Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best technical solution I've seen is a spam review fee that turns into a reward and charged to the next closest originating peer. For example say you get a spam call. You notify your service provider and pay $10 to have them review the call recording to verify that its spam. An employee listens to the call and determines that it is, in fact, spam. You get a $100 reward for reporting spam and your service provider…
its unlikely going to be worth the costs involved for the telco to do this reviewing. perhaps AI systems and other filters could be used but ultimately its tons of time needed because audio takes time to play. a lot of cases will be clearcut instabans but for the ones that are not it requires all of them to be reviewed with _some_ depth and then some with much more. its also prone to mistakes which is another process…
1. Phone spam is pervasive. Single actors are responsible for billions of calls per month within the US alone.
2. The goal in setting the liability charge high is to create an incentive to propagate investigations up the chain. $10 * 1 billion does create a substantial incentive to a phone operator to pursue actions. Especially if a large fraction of the traffic is peered from a small number of sources, if not a single source.
I'd really like to see a serious attempt at pointing out possible abuses or issues with the system, though I think it could work, and may be necessary to address the fundamental economic incentives spurring phone spam. See my own variant here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49129679>.