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

271–280 of 281 posts

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

#271

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

Timwi wrote: post #146
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.

> We need to see them fined, shut down, and executives jailed. Is that what European countries do? Is that why there are no robocalls there?

It may be less bad than some of the stories I heard from the US but it's still enough to never pick up the phone unless you're expecting a call.

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

#272

Post by mulmen »

unsignedint wrote: post #214
mulmen wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t find “good chunk” compelling. I think you need to do a more rigorous analysis of the costs and benefits. FCC is fully capable of creating the incentive structure to maintain a spam-free PSTN. This is a political problem. IP addresses and phone numbers are indistinguishable in the context of spam. If you successfully argue that the PSTN cannot be operated at a net benefit to society because of spam volume the…

I only said “good chunk” because there are already more than a few reports pointing to a shift in behavioral patterns around calls. (Feel free to Google, Bing, or DuckDuckGo it when you have a chance.) The point is less about an exact percentage and more about the fact that user behavior has already adapted in ways that erode PSTN’s practical value. And if the FCC were fully capable of solving this problem, I don’t t…

> I only said “good chunk” because there are already more than a few reports pointing to a shift in behavioral patterns around calls

Yes, such reports exist and they are easy to find when you look for them. My point is that you are not balancing these reports with the benefits of the PSTN or considering that people who happily use the PSTN aren't vocal about it. I think you are attributing way too much weight to the information you can find, especially when you are looking for it. You then draw an extreme conclusion that the PSTN is not worth maintaining and support it with this flawed analysis of behavioral change.

You might be right but the way you have substantiated your argument isn't compelling.

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

#273

Post by [deleted] »

xp84 wrote: post #268
mulmen wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Categorizing “whistleblower needs to talk to journalists” as a cliche really undermines your argument here. This isn’t an insurmountable problem. We have regulatory frameworks. FCC has proven they have teeth. It’s a political problem we can solve without losing any of the benefits of the PSTN.

I'm happy to be proven wrong here where whistleblowers can only use the PSTN. They already, I would wager, universally would not. They use Signal. All the reporters publish their Signal usernames and not their phone numbers. Why? Probably because the PSTN as normal consumers can access it, is pretty non-anonymous. The best case for anonymity is a burner, but you have to buy those burners somewhere that probably has C…

[deleted]

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

#274

Post by spc476 »

gruez wrote: post #237
spc476 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Set a default ringtone to silence. Give each contact on my phone a custom non-silent ringtone. If a non-contact calls and it's important enough, they'll leave a voice message. The first year or so some spammers would leave a message (usually half a message as my outgoing message caused their canned robot to start speaking), but the past year or so, no bad voice mail messages.

Can't you use the "silence unknown callers" option instead?

Only if your phone supports it. Not all do.

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

#275

Post by unsignedint »

mulmen wrote: post #272
unsignedint wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only said “good chunk” because there are already more than a few reports pointing to a shift in behavioral patterns around calls. (Feel free to Google, Bing, or DuckDuckGo it when you have a chance.) The point is less about an exact percentage and more about the fact that user behavior has already adapted in ways that erode PSTN’s practical value. And if the FCC were fully capable of solving this problem, I don’t t…

> I only said “good chunk” because there are already more than a few reports pointing to a shift in behavioral patterns around calls Yes, such reports exist and they are easy to find when you look for them. My point is that you are not balancing these reports with the benefits of the PSTN or considering that people who happily use the PSTN aren't vocal about it. I think you are attributing way too much weight to the…

I’m not claiming universal truth. I’m stating that under the evaluative lens I’ve made explicit, PSTN doesn’t meet the threshold for viability. That’s the scope of my argument, and it stands on its own terms.

You’re welcome to use a different standard, but dismissing mine as "not compelling" without engaging the actual framing isn’t critique. It’s rhetorical displacement. If you’re not addressing the criteria I laid out, you’re not engaging the argument.

Speculation cuts both ways. If you want to challenge the standard itself, do so directly. Otherwise, implying imbalance or extremity without entering the terrain is performative, not substantive.

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

#276

Post by kube-system »

unsignedint wrote: post #270
kube-system wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now compare that to the PSTN: what does 555-123-4567 really tell you? It tells you exactly as much as the "from" field does in your email. > you have more tools to work with in email. Only if you're an engineer implementing a mail server configuration. But if you're implementing a telco you also have more tools to work with than a caller ID. End users use DMARC/SPF the same way end users use STIR/SHAKEN... they don…

Even if I don't run my own mail server, I can still open an email header and see context. Last time I checked, I can't walk into a telco and ask for the telephone equivalent of that. On PSTN, there's nothing beyond a bare caller ID string, and that lack of context is exactly why I see it as a problem. Email gives end users multiple signals and filters to work with. PSTN doesn't, and that's why I disagree with your eq…

DMARC/SPF/DKIM are not something that users can take advantage of by reading their email headers, because it is nonsensical to end users.

You can take advantage of it because you're an expert. Just because email vomits out more information that are useful for experts doesn't mean it is better as a real world system for normal people who use it.

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

#277

Post by unsignedint »

kube-system wrote: post #276
unsignedint wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if I don't run my own mail server, I can still open an email header and see context. Last time I checked, I can't walk into a telco and ask for the telephone equivalent of that. On PSTN, there's nothing beyond a bare caller ID string, and that lack of context is exactly why I see it as a problem. Email gives end users multiple signals and filters to work with. PSTN doesn't, and that's why I disagree with your eq…

DMARC/SPF/DKIM are not something that users can take advantage of by reading their email headers, because it is nonsensical to end users. You can take advantage of it because you're an expert. Just because email vomits out more information that are useful for experts doesn't mean it is better as a real world system for normal people who use it.

I've been consistent in framing this as a structural critique. The question isn't whether most users inspect metadata. It's whether the system makes that inspection possible. That's the architectural affordance I've emphasized throughout. Email exposes trust signals. PSTN does not. Its opacity isn't a side effect of user behavior. It is a design feature. That's the distinction I've been drawing, and it remains central to the evaluative lens I've laid out.

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

#278

Post by singpolyma3 »

coldpie wrote: post #91
singpolyma3 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This seems solvable. Put the person most closely traceable to the source of the spam in jail, like a form of KYC laws. If you can't identify the actual human who is causing you to put spam into the network, or that person is outside of your country's jurisdiction, then you are the one who goes to jail. If you don't want to go to jail, then don't accept calls from someone you can't point the finger at.

So someone goes to the store and buys a phone and sends a spam sms with it. Put the store operator in prison???

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

#279

Post by rstuart4133 »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #191
rstuart4133 wrote: post #181

Meanwhile, here in Australia ... It used to be as bad as others describe here, if not worse. A few years ago my 92 yo mother disconnected her land line because she was getting 20 calls a day. The spammers had figured out the number range of her retirement village, and hammered it mercilessly. But other day I was reflecting on how oddly silent it has become on the phone spam front. This article made me wonder - just h…

> Yet now in 2025, they had a total victory, they've annihilated all phone spam, and I didn't notice for months. No media release, no trumpeting from the roof tops. They just quietly and effectively did their job. How?

A more concrete example of how: https://www.abc.net.au/news/105697996

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

#280

Post by Evidlo »

throwitawayfam wrote: post #172
Evidlo wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote a little tool which can do lookups: https://github.com/evidlo/nanpa_lookup There's no free source of this information anywhere. The only affordable option is telcodata.us

What do you do when these lookups return the company that owns the number but the company says that they are not in control of the number? E.g, I have one number that keeps harassing me that reports as Verizon but Verizon says they have not been with Verizon since 2024. Also great tool, thank you

Try searching directly on telcodata.us: https://www.telcodata.us/search-area-code-exchange-detail
Post reply on HN