4 ms·

I didn't see anything in there about penalties for carriers not enforcing this. Also willing to bet they beg for extensions claiming they're not ready - or too

by ugh123 7y ago

I didn't see anything in there about penalties for carriers not enforcing this. Also willing to bet they beg for extensions claiming they're not ready - or too costly to implement.

ableal 7y ago
Good point. I suspect carriers tolerate scammers because they're good for the bottom line.
- rhizome 7y ago
  If my mom's bill is any indication, the telco's getting ~$40 for each landline. Not sure what a voice T1 goes for these days.
- jazzyjackson 7y ago
  The same way USPS is funded by junk mail, a large volume of Telecoms' voice calls is likely robo-caller spam. Still I would have thought either Verizon or AT&T could come up with a competitive advantage of, you know, "the number that comes up on caller ID is authenticated to actually be the person paying for that phone number" The spoofed caller ID to match your local area code has landed on people in my contact list, and it was extremely jarring to think "why is my best friend's mom calling me out of the blue" and get offered a discount cruise by a robot.
  - Simon_says 7y ago
    Telecoms have no problem figuring out who to bill.
- 0x00000000 7y ago
  When I got a new phone, I got a text saying that I was on a free trial of Verizon’s spam call blocking service. Needless to say they have every reason to remain complicit
equalsione 7y ago
New legisation is being enacted around this on an ongoing basise: e.g H.R. 4998 was introduced about two weeks ago All the major carriers are implementing a STIR/SHAKEN strategy that should be in effect by next year. But it is complicated to do and there may still be problems when they do - as others have explained here it's not as simple as it first appears. I don't have any sympathy for the operators in this. They've profited from this for long enough and ignored the problem. There's a lot of pressure on them to solve it and the impression I have is that there's no appetite for "the dog ate my homework" excuses from regulators so let's see.

by ugh123 7y ago

I didn't see anything in there about penalties for carriers not enforcing this. Also willing to bet they beg for extensions claiming they're not ready - or too costly to implement.

ableal 7y ago

Good point. I suspect carriers tolerate scammers because they're good for the bottom line.

rhizome 7y ago
If my mom's bill is any indication, the telco's getting ~$40 for each landline. Not sure what a voice T1 goes for these days.
jazzyjackson 7y ago
The same way USPS is funded by junk mail, a large volume of Telecoms' voice calls is likely robo-caller spam. Still I would have thought either Verizon or AT&T could come up with a competitive advantage of, you know, "the number that comes up on caller ID is authenticated to actually be the person paying for that phone number" The spoofed caller ID to match your local area code has landed on people in my contact list, and it was extremely jarring to think "why is my best friend's mom calling me out of the blue" and get offered a discount cruise by a robot.
- Simon_says 7y ago
  Telecoms have no problem figuring out who to bill.
0x00000000 7y ago
When I got a new phone, I got a text saying that I was on a free trial of Verizon’s spam call blocking service. Needless to say they have every reason to remain complicit

equalsione 7y ago

New legisation is being enacted around this on an ongoing basise: e.g H.R. 4998 was introduced about two weeks ago All the major carriers are implementing a STIR/SHAKEN strategy that should be in effect by next year. But it is complicated to do and there may still be problems when they do - as others have explained here it's not as simple as it first appears. I don't have any sympathy for the operators in this. They've profited from this for long enough and ignored the problem. There's a lot of pressure on them to solve it and the impression I have is that there's no appetite for "the dog ate my homework" excuses from regulators so let's see.