6 ms·
> This is my problem with de facto utilities that are not regulated like utilities. I totally see that. But on the flip side we see utilities like phone compan
by jopsen 4y ago
> This is my problem with de facto utilities that are not regulated like utilities.
I totally see that. But on the flip side we see utilities like phone companies unable to block abusive robocalls and scammers.
(My thoughts are my own, and they are rarely well-formed)
- powerhour 4y agoThey could have used any spam filters they might have written to simply flat numbers so their customers could decide what to do for themselves. Instead we have to rely on third party services (and thus share private information with those parties).
- tpxl 4y agoThey are not unable, they are unwilling.
- paulgb 4y agoBefore 2019, they were hesitant to do so over uncertainty as to whether it would be a violation of common carrier laws to do so. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-robocalls/fcc-set-to-let-phone-companies-block-more-robocalls-idUSKCN1SL1CC https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-robocalls/fcc-set-to-...
- saghm 4y agoOkay, and in the three years since then, have they made any progress? If not, why am I wrong if I think they may have just been using that as an excuse?
- pkaye 4y agoThey have implemented the shake and stir protocol in the US.
- Schroedingersat 4y agoEasy solution where that's not an issue. Add an abuse button to the phone. Every call costs a dollar to connect, no matter where it comes from - another carrier or international or whatever. You get the dollar back if the receiver doesn't press the abuse button. The dollar can be waived if the company knows the call is coming from an individual household with low call volume.
- LarsAlereon 4y agoI do want to clarify that the phone companies making money from robocalls are not YOUR phone company. Phone companies that provide services to consumers lose money from robocalls, have to deal with unsatisfied customers, and really want both a technological and legal solution. The problem is a vast array of VoIP providers that let anyone with a valid credit card sign up and start pumping calls in real time. To them the revenue loss from people sometimes signing up with a stolen card and sending a bunch of scam calls is much smaller than that gained from having a low barrier for signup.
- LordDragonfang 4y agoUnfortunately, at this point the solution is to play hardball and say "start either vetting your customers better or providing us with accurate uuids so we can block/report them for you, otherwise we will no longer route calls originating from your voip service". Perhaps even connect the call to a automated message that says, "we're sorry, <voip telco> has had its services disconnected for fraud. Goodbye" But US phone companies don't want to do that because of the potential revenue loss.
- LarsAlereon 4y agoThat's the path the FCC is going down, with starting to implement "Know Your Customer" rules similar to banks that require them to gather enough information to prevent easily setting up fake accounts.
- encryptluks2 4y agoStarting to implement? They promised a fix like 2 years ago. I have about as much faith in the FCC accomplishing anything significant as I do in buying an extended auto warranty from a random caller.
- LarsAlereon 4y agoI mean we were starting from a system that was basically e-mail, except where providers were required to deliver all messages without any discrimination or filtering. They had to create a new framework that allowed for carriers to choose not to deliver calls, interoperable technology to authenticate calls, and now close loopholes that are still allowing bad actors access to the phone network. It's a fundamental rearchitecting of how the phone network works that requires every single operator to make upgrades, so yeah it's going to take some time. And you're not really going to see much progress until it's nearly finished because if 90% of the network is secure you'll just see the same volume of crap through the remaining 10%.
- mrtksn 4y agoThat's fine, then the offenders would be the robocallers and the issue can be solved by targeting the robocallers. If it isn't being solved it's probably because they don't want to solve it. E-mail spammers went to jail, I don't see why robocallers don't go to jail. It's way easier to locate them anyway. If we can fight spam mail, spam calls can be dealt with too.
- wyager 4y agoWe didn't solve e-mail spam by jailing people.
- mrtksn 4y agoSure, yet I'm quite happy to see some jailed spammers :) The point is, we are not hopeless. Actually, the e-mail thing was and is quite more problematic with accusations of gatekeepers(domain blacklists) asking for money but at least you know what's happening an how to solve it.
- elcomet 4y agoYou're happy to see people go to jail for sending spam? This seems crazy from my perspective. It seems to me like a minor offense that wouldn't require jail time (and where jail would be counterproductive). Of course if you are actually talking about scammers then I can understand your perspective, even if I'm not sure I would agree either.
- mrtksn 4y agoI don't see it as a minor offence at all, spam distracts me and breaks my flow and spends my cognitive energy and as a result makes me underperform. I like putting all my attention to the stuff I'm engaged with and it makes me very angry when interrupted with something irrelevant. I do often try to track back spam calls or spam mails to make sure that I'm an expensive target. Some people can be better at dealing with that kind of annoyances, good for them.
- jazzdev 4y agoWhy doesn't iOS support "Send straight to voicemail any caller not any my address book" ?
- scarface74 4y agoGo to Settings > Focus > Do Not Disturb > move the toggle next to Do Not Disturb > to ON position and tap on the People tab.
- collinmanderson 4y agoSettings -> Phone -> Silence Unknown Callers. It allows callbacks from numbers you’ve called recently which is nice. For texts there’s “Filter Unknown Senders”