5 ms·
Because individually they'll do a worse job of mitigating spam than if they try to mitigate it collectively.
by CharlesColeman 8y ago
Because individually they'll do a worse job of mitigating spam than if they try to mitigate it collectively.
- lotsofpulp 8y agoThey’ll collaborate, as soon as they figure out how to charge for spam filtering.
- mwfunk 8y agoThis is almost certainly true, but they might make more money if (for example) one carrier's half-assed spam mitigation technology is shown to work better than a competing carrier's quarter-assed spam mitigation technology. From the perspective of some analysts, collaborating with competitors over a technology that might otherwise be used as a competitive advantage is leaving money on the table, even if the end result is a worse situation for everyone. And from an analyst's perspective, shareholders are the company's customers, not the people who use their services. Which has a certain logic to it, but we'll see if these companies care more about their customers or their shareholders.
- w0de0 8y agoClear example of the prisoner's dilemma.
- sokoloff 8y agoDoesn't reducing spam phone calls directly hurt their bottom line?
- pfranz 8y agoDepends if they're thinking short term or long term. I think I've seen numbers showing phone calls are dropping already. Increasing spam will exacerbate that.
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoSo let's say that I've got a network that can carry calls. I rent access by the month. The fewer calls, the less infrastructure I need to be able to handle them, but the rent doesn't change. Why would I want spam calls on my network? Unless they're paying me by the call or something, that's the last thing I want.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- sokoloff 8y agoSIP calls are generally billed by the minute by the carrier. Mobile calls also often have a per-minute charge by the network. That those are often sold as “all you can talk” packages is a consumer marketing bundling action, not necessarily perfectly reflective of the underlying economics.
- hermitdev 8y agoProbably not. Most charges are done per minute of talk time. An unanswered phone call would not generate a charge. If people are unwilling to answer the phone due to a high spam volume (such as myself), they're likely losing money from the spam. I only answer the phone from known numbers or if I'm immediately expecting a call. Everything else goes to voicemail. Carriera have an incentive to increase call acceptance, and that means cut down on the bullshit robocalls that are already illegal to cellphones, but rarely enforced.
- cheerlessbog 8y agoSo why aren't carriers deprioritizing/throttling/delaying inputs to their networks that are originating calls with anomalously low pickup rates? (And maybe that have implausibly diverse caller ID'S.) Sort of how email servers blacklist servers sending them spam except they dont have to cut them off, just eg add a second or two before they pass the call on..
- coryrc 8y agoBecause the networks are so convoluted they don't know where the calls are coming from.