5 ms·

The new fad among wireless carriers here in the US is to route what they think are spam calls to a fake voicemail box. Voicemail that is left in this generic v

The new fad among wireless carriers here in the US is to route what they think are spam calls to a fake voicemail box. Voicemail that is left in this generic voice mail box never makes it to their customer and the customer is completely unaware that some of their calls have been diverted.

jollyllama 2y ago
Wow. There should be a way to opt out of this, at least. Isn't this a violation of common carrier laws?
immibis 2y ago
Then suddenly, calls from consenting callers to consenting receivers are labeled as spam and blocked. What can you do about it? Nothing. Switch to email, I guess. Oh wait, same problem.
- kabdib 2y ago
  reductio ad absurdum: we're back to Pony Express
  - telgareith 2y ago
    Simple: shoot the messenger.
  - immibis 2y ago
    I called out email because email actually has this problem. It's not reductio ad absurdum if it's true.
  - connicpu 2y ago
    Bulk scams by mail are at least less common because mail fraud is investigated pretty seriously and results in federal felony charges. Not to mention the cost of initiation is much higher. Unfortunately individuals are still sometimes targeted.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      > Not to mention the cost of initiation is much higher This is the thing we screwed up for email and phone (after per call fees dropped to zero). It's not rocket science to create systems that net to zero for common usage (balanced in-bound vs out-bound), but charge an arm and a leg for bulk senders.
      - immibis 2y ago
        Until you're running a file server or the equivalent. There has to be some way for a willing recipient to zero-rate or reverse-charge the responses to their requests. The Internet gets this wrong.
    - plagiarist 2y ago
      The physical mail spammers know to only use deceptive tricks, like "FINAL NOTICE" or pretending to be affiliated with you using some publicly available information. I have not yet seen one dare to full-on lie, because there would be real consequences. If a scammer puts "FINAL NOTICE" on a solicitation they mailed with no prior relationship, I do still report it as fraud. But that's probably wishful thinking.
  - efitz 2y ago
    The pony express put significant cost burden on the sender per message, which is inherently self regulating.
- efitz 2y ago
  You sound like an advocate for telemarketers. Am I correct? I doubt very seriously that the pool of people who have knowingly and intentionally and explicitly opted in/consented to telemarketing - that is, without any dark pattern involvement and with a clear and unmbiguous consent experience, is very large. In fact I think it is infinitesimal because I can’t recall seeing such a consent UX- they ALL involve dark patterns. And if you pair that with “marketer who diligently implements all state & FTC requirements and does timely and accurate processing of removal requests, I think that the 3 relationships left are web app UX testers. I think the world would be a better place without telemarketing or email marketing. Maybe a “one email per year” limit per merchant who you have actually paid money to and not opted out of.
  - gbear605 2y ago
    I’m not OP, but my worry is about the false positives. I have real inbound calls and emails getting detected as spam all the time. Luckily my VoIP provider has a spam box I can look in, but at this point I just have to go through them every so often to make sure I’m not missing anything important. If the telecoms can perfectly predict the telemarketers, then I’d love it. But in practice how often is this going to block people I know from calling me? Probably not never, and then we just have to give up on phones as a reliable method of communication.
    - spacebanana7 2y ago
      Exactly. Many people want to be able to receive phone calls from their doctors, airlines and schools. These types of B2C calls are presumably most likely to be marked as spam in the event of false positives.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  I’ll take my chances. 99%of the people I want to talk to either email/text me first or are already in my contacts list (which I’m not really all that picky about). I’ll accept that failure rate.
  - akoboldfrying 2y ago
    Isn't "emailing you first" just kicking the can down the road? What stops spam emails getting through to you? (Besides the exact kind of heuristic filtering you seem to be objecting to, that is.)
    - spacebanana7 2y ago
      Email spam filters have the advantage of being able to see the content of the message, so hopefully they're more accurate. The disadvantage of email is that it doesn't work for urgent use cases, like Disneyland calling the parent of a lost child.
      - red-iron-pine 2y ago
        Disneyland will have a handful of IPs and phone numbers, and I'd bet my hat will have a team aggressively calling any ISP or provider that flags them as spam.
  - BlueTemplar 2y ago
    Even better : ignore unknown numbers, real unknown people can leave voicemail. (Hopefully leaving voicemail keeps out of reach of spammers, I guess it's just too expensive for them ?)
connicpu 2y ago
Not sure about all carriers, but on mine I still get a push notification when a call gets blocked blocked by the spam filter.
D-Coder 2y ago
Sounds like a shadow-ban.

jollyllama 2y ago

Wow. There should be a way to opt out of this, at least. Isn't this a violation of common carrier laws?

immibis 2y ago

Then suddenly, calls from consenting callers to consenting receivers are labeled as spam and blocked. What can you do about it? Nothing. Switch to email, I guess. Oh wait, same problem.

kabdib 2y ago
reductio ad absurdum: we're back to Pony Express
- telgareith 2y ago
  Simple: shoot the messenger.
- immibis 2y ago
  I called out email because email actually has this problem. It's not reductio ad absurdum if it's true.
- connicpu 2y ago
  Bulk scams by mail are at least less common because mail fraud is investigated pretty seriously and results in federal felony charges. Not to mention the cost of initiation is much higher. Unfortunately individuals are still sometimes targeted.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    > Not to mention the cost of initiation is much higher This is the thing we screwed up for email and phone (after per call fees dropped to zero). It's not rocket science to create systems that net to zero for common usage (balanced in-bound vs out-bound), but charge an arm and a leg for bulk senders.
    - immibis 2y ago
      Until you're running a file server or the equivalent. There has to be some way for a willing recipient to zero-rate or reverse-charge the responses to their requests. The Internet gets this wrong.
  - plagiarist 2y ago
    The physical mail spammers know to only use deceptive tricks, like "FINAL NOTICE" or pretending to be affiliated with you using some publicly available information. I have not yet seen one dare to full-on lie, because there would be real consequences. If a scammer puts "FINAL NOTICE" on a solicitation they mailed with no prior relationship, I do still report it as fraud. But that's probably wishful thinking.
- efitz 2y ago
  The pony express put significant cost burden on the sender per message, which is inherently self regulating.
efitz 2y ago
You sound like an advocate for telemarketers. Am I correct? I doubt very seriously that the pool of people who have knowingly and intentionally and explicitly opted in/consented to telemarketing - that is, without any dark pattern involvement and with a clear and unmbiguous consent experience, is very large. In fact I think it is infinitesimal because I can’t recall seeing such a consent UX- they ALL involve dark patterns. And if you pair that with “marketer who diligently implements all state & FTC requirements and does timely and accurate processing of removal requests, I think that the 3 relationships left are web app UX testers. I think the world would be a better place without telemarketing or email marketing. Maybe a “one email per year” limit per merchant who you have actually paid money to and not opted out of.
- gbear605 2y ago
  I’m not OP, but my worry is about the false positives. I have real inbound calls and emails getting detected as spam all the time. Luckily my VoIP provider has a spam box I can look in, but at this point I just have to go through them every so often to make sure I’m not missing anything important. If the telecoms can perfectly predict the telemarketers, then I’d love it. But in practice how often is this going to block people I know from calling me? Probably not never, and then we just have to give up on phones as a reliable method of communication.
  - spacebanana7 2y ago
    Exactly. Many people want to be able to receive phone calls from their doctors, airlines and schools. These types of B2C calls are presumably most likely to be marked as spam in the event of false positives.
EasyMark 2y ago
I’ll take my chances. 99%of the people I want to talk to either email/text me first or are already in my contacts list (which I’m not really all that picky about). I’ll accept that failure rate.
- akoboldfrying 2y ago
  Isn't "emailing you first" just kicking the can down the road? What stops spam emails getting through to you? (Besides the exact kind of heuristic filtering you seem to be objecting to, that is.)
  - spacebanana7 2y ago
    Email spam filters have the advantage of being able to see the content of the message, so hopefully they're more accurate. The disadvantage of email is that it doesn't work for urgent use cases, like Disneyland calling the parent of a lost child.
    - red-iron-pine 2y ago
      Disneyland will have a handful of IPs and phone numbers, and I'd bet my hat will have a team aggressively calling any ISP or provider that flags them as spam.
- BlueTemplar 2y ago
  Even better : ignore unknown numbers, real unknown people can leave voicemail. (Hopefully leaving voicemail keeps out of reach of spammers, I guess it's just too expensive for them ?)

connicpu 2y ago

Not sure about all carriers, but on mine I still get a push notification when a call gets blocked blocked by the spam filter.

D-Coder 2y ago

Sounds like a shadow-ban.