Slashdot Mirror


BT Announces Free Service To Screen Nuisance Callers (thestack.com)

An anonymous reader writes: British telco BT is launching a free landline service for UK customers which promises to divert millions of unwanted calls. A dedicated team at BT will monitor calls made to UK numbers, across its network of over 10 million domestic landlines, to identify suspicious patterns, which could help to filter out nuisance callers. The flagged numbers will then be directed to a junk voicemail box. The company has estimated that the voicemail 'net' will catch up to 25 million cold calls every week. It explained that to achieve this success rate, it would be deploying enormous amounts of compute power to monitor and analyse large amounts of data in real-time.

69 comments

  1. BT by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    30 years too late, could have been done at ANY point, but they are no longer making money from such calls so they promote a service AGAINST them to increase their product value.

    Fuck off.

    We got rid of landlines because of this shit.

    Mobiles all have caller blocking.

    Everything past that is your fucking responsibility anyway, to trace these "withheld numbers" and shut them down. But you have ZERO interest in doing so.

    Why is it even possible to fake Caller-ID anyway? You are charging a provider to make the call, you know exactly who it's come from. Even if I can't SEE the number, I should be able to block the fucker with one button. And should have always been able to. And you should spot the pattern in who gets blocked and chuck them off your service.

    You didn't care when it mattered. Now it doesn't matter. Nobody really "needs" a landline any more. Nobody even needs a mobile number. They certainly no longer need to have one they advertise. You can buy front-numbers that just forward to your phone for a pittance. And that's exactly the problem you introduced and refused to combat. And that's exactly why nobody gets my mobile phone number, or my landline.

    And yet, somehow, I still get occasional junk calls. There's only a few sources of such information. My providers and/or the numbering authorities. Who should be combating this shit all the time for me anyway.

    The day my phone rings with too much spam, I enable the "reject calls from unknown callers" options on my phone, or people will only get my WhatsApp or Skype and unless you're on my contact list, then fuck you.

    What stopped you doing this sort of thing even before CallerID existed? Nothing.

    1. Re:BT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So how do you block 'number withheld' calls on your mobile?
      A lot of these callers spoof the number they put into the SS7 system. Every call they make appears to come from a different number.

      some Government services withold their numbers as a matter of policy. Can't have the plebs calling them directly now can we eh?

      Whilst BT are not perfect, I wish others would follow suit. Then those PPI, Microsoft Support and Double Glazing sales calls will get what it coming to them.

    2. Re:BT by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So how do you block 'number withheld' calls on your mobile?

      You don't answer them. If it's important, they'll leave a message.

    3. Re:BT by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem with the way the international telecommunications systems are set up is that no, you dont know where the call originates from, just that a network next to yours is handing it to you - its essentially one massive Tor network where the upstream routing information passed around cannot be trusted. You bill the person than handed it to you, they bill the person that handed it to them and so on.

      This is why Indian call centres can buy blocks of a million phone numbers, hit UK targets all week and not be penalised for it.

      BT cant solve this on their own, because that would require them to be able to force other telecoms companies to solve their own problems with the setup or simply reject 99% of all international calls made.

    4. Re:BT by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      There is a chain of command.

      If BT threaten to blacklist the whole of (say) India, then there would be no more (problem) calls from India pretty darn quick. You can bet the call centre operators have some leverage over the government there.

      People terminating VoIP in the UK can be cut off in seconds, and it takes weeks to get a new line.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    5. Re:BT by stooo · · Score: 2

      NSA is launching a free landline service for worldwide Telco customers which promises to analyze millions of unwanted calls. A dedicated team at NSA will monitor calls made to all numbers, to identify suspicious patterns, which could help to filter out nuisance callers and terrorists....
      It explained that to achieve this success rate, it would be deploying enormous amounts of compute power to monitor and analyse large amounts of data in real-time.

      --
      aaaaaaa
    6. Re:BT by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      Not really, because all that happens then is Indian telecoms companies hand off to South Africa, who hands off to BT. No change then, another origin to deal with.

      Same issue with VOIP, they dont have to terminate in the UK, they can terminate anywhere in the world.

    7. Re:BT by dissy · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Why is it even possible to fake Caller-ID anyway? You are charging a provider to make the call, you know exactly who it's come from.

      Because you have a grave misunderstanding that Caller ID and call routing and billing codes have anything to do with each other, and have unrealistic expectations out of Caller ID.

      Take the example at my work place. We have over 200 phone extensions, but we only have 60 DIDs from the phone company and thus 60 phone numbers.
      For those 60 extensions our system reports the DID in the Caller ID field, so you know the outside phone number to call if you want to reach that extension.

      But what do you suggest for the other 140 phones?

      I argue the incorrect "spoofed" value of our main/reception phone number being sent as Caller ID is hugely more useful than whatever nonsense you are promoting. At least with that data you know it is our company calling, and have a number to call back to at least potentially be transferred to the internal only phone extension you can not possible dial directly from the outside.

      Making the Caller ID value "correct" would mean you couldn't dial it (it's a 4 digit number after all), and it wouldn't tell you who is calling you. Completely worthless.

      It can't be made a DID since the phone has none.
      It shouldn't be left blank or you would still be bitching about it.

      So what exactly would you suggest as a value that isn't "spoofing" but is also your definition of "correct"?

    8. Re: BT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I had an ISDN line, could I get the SS7 AIN and use that to trace the call?

    9. Re:BT by ledow · · Score: 2

      And why can you not list with BT what your DID's can be, and what your internal numbers are? So when your DID is linked to crank calls, they can shut you down or notify you? In fact, the link is ALREADY there. BT know exactly what number you're claiming to be when you ring out, and which one you actually rang from.

      But why should I have to deal with people able to fake YOUR DID (and thus your company's reputation) or a random or invalid DID, without any traceability?

      Why should I only have that DID number as the ID I can block on? Why should someone be able to send me text from a number that doesn't exist? Or even, in some cases, from a NAME that doesn't exist (and which, thus, you cannot respond to or block), as I've seen on UK mobile phone networks?

      I run a school telephony network, I understand DID usage. What I don't get is why that's not restricted (i.e. CANNOT BE FAKED), so that only YOUR numbers can advertise your DID. Wouldn't this stop me making crank calls to your customers and claiming to come from your 0800 number? Because there is ZERO protection for that at the moment, and never has been.

      And that's all moot if you can't block that number. Number blocking has always been a pay-for service with BT historically, unless you wanted to block all numbers (then why have a phone?). It wasn't cheap either.

      And try and report a crank call. Unless it's criminal, BT will NOT go through their records and find the originating lines. They will ask to intercept your line and see if they can't capture a repeat call live, rather than look in their history. Only when the police are involved will they discover the ACTUAL source of messages or phone calls. The user is helpless here.

      (P.S. I once had a bank send 400 fax calls an hour to my parent's residential phone - that had no fax. We reported it to BT. There was no CallerID. Now they KNOW who sent those calls. They have records they could investigate, but they WILL NOT. Until you make a criminal complaint. What they did was - when we could finally get through to them - intercept the line for over an hour, meaning we were without service, and waited for the next fax - but by this time they'd died down.

      It turned out to be a bank internal system on auto-send without retry-protection with a mistyped phone number. But it took DAYS to resolve. DAYS of the phone ringing uncontrollably throughout working hours all day long. You can say "You could have put a fax machine on it", but this was my parent's line, we had no fax machine, and this is BT's job to do something about. They couldn't because they do not access originator information, the CallerID was withheld, and they cannot block a number without it, unless there's a criminal complaint. And this wasn't last century.)

      DID spoofing is fine. My employer does it. But there's NOTHING to say who can or can't spoof, or what they can spoof, or anything protecting users from malicious spoofing.

      I should not be able to get a text message from "801" or "Insurance" (literally, not a contact name, but the originating name of the text), or a phone call from a number that I've blocked (even if they later try to call with number withheld, so employee at company who gets pissed off and wants to spam me can't just use the same line after dialling the number to withhold the CallerID), or a phone call from several thousand spoofed or unregistered numbers over extended periods of time (this should trigger so many alerts, that BT just shut the line down like an ISP would shut down an email spammer).

      None of what I'm suggesting stops your employer advertising their main switchboard number for all outgoing calls.

    10. Re: BT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet lots of people want to talk to you!

    11. Re:BT by MrKrillls · · Score: 1

      We got to the moon how many years ago, and yet it is suggested this is the best we can do.

      --
      Don't step on the baby.
    12. Re:BT by simplypeachy · · Score: 1

      I'd just like to say I am going to save your comment and send it to my Matriarch, who has been plagued by junk calls for some time. Your expletive-laden rant is, and I mean this genuinely, expressing the very same sentiment she feels as a fellow victim. And I'm 100% with you, too.

    13. Re:BT by Fieryphoenix · · Score: 2

      The reason it is possible to spoof caller id is so that you can receive return calls to an incoming number when the outgoing is not that same number. I use it in my case because I have a Google Voice number, which has been my number, originally a landline, since the late 90s. I never have to tell friends what my new number is each time I change phone companies. With spoofing, they see that Google Voice number as the source of the call, and correctly call back "my" number instead of the number du jour.

    14. Re:BT by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2
      Wherever they terminate, the telco can be located and "advised" that they will be unplugged if they don't stop. BT IS the UK, and cutting off anyone will cause enough pain for them to pass the message back up the chain.

      I used to work for a company that terminated VoIP calls in several countries. If anyone used us for cold calling, they could have been unplugged in minutes. It would not have taken hours. It can definitely be done if the company wants to do it.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    15. Re:BT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually you can solve this, and here's how

      When you contract with another telco to deliver calls to your subscribers, the charges include a limited volume of "rejected" calls, calls for which your customers phoned an automated system to complain. Let's say it's 1-in-100 000 calls. That accounts for the occasional accident or just people who get angry and try to make trouble for no reason. Above this you have a ramped surcharge, so that every bogus call quickly starts to cost the telco money. It's not a fine, or anything like that, it's just a cost of doing business.

      For CrapTel, the telecom company of the Republic of Crap, this new charge is a huge problem, their biggest customers are all scammers, in fact the Republic of Crap has determined that almost 80% of their GDP is the proceeds of crime. So, nobody at CrapTel wants to put a stop to it. They decide to send the calls to Venezuela, and let the Venezuelans deal with the charges.

      Now Venezuela is getting hit by these huge surcharges! They're not happy, how did this happen? It's the calls from CrapTel! Right, pass on the charges to CrapTel. Word soon gets around that CrapTel calls will push your BT surcharges through the roof. Nobody wants to touch this toxic shit.

      Soon enough, CrapTel is forced to bill the scammers a lot of money per call, or it will no longer be able to afford to have international phone calls. The scammers give up.

    16. Re:BT by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      You don't seem to get that this is as much a game of "wack-a-mole" as is killing off The Pirate Bay. An Indian call centre doesn't give a toss that its causing third parties problems, so long as they have their leased line then they can gain access to the global telecoms network anywhere in the world - they can make millions of calls a week, so if it takes them a day to find a new route then they don't particularly give a damn in the mean time, its the cost of doing business to them. No one is going to take their leased line off them...

      Even BT doesn't vet companies that connect directly to its network, so its not going to be able to force anyone else to vet who connects to theirs - and the point I am raising is that most telecoms networks cannot vet who connects to them. One call centre can spread its call load out over dozens of intermediaries, all coming into the UK from different foreign telecoms networks. You simply cannot resolve that problem.

    17. Re:BT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a reasonable system (caveat: I understand that the phone system is an unholy combination of old and new technologies and has a storied history, and is thus far from reasonable) I'd expect to be assigned a set of routeable numbers by the phone company and then be permitted only to announce those numbers as caller-id.

      Further, a system designed with this problem in mind would also allow me to announce on caller-id additional digits on the end of an assigned number, so I can announce the direct dial number and the extension as the caller id. The phone company wouldn't be able to guarantee that I'm announcing a correct extension, but it would become possible to identify callers and block them by prefix.

      It's the "trust everyone implicitly" free-for-all that is the problem here. There aren't protections in place in the network to strip invalid caller id, but one can imagine a technical implementation where there would be, just like how my ISP won't allow me to send IP packets with a source address outside of my assigned block.

    18. Re:BT by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Yeah, BT have been milking it for call-blocking revenue. I only have a landline because it's mandatory for internet, it's been unplugged for months because I got sick of cold calls. The govt need to break up the landline cartel, Virgin, BT etc have raised their prices from £10 to £17 per month over the last few years whilst inflation has been near to zero and the costs have fallen not increased.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    19. Re:BT by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I've not poked at the phone system in a *very* long time so I may be in error here but doesn't this insert a potential for false positives and blocking of legitimate calls? It kind of defeats the point if you have to check a second voice mail inbox and filter out the messages. That and, well... There are a lot of people who, like myself, have a deep disliking of talking to a machine unless the call was specifically made in order to talk to a machine.

      Add to this, countless phone numbers, spoofing, and the many, many ways you can (or could) route through phone systems - I kind of question the validity and value of this system. It seems unlikely that this will be done without having a bunch of false positives. Then, per the tracing, various countries have different laws and different providers will have different policies. It's not exactly like the movies where you keep 'em online long enough to get a trace. There may be lots of hops in the way in many of them may not be nearly as cooperative as one might hope.

      Am I missing something?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    20. Re:BT by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I thought the CID standard supported appending an extension to it so that one could route the call back into the appropriate phone - which, as I recall, also could be configured to allow internal roaming? Meaning, you sign into the phone and your extension follows you. When you make an outbound call then it lists the generic number and then appends the appropriate digits so that one can call back that particular extension without needing to go to a menu or human - all done via PBX?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    21. Re:BT by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Mandatory? Hmm... I was just having this conversation yesterday and finished it up today. There's no technical reason why you have to have a phone with DSL. I have had this setup before. It was just DSL, there was no phone number. If I hooked up a phone, I could not make local calls nor could I even reach an operator. I do believe emergency calls would still work - I did not try calling 911 to test that. I did try to call a local number and I did try to contact the operator. No service, at all... It was just DSL, there was nothing more to it.

      In my State, it might be a bit different legally. It's communications over the copper lines so there are some interesting rules associated with it. For example, I can use *any* ISP that's willing to service my area - that includes an ISP on the opposite side of the globe. The owners of the copper must lease the lines at near cost to the provider. I can have multiple lines (and do) and have different ISPs for each one (and have) and the service is pretty much done without interruption as if I switch between them. Because it's DSL there's a best effort repair process that the copper line owners must follow or the PUC gets snippy.

      I have had a provider tell me that this was not possible. It took some wearing down but it is, in fact, possible and must be offered by law in my State. As I was already paying a goodly sum to have the lines upgraded and a CO put in, I went with DSL instead of cable quite specifically for the protections offered by going with copper. When considering the robustness of the network, it made even more sense for me to choose copper. We have some rather exciting storms and it's not uncommon to find the power lines down and that includes the telephone wires. More than once, the copper's been on the ground but I still had perfectly serviceable broadband.

      In fact, it's such a regular occurrence that others, and myself, actually consider our mains electrical connection to be more of a backup than a primary. They will be running fiber, or so I'm told, in the middle of this year. It is unlikely that I'll be switching or will be giving up my copper connection simply because of how robust it is and the protections that are afforded by having it. I'm not even certain that they'd do well with burying the lines - we have frost heaves that make the ground move a whole bunch and fiber's really not that resilient. Not that it matters, they'll be rolling the fiber out on the poles as putting it in the ground would be prohibitively expensive.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    22. Re:BT by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Making the Caller ID value "correct" would mean you couldn't dial it (it's a 4 digit number after all), and it wouldn't tell you who is calling you. Completely worthless.

      It can't be made a DID since the phone has none."

      I can tell you don't know jack fucking shit about CID. My old business extension would show up on CID, be it two, three, or four digits long. Internal routing systems can append that data before going outside, how the fuck do you think CID spoofing works in the first place?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    23. Re: BT by buchanmilne · · Score: 1

      "just like how my ISP won't allow me to send IP packets with a source address outside of my assigned block."

      But, judging the prevalance of DNS- or NTP-amplification attacks, while your ISP may implement uRPF, it clearly isn't widespread enough.

      And I can think of justifications why caller IDs on specific lines may need to differ from the numbers routed to that line (but not for unicast IP).

    24. Re: BT by DedTV · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm. All I got was that BT is cranking up data collection on phone calls and found something good to do with it so it doesn't sound nerfarious.

    25. Re:BT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa, internet badass is back. Be careful or he won't tell you how to plant a rose bush.

    26. Re:BT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use youmail. Blocked numbers that call me get a nice polite message that indicates I don't accept blocked calls, and then hangs up on them (skips voicemail). Repeated blocked number callers get a nasty multi- khz zone or whatever other horrible answer I decide to use that week, and then ditched prior to voicemail. Probably one of the best 3rd party voicemail programs I've ever used, and I read the entire EULA/TOS, and saw nothing sketchy. Highly recommend, lots of fun!

  2. Please oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone shoot that foghorn captain... I'm tired of getting blasted in the ear by their calls.

  3. How soon before by Higaran · · Score: 1

    The start offering companys that pay a fee the ability to be white listed and let their calls trough anyway.

    1. Re:How soon before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most of these calls are from bots overseas using VoIP. They are not local companies trying sell you PIP plans, and other crap.

      Once BT have this working, they will make it a monthly subscription option. When you leave your parents house, you'll learn how BT operate.

    2. Re:How soon before by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      Correctamundo.

      They (BT) did (and do) this with Caller ID. It was free and then, just a few months ago, they silently introduced a monthly charge for it - at a time when spam calls were worse than ever and it's more important than ever to see who's calling.

      They'll run this for free for a time then start charging for them.

      On the plus side, landline phones with call blockers are at long, long last starting to appear.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
  4. Next up by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · · Score: 1

    All private phone conversations will be stored for later use in targeted advertisements and citizen profiles.

    --
    -SR
    1. Re:Next up by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      And they will be considered business records not you private communication so government can mine them for whatever they want without judicial oversight or normal protections on your privacy interfering.

    2. Re:Next up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will be? The correct form for the present tense is 'are'.

    3. Re: Next Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Small mail advertising is the only thing keeping the Post Office in business. It's very unlikely that would kill that golden goose. On top of that tampering with the mail is a Federal offense in the USA.

    4. Re: Next Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That and all the tons of chinese ebay stuff, even if the balance is all the 100% cost to deliver.

    5. Re:Next up by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · · Score: 1

      Your eye for irony is sharp, mate.

      --
      -SR
  5. But who was responsible in the first place? by Harold+Halloway · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well that's really big of you, BT, considering it was you that pretty much single-handedly enabled the whole spam/unwanted/nuisance calling industry.

  6. Side effects by tomalpha · · Score: 2

    "It explained that to achieve this success rate, it would be deploying enormous amounts of compute power to monitor and analyse large amounts of data in real-time."

    How is this different to what the NSA, GCHQ et al were (or are) doing? It's ostensibly for a different purpose, but presumably would have to work on a pretty similar dataset. That is to say: watching who's calling who, in realtime. And do they collect everyone's data for analysis, but only "use" it if you opt-in to the service, or do they only analyse your calling patterns if you opt-in?

    1. Re:Side effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this different to what the NSA, GCHQ et al were (or are) doing? It's ostensibly for a different purpose

      Lol, that's what they want you to think. This is just a front, to make it easier for the GCHQ to monitor everyone.
      If the GCHQ were to announce they were going to roll out a country-wide surveillance net, there would be massive protest.
      Now they convinced people they actually *want* the surveillance.

    2. Re:Side effects by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      BT installed the hardware for GCHQ, paid for with tax money, and is now looking for ways to turn a profit from it. If you are going to screw your customers for GCHQ, you might as well profit from it too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Side effects by MrKrillls · · Score: 1

      At least the NSA has the courtesy to not phone me.

      --
      Don't step on the baby.
  7. Too late and too stupid. by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    let people report a spam call number easily. once you get 15 different people reporting the same number block it system wide. Honestly it will take down the whole spam calling industry within 30 days.

    But knowing how telcos work, they will monetize it and sell to spammers a service to have their number forever whitelisted.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Too late and too stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      BT customer here. I had a call yesterday: Do you hate nuisance calls? pay only 63p ($1) a day and I will block them!

      I replied: Would you like a punch in the face? Pay 63p a day, and I won't come and punch your face in.

      Why is this guy not charged with demanding money with menaces?

    2. Re:Too late and too stupid. by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not exactly that simple. The caller ID can be programmed to send any number on the caller ID. It gets even more complicated with VoIP where the gateway to the telecom can be used by hundreds or more of different users . The number sent may be an active number for another user not associated with the spam calls.

    3. Re:Too late and too stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A few years ago in Spain most if not all spam calls had CLIR set to private so the CID was hidden and were straightforward and painless to block. No CID, no ring.

      Then our politicians decided that spammers must provide a CID. And made it law. Was their infinite wisdom and surely always only thinking on our wellbeing that their victims want to call back for the missed calls and get their spam delivered.

      Now the main telco Movistar offers (and charges 2 euro/month) for the useless service that allows the client to block up to 10 numbers.

      Nevermind that at the moment my local spam block list is over 400 numbers, with new numbers added every week. Now these seems sequential burner numbers that hit 5-10 times each in a couple of weeks period and never again. I've even been forced to start to block whole ranges of 100s or 10000s to keep pace.

    4. Re:Too late and too stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not exactly that simple. The caller ID can be programmed to send any number on the caller ID.

      Actually, no.

      The Caller ID is added by the phone company you rent your line from, before it either forwarding it to the next phone company, or delivering it to the intended recipient themselves.

      At least, that is how normal lines work (land or GSM). If you however pay enough dough to the phone company he might accept you as a "peered" phone company, just pasing the connections on, generally letting you do whatever you please.

      And at that point the "passing thru" phone company is activily aiding-and-abedding to the whole thing, which indeed makes everything "not exactly that simple".

      In other words, its not a technical problem, but just one of greed.

      And by the way: If you think there really is a technical problem than I would suggest you go talk with the (origionating, intermediate and terminating) phone-companies financial department: They know exactly who to bill, regardles of if the phone number is withheld or not. Want to guess how that is possible ? :-)

    5. Re:Too late and too stupid. by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      The caller ID is typically only added by the phone companies on pots lines. Digital lines are programmed by the source. It's how you can have 50 lines behind a PBX display different phone numbers with the majority displaying the company main number. VoIP functions largely the same because the gateway uses the same principle except the VoIPmodem or computer transmits account id numbers as well.

      Yes, the phone companies know who to charge because the pri id number is associated with the calls but that is not passed on to the receiver. That also qualifies as your "paying enough money to be peering " comment except for large bundles of lines it is actually cheaper.

      Just because your mom got charged for all those 1-900 sex calls doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.

    6. Re:Too late and too stupid. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      being a telco they have access to the full call routing information so they CAN do it simple enough.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:Too late and too stupid. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      If the calls originated within their network -yes.

      It still doesn't mean that the numbers you see on the destinations end are actually associated with return path of the calls accurately.

    8. Re:Too late and too stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Digital lines are programmed by the source. It's how you can have 50 lines behind a PBX display different phone numbers with the majority displaying the company main number.

      In the case of a standard PBX it normally just gets a number of landlines and handles (mix-and-matches) them internally, or, in the case of a digital connection the "number of landlines" are multiplexed over a single digital one. But those mutiplexed "lines" all still have their own number attached. If only to be able to bill the PBX owners for the usage of those lines. :-)

      But as I already mentioned, there is a possibility to set up your own "phone company", as long as you can get the real phone company to accept you as a paying customer. And yes, in such a case you can do pretty-much anything (as long as you keep paying your bill and do not piss off the real phone company). Did I already mention that greed was involved ? :-)

      Just because your mom got charged for all those 1-900 sex calls doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.

      Just because you can pick some crap outof thin air doesn't mean you know shit either. :-p

    9. Re:Too late and too stupid. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The phone companies bills the pri for activity and a number reservation. It only makes financial sense to use real lines if there are few lines otherwise digital is the way to go. I have a customer who has six hard lines and the phone system is self contained within the phones. I have another who has 6 lines but uses a pri because of the ease in VoIP and trunking which includes routing calls to remote locations and cellular connections (more than 6 lines company wide but 6 at this location )

      Each channel is not assigned a number on a pri. Each channel can carry any line assigned to the pri as needed. This allows lines to be in use and still ring instead of giving a busy signal. I cannot speak to BT's specific setup but these are standards of the technology and i somehow do not see England being in the dark ages on this.

    10. Re:Too late and too stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The phone companies bills the pri for activity and a number reservation.

      Thanks for at least acknowledging that a line is actually monitored for its activity (which means that the phone company is the first to know if a line does something out of the ordinary). In other words: if it actually works the way you think it does than when someone is spoofing a caller ID the phone company must knowingly keep its eyes (hard) shut -- something you seem to hesitate to acknowledge ...

      The rest is a story that could as easily be told about any multiplexed line. Nothing outof the ordinary. That the lines are multiplexed doesn't mean squat for the data the seperate data streams are carrying.

      And again, but in short: Caller-ID spoofing is not just a "Buy your own PBX, plug it into the phoneline or to the interwebz and off you go" story. You need a cooperating phone company. As long as you cannot (or refuse to) see that this conversation is rather meaningless.

      Next time try to come up with a bit more than an at hominem attack, and a "I work in the field so you guys have to believe anything I claim" stance. Both just make you look childish.

      And a remark: I live in the country to the right of you, just over the pond. I cannot remember anyone ever mentioning having received a spoofed CallerID. Guess why.

  8. Ok, what's the real agenda here? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Because this is maybe the most stupid, most expensive and most error-prone way to set this up.

    You know what's easier, faster and cheaper? Give people the ability to complain. Since you're monitoring already anyway who calls whom and at what time (oops, hope I didn't give away a military secret here...), let people record the time they were called and report this. If enough people complain about some nuisance, block them.

    Unless said nuisance is, of course, not just some kid making phony calls but a company peddling shit, then you should give them the option to give you a cut of their profits to stay in business, making the whole shit moot.

    As usual.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Ok, what's the real agenda here? by Alumoi · · Score: 1

      Since you're monitoring already anyway who calls whom and at what time (oops, hope I didn't give away a military secret here...), let people record the time they were called and report this. If enough people complain about some nuisance, block them.

      Unless said nuisance is, of course, a politician, a charitable organization, a debt collector, your friendly marketing company, your friendly advertiser and so on

      We've tried that but the fuckers lobbied for loopholes and got them.

    2. Re:Ok, what's the real agenda here? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Nothing a conversation with a good old dialup modem can't cure.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Careful of the small print by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't put it past BT (who collaborate in GCHQ illegal domestic surveillance*) from putting a clause in to permit it and third parties from monitoring the calls. It probably sells access to your telephone calls to GCHQ.

    * Parliament never authorized domestic surveillance, a civil servant decided to do it. Him and his crooks are trying now to make it legal with Snoopers Charter.

    1. Re:Careful of the small print by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      It probably sells access to your telephone calls to GCHQ.

      This is the UK. BT probably has to pay GCHQ for access to your phone line in the first place.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  10. Next Up by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

    Postal service announces free service to screen nuisance snailmail. CIA will open all your letters to check them for subversive^Hillegal content

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. Open source solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have been developing a program for several years that blocks junk calls. Its on SourceForge.net. In the Search window, enter: jcblock.

  12. I don't publicize my number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and if I get a call and don't recognize the number, I simply don't answer. If someone really needs to get hold of me, they will send a text message.

  13. Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At this point it should be clear the only robust solution to spam is getting the public to accept weird new forms of money. You could for example pay $0.50 per call to the person on the other end, and the average person who calls as frequently as they are called would break even.

    1. Re:Not enough by dhaen · · Score: 1

      That's a damn good idea AC! The receiver of calls gets a percentage of the call cost.

  14. I have a simpler solution by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

    All they have to do is add a code (*64 or something) that reports the last call as undesired. Then when a very small number of people have reported the last call as undesired anybody who has subscribed to the undesired service doesn't get that calls from that number.

    This would then take the paternalistic element out of the equation such as allowing politicians or charities to have a pass. Pretty much anyone who makes calls people don't want would then be cut off. This would include any sales calls that might meet the terms of "legitimate" such as businesses that have a "relationship" that allows them to make cold calls; calls that people actually don't want. Collection agencies would be cut off. Even crazy girlfriends who keep calling people would be cut off. Numbers could potentially be warned that they are about to cross the threshold.

    Ideally even whole countries or calling services could be included. So if a single service allowed more than a small set number of their subscribers to be cut off they too would just be cut off. This would force them to screen their clients a bit better.

    I don't see any reason any organization should be given a pass. Quite simply if a number of other people think that they should be cut off, I can't be bothered getting a call from them; no matter how legitimate they think their reason for calling me is. If other people didn't want to get a call, neither do I.

    A simple example of this would be when I continuously report the hotmail emails from team hotmail as spam. They of course give themselves a pass. I checked with my friends and they were all "Hey, I report those too in the hopes that they would go away." There are all kinds of people who think that they are so very important, things such as charities and politicians, but the reality is that I and most other people want them out of their lives. If you do want to get these calls then you could not subscribe to the service.

  15. They charge you for caller-id by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    arseholes

  16. Increase the charge to caller by Peter+(Professor)+Fo · · Score: 1

    Suppose 10 people press 1-8-7-6 (say) to report a call as (say) robot or (say) fraudulent tech support and so on. Now the charge rate is doubled. Telco networks are superlative at charging. The more people complain the more the charge goes up. WIN-WIN. Simple.

  17. Bounty For Found by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    They could get a hoard of people listening in who would be paid for every sales call, or charity call or pervert call. With enough paid hunters the negative calls could quickly vanish.

  18. A simple way to implement this by gnaarly · · Score: 1

    If you receive an unwanted cold call, you dial a particular number after it, which isn't processed as a regular call, but flags the number. If the counter goes high enough, things happen.

  19. Amazing what a little competition can do by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    For decades, the Telcos did nothing about unwanted calls. If anything, they encouraged it because they were able to often charge by the minute. All of this was possible because there was absolutely no competition. You signed up with Ma Bell, or you didn't get phone service. It literally took an act of Congress to force them to let you buy your own phone instead of leasing one of the two models (standard or trimline) offered by the Phone Company.

    Nowadays, the old-fashioned Telcos are starting to feel the pressure of competition. People are ditching land lines in droves. They can actually choose a carrier now.

    Guess what! Suddenly the Telcos are starting to remember they they have living, breathing, unhappy customers. FINALLY they are starting to innovate. Unfortunately, it's a bit too late.