that it is not a pretty competitive market. The two biggest carriers have a 1-2% monthly churn rate. https://www.statista.com/statistics/283511/average-monthly-c...

2% monthly churn is not low. That annualizes to ~25% which is significant. The cost per acquisition of getting a new customer is actually quite high so their churn numbers definitely hurt them.

When there are only 4 carriers in the US, it doesn't really matter. AT&T will lose a customer to Sprint, Sprint loses one to T-Mobile, T-Mobile loses one to Verizon, and Verizon loses one to AT&T. No one is getting rid of their cell phones.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#156

Post by vertexFarm »

post_break wrote: post #30

Can we please get phone OEMs to enable a feature to only allow calls from people in our contact list? Baked in. No apps that scrape your phone book to do it. If you're not on my contact list, go to voicemail and I'll decide if you're legit. And have an option like DND where if you call in rapid succession then I'll pick up.

That sounds like a great idea. Right now I'm using an app that just blanket-blocks area codes. I got a number in an area code I never go to or know anybody from. Almost all the spam calls are from around there and I block them all. It's not ideal.

I really wish they'd just make some kind of system or authority to keep VOIP from spoofing numbers. It's ridiculous. There's gotta be a way for them to secure that shit. I guess they're just inept.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#157

Post by vertexFarm »

rectang wrote: post #17

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…

Damn, good point. I figured this should be an easily solvable problem. Stands to reason that the FCC is just letting it happen because they're hilariously corrupt. Definitely one of the most successfully captured regulatory bodies.

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#158

Post by ghostly_s »

reaperducer wrote: post #135
nikanj wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should be technically possible to have ”these numbers can originate from this operator”. I’ve learned that if a phone looks to be from my area code, it’s actually from China. No idea what the robocaller is saying. My operator should be able to have a short list of teleoperators in this zip code, and drop other calls.

Something that helps is having an "undesirable" area code. Telemarketers have learned that certain area codes convert at much higher rates than others. 202, 203, 212, 213 are prime targets. 242, 246, 406 and 701? Notsomuch. If your NPA isn't important to you, get a number in those areas. (Some carriers will let you choose your area code as long as you're within the same billing center.)

I'm feeling very grateful for sticking with the same phone number I've had since high school in rural Minnesota. 100% of numbers I receive from "my" area code that aren't my mother, are spam. :)

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#159

Post by kolpa »

joemag wrote: post #137
acdha wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

T-Mobile offers it as a free option with two levels: labeling the call as Scam Likely and blocking it outright. The latter is quite effective - I was getting 5+ calls per day and it’s now 1-2 per week.

The “Spam Likely” determination is fairly unreliable, IMO. They have labeled my doctors office “Scam Likely”, while many “Scam definitely” calls have not been labeled.

Is it perhaps because scammers have impersonated your doctor's phone number?

Re: FCC fines robocaller record $120M

#160

Post by jasonkostempski »

criddell wrote: post #72
jasonkostempski wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd prefer an open source software solution but, either way, they'd start leaving voicemails, which is still annoying to manage. However, a lot of them already leave a 3 second blank voicemail, so that would at least eliminate the ignore/reject call step and the rude interruption.

Why do voicemail systems even notify me of a 3 second silent message? Just delete them.

That would be nice too. And locally run software should be able to handle it, so you don't have to hand all your voice mail over to a third party. Even 3 seconds of not silence is probably "It's me. Call me back when you get a sec." which the missed call notice already handles. I don't waste time listening to them any more, but clearing the notice and deleting the message is annoying.
Post reply on HN