5 ms·

I disagree with having the service providers block the calls. Shouldn't that be up to the consumer? Having your carrier block a call seems like an overreach.

I disagree with having the service providers block the calls. Shouldn't that be up to the consumer? Having your carrier block a call seems like an overreach. I feel this erodes trust in the phone system even more.

jawns 7y ago
Presumably they would be blocking it on the consumer's behalf, with the consumer's consent, through an opt-in program.
- unsignedchar 7y ago
  And wouldn’t they, presumably, expect to be compensated for providing this convenience?
  - nordsieck 7y ago
    > And wouldn’t they, presumably, expect to be compensated for providing this convenience? Maybe. I think, though, that there is growing understanding that consumers may just opt out of the phone system altogether if something isn't done.
- chapium 7y ago
  Thats not how any phone company I've ever seen works :)
JohnFen 7y ago
> Shouldn't that be up to the consumer? The telephone provider is the only one who has the technical ability to block these calls. But I agree that it should only do so with the consent of the subscriber.
dymk 7y ago
How is a consumer supposed to reliably block robocall without help from the provider? The provider is the only entity in this system that has the information needed to curb robocalling.
- howard941 7y ago
  I too dislike carrier-hosted block. Pass the SHAKEN/STIR validity flag to me along with the CID data and let me decide whether to trash the call. Or give me ANI in place of CID.
  - mrguyorama 7y ago
    How do I explain that to my 80 year old grandmother using a landline from the late 2000s?
    - howard941 7y ago
      I think you're bringing a different but real issue into play here: Are 80 year olds more susceptible to scammers in general? You can assume future scam callers will pass the carrier block because it'll be ubiquitous if free as Pajit proposes so the carrier-based block will lose its value to the frail elderly. More directly responsive perhaps: An add-on device resembling a stand alone caller ID display that can terminate forged calls or pass them through while inducing a warning message on the late 2000 telset display, your choice. My fear is as with the anti-robo call laws, carrier-level blocking will arrive with exemptions for political and charity solicitations and the like that some non-negligible number of end users would prefer to avoid.
koolba 7y ago
Off by default for scammy caller ID seems like a reasonable default. Bored seniors can always enable it back.
bcheung 7y ago
Sounds like consumers would have a choice. From the link: > He expects providers to offer consumers robust, free call blocking tools based on analytics & consumer contact lists. I do have some privacy concerns about the contact lists being exposed but in general this seems like a good thing.
al2o3cr 7y ago
99% of the robocalls I see nowadays are using forged caller ID. Having the provider drop them is analogous to having ISPs drop packets with forged source IPs.

jawns 7y ago

Presumably they would be blocking it on the consumer's behalf, with the consumer's consent, through an opt-in program.

unsignedchar 7y ago
And wouldn’t they, presumably, expect to be compensated for providing this convenience?
- nordsieck 7y ago
  > And wouldn’t they, presumably, expect to be compensated for providing this convenience? Maybe. I think, though, that there is growing understanding that consumers may just opt out of the phone system altogether if something isn't done.
chapium 7y ago
Thats not how any phone company I've ever seen works :)

JohnFen 7y ago

> Shouldn't that be up to the consumer? The telephone provider is the only one who has the technical ability to block these calls. But I agree that it should only do so with the consent of the subscriber.

dymk 7y ago

How is a consumer supposed to reliably block robocall without help from the provider? The provider is the only entity in this system that has the information needed to curb robocalling.

howard941 7y ago
I too dislike carrier-hosted block. Pass the SHAKEN/STIR validity flag to me along with the CID data and let me decide whether to trash the call. Or give me ANI in place of CID.
- mrguyorama 7y ago
  How do I explain that to my 80 year old grandmother using a landline from the late 2000s?
  - howard941 7y ago
    I think you're bringing a different but real issue into play here: Are 80 year olds more susceptible to scammers in general? You can assume future scam callers will pass the carrier block because it'll be ubiquitous if free as Pajit proposes so the carrier-based block will lose its value to the frail elderly. More directly responsive perhaps: An add-on device resembling a stand alone caller ID display that can terminate forged calls or pass them through while inducing a warning message on the late 2000 telset display, your choice. My fear is as with the anti-robo call laws, carrier-level blocking will arrive with exemptions for political and charity solicitations and the like that some non-negligible number of end users would prefer to avoid.

koolba 7y ago

Off by default for scammy caller ID seems like a reasonable default. Bored seniors can always enable it back.

bcheung 7y ago

Sounds like consumers would have a choice. From the link: > He expects providers to offer consumers robust, free call blocking tools based on analytics & consumer contact lists. I do have some privacy concerns about the contact lists being exposed but in general this seems like a good thing.

al2o3cr 7y ago

99% of the robocalls I see nowadays are using forged caller ID. Having the provider drop them is analogous to having ISPs drop packets with forged source IPs.