Slashdot Mirror


Americans Got 26.3 Billion Robocalls Last Year, Up 46 Percent From 2017 (washingtonpost.com)

Americans are now getting so many robo-calls on a regular basis that many are simply choosing not to answer the phone altogether. From a report: That's one big takeaway from a report [PDF] released Tuesday by Hiya, a Seattle-based spam-monitoring service that analyzed activity from 450,000 users of its app to determine the scope of unwanted robo-calling -- and how phone users react when they receive an automated call. Consistent with other analyses, Hiya's report found that the number of robo-calls is on the rise. Roughly 26.3 billion robo-calls were placed to U.S. phone numbers last year, Hiya said, up from 18 billion in 2017. One report last year projected that as many as half of all cellphone calls in 2019 could be spam.

While many businesses have legitimate purposes for using robo-calls -- think package delivery services, home maintenance technicians and banks -- unwanted robo-calls represent a growing challenge for regulators and telecom companies. In its analysis of a month's worth of calling data, Hiya found that each of its app users reported an average of 10 unwanted robo-calls. Many more incoming calls, about 60 on average, were from unrecognized numbers or numbers not linked to a person in the recipient's address book.

162 comments

  1. Forget Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Run on a campaign of executing robocallers and spam mailers and you'll get a thousand times the voters.

    1. Re:Forget Net Neutrality by HiThere · · Score: 2

      While that's malfeasance and corruption, it's not treason. The US constitution specifically defines what treason is, and that's not it. It's only two or three major felonies.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:Forget Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would support the torture and execution of all telemarketers, spammers and scammers.

      A long time ago, I used to get a telemarketing call perhaps onces every few months. No big deal, I just hung up on them. Then I started getting them about every month. No big deal, I just blocked them. Now I get them every day from spoofed numbers so I am forced to set my phone to block all numbers that aren't in my contact list. If a legit business wants to call me for anything, they have to provide me with the specific number that will show up on caller ID so I can add it to my contacts or they won't be able to get through.

    3. Re: Forget Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      See? One vote already. Check it out politicians!

    4. Re:Forget Net Neutrality by lgw · · Score: 1, Troll

      Run on a campaign of executing robocallers and spam mailers and you'll get a thousand times the voters.

      Politicians who say "we need more regulation" are usually full of shit. Get rid of robocalls, and I'll take you seriously.

      Politicians who say "we need smaller government" are usually full of shit. Get rid of the TSA, and I'll take you seriously.

      How did we end up with a government where no one on either side ever fixes anything?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Forget Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Big Money Donors shape Every Law and Policy. Let us Kill the Citizens United Decision. Get billionaires out of our lives and government!!

    6. Re:Forget Net Neutrality by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Informative

      How did we end up with a government where no one on either side ever fixes anything?

      You have a system where a large percentage of the rulers are psychopaths or sociopaths and they crave power which has to be given to them by voters and to get this they have to promise voters things that they never intend to deliver, and you expect them to get rid of things that they can dangle in front of voters, like stopping robocalls? The politically-desirable outcome is media coverage, not solutions to real problems.

      It's a well-known secret that both parties have an agreement to slowly raise the minimum wage below the rate of inflation but to have a big media shit-storm every time to socially signal to "their" voters that they're being represented. The whole thing might be the biggest con in history.

      I'm glad to have found a good call blocker that works on Pie; had to update my voicemail to say, "sorry, you're not on my contacts list." Government didn't solve this problem for me, nor did I ever expect that it would. Some dude called Vlad Lee did and he has a Play Store account.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    7. Re:Forget Net Neutrality by lgw · · Score: 1

      It's a well-known secret that both parties have an agreement to slowly raise the minimum wage below the rate of inflation but to have a big media shit-storm every time to socially signal to "their" voters that they're being represented. The whole thing might be the biggest con in history.

      I dunno, the fake debate over immigration is a pretty good con job too. As are politicians pretending that they care about non-financial issues like abortion or gay marriage, to distract voters from corruption.

      But there was a time when politicians had to deliver something occasionally. I guess that has faded from living memory.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:Forget Net Neutrality by jythie · · Score: 2

      When fixing things gets you votes, then things will get fixed.

    9. Re:Forget Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FCC and FTC board chairs are getting kick backs from the robocallers.

      It's the RepubTrumpian way.

    10. Re:Forget Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why fix things when you can just be a tool for your largest campaign contributors? Fixing things is hard, voting along with all the other paid-for candidates is easy.

    11. Re:Forget Net Neutrality by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity, what makes the US so vulnerable to this? I live outside the US and have never had an unsolicited call on my landline. My neighbours occasionally get scam Indian tech-support calls, but no robocalls either. Why is it such a big thing in the US specifically?

    12. Re:Forget Net Neutrality by mjwx · · Score: 1

      It's a well-known secret that both parties have an agreement to slowly raise the minimum wage below the rate of inflation but to have a big media shit-storm every time to socially signal to "their" voters that they're being represented. The whole thing might be the biggest con in history.

      I've got to love the notion that government is extremely incompetent and wasteful up until the point of a conspiracy theory where they become the single most effective and efficient organisation in the world.

      I tend to disbelieve conspiracy theories because I've worked in government. There is no way they'd be able to do something that devious in secret. Basically I employ Hanlon's razor, Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

      Claiming the government is secretly devious whilst managing to keep the traps of 600 odd scocio/psychopaths who love self aggrandising shut every and changing that 600 every 4 years is one step above saying "I'm not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens".

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    13. Re:Forget Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because most Americans are materialistic, shallow, greedy and would step over their own mothers for a dollar. That applies to the people, the businesses (in this case, telecoms) and the government. They all see this as being OK and "What's the big deal? Just ignore the annoyance of constant calls from spammers/scammers." It's the same apologist attitude that Americans have towards spyware, data harvesting, perpetual product "updates" and nickle and dime business models. It's all quite disgusting.

      I have also lived in Europe and Asia and never seen such disgusting lack of ethics and altruism as in the USA. That's why once my job contract is done here, I'm moving back to Europe.

  2. Baloney by Major+Blud · · Score: 4, Insightful

    unwanted robo-calls represent a growing challenge for regulators and telecom companies

    Hardly.....isn't it fully within the capabilities of the telecom companies to stop third-party caller ID spoofing?

    --
    If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    1. Re:Baloney by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is, and it would break every VOIP system out there which can set its own Caller ID.

      Double edge swords cut both ways.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Baloney by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Sure, it's within their powers.

      They only need to work out entirely new protocols for routing calls between themselves, wait for equipment manufacturers to release new products, and either upgrade or replace all their existing exchange equipment. Easy peasy!

      The current protocols are essentially based on the honor system, and these robocallers have no honor.

    3. Re:Baloney by olsmeister · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm OK with that.

    4. Re: Baloney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None. Itâ(TM)s in the disclaimer you hear as soon as you pick up the phone. This caller has no honor. It only began its life less than a year ago so maybe you can forgive it

    5. Re:Baloney by agent_blue · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not really. The way Caller ID was originally implemented, the Caller ID information is transmitted along with the call as a set of ultrasonic tones, therefore any caller and set their caller-id number to whatever they want. This is useful if you are calling from an office that gets routed through a local switchboard.

      Some kind of standard is being worked on, but it is a hard problem to implement with the current telepohny network was it exists today

      see https://datatracker.ietf.org/w...

    6. Re:Baloney by AndyG314 · · Score: 2

      It is, and it would break every VOIP system out there which can set its own Caller ID.

      Something has to be done about this however. When >50% of calls are robots or hang ups the system is already broken.

      --
      If it's dead, you killed it.
    7. Re:Baloney by olsmeister · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, the assholes are the robocallers. You may call this self-defense if it makes you feel any better.

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

      Rahming the tele-calls up biz-nazi media entrepots would be just:

      1)Ruthlessly/lawlessly strip them bare of all monies and property
      2) flog them 'round-the-streets
      3) decimate the survivors
      4) Sell wives and daughters to Saudi whore-houses

      Then the merchandizing phones will fall silent.

    9. Re:Baloney by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

      ITSPs know the score. If they allow CID/CNAME spoofing (and many dont), they know what it will be used for.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    10. Re:Baloney by HiThere · · Score: 2

      But should a VOIP system be able to set its own caller ID? That's a clear invitation to fraud. Perhaps the system needs to be modified to allow setting a "call back" ID while not allowing the caller ID to be hidden.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    11. Re:Baloney by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The harder problem is that those charged with implementing an improved system have minimal reason to design a system that the end-user would consider improved. Fix that and over time the system would repair itself. Don't fix that, and no change is going to make things better.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    12. Re:Baloney by SirAstral · · Score: 1

      Yes, they can resolve them, the problem is that is not profitable to do that.

      To those complaining about the VOIP and Other Telephony systems. The call was made, means it can be traced. The solution is simple, whether you call it the "honor system" or not the company generating the calls can easily be discovered because its their system and they control the tech running across their systems. They can trace the parts that the telephone company cannot. It works just like if a neighbor borrowed your car to rob a bank. The police will pay you a visit and find out who you loaned your car to. There is a chain of responsibility and the jackass at the end of it is the culprit, people are just too lazy to do the work until someone important gets threatened then they start finding people damn fast.

      The problem is the same problem it has always been, people not understanding anything.

    13. Re:Baloney by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      It is, and it would break every VOIP system out there which can set its own Caller ID.

      Double edge swords cut both ways.

      I simply don't answer the phone. If it is for some screwed up reason legal and desirable to lie about who you are, it's a morally bankrupt system.

      Good - they can either fix their fraudulent systems, or join the party.

      Spam rules the world, it would appear.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    14. Re:Baloney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that your statement is complete BS.
      Bush allowed the robos to gain access to you # -- remember the expired "Do No Call List?"
      Yup - that's the one set up by Bushy and when it expired, guess who got the phone #s...?
      Bush != good human being.

      CAP === 'corporal'

    15. Re:Baloney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. But they've got little incentive to act because doing so would reduce their revenue and the consumer's only alternative is to not use the phone.

      (And old people wonder why kids never make phone calls anymore)

      This is something the FCC can and should tackle, but Pai is an industry stooge and will never take action that the carriers deem inconvenient. The man just rolls over and does whatever they want.

      I don't like heavy handed regulation or bad policy, but this is what happens when there is just no regulation.

    16. Re:Baloney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is, and it would break every VOIP system out there which can set its own Caller ID.

      No it wouldn't. The phone company knows what numbers should be coming from your system to their PBX. If you try to send out a caller ID for a number you don't have, IT GETS DROPPED. That alone solves 99% of the domestic abuse of caller ID, with virtually no effort. Anyone who has a legitimate reason to spoof a number would have a specific exemption, but the people who actually have a legitimate reason to spoof a number they don't own is vanishingly small.

      The problem is that most of those robo-calls are not US based, so nothing you do here in the US really effects the problem.

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

      Bullshit. Prove it. Links. Give us the links. ('cause i can't find any.)

      Fucking people on fucking internet can say anything they fucking want, it's time to start demanding proof for every fucking little statement.

    18. Re:Baloney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " If it is for some screwed up reason legal and desirable to lie about who you are, it's a morally bankrupt system. "

      So you mean the entire Internet?

    19. Re:Baloney by ljw1004 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hardly.....isn't it fully within the capabilities of the telecom companies to stop third-party caller ID spoofing?

      How would that even help?

      I get a phone call. I don't know if the number is from my dentist, my bank, my credit card, my doctor, my travel agent, my insurer, my mortgage lender, my employer, my employer's IT/security department, my dry-cleaner, a seller on ebay. Many of these legitimate calls are from out of state. I don't have their numbers in my contact list.

      What difference would it make if they were forbidden from using caller-ID-spoofing? I'd still see an unrecognized number. I'd still have to answer it in case it's a message from one of these institutions.

    20. Re:Baloney by cordovaCon83 · · Score: 1

      Considering probably 95% of my communications happen over some method other than telephone, I am dangerously close to not needing a telephone number at all. It may even approach the point where I can save myself $30 a month by not paying for telephone service on my smartphone. If Americans can save a dollar, they will. The telephone companies need to realize that they need to adapt or die.

    21. Re:Baloney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're still an asshole who flaunts their ignorance as a badge of honor. Grow up, snowflake.

    22. Re:Baloney by lgw · · Score: 1

      Hardly.....isn't it fully within the capabilities of the telecom companies to stop third-party caller ID spoofing?

      T-Mobile has done an impressive job with just their corner of the network. A year or so ago Spoofed IDs started showing up as "Scam Likely". Now my phone doesn't even ring for those calls.

      But every provider needs to cooperate in confirming that calls originate from the claimed prefix. There is no problem with PBXs here, VOIP or otherwise.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    23. Re:Baloney by lgw · · Score: 1

      No, they don't. There's simply no need to allow a PBX to spoof a prefix other than the one assigned (the last few digits, fine, but that's not the problem).

      And if equipment and protocols need to change? Fucking do it. Sooner started, sooner fixed.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    24. Re:Baloney by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      User-settable and user-changeable Caller ID is the problem. Just require that for all numbers, personal and business, the Caller ID would be frozen when the line is initially provisioned, and would require a bureaucratic procedure to change.

    25. Re:Baloney by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      I long ago made the decision to send my landline (mostly kept to provide a primary connection for my alarm system) straight to an answering machine. Leave a message and I'll get back to you.

      I whitelist my cell phone. If you're in my contact list my phone rings, else you go to voicemail. Leave a message and I'll get back to you.

      The problem with VOIP is simple. Change the standard so that number spoofing isn't necessary.

      It should be straight out illegal to spoof a caller ID number. Give the user a choice. Tell your real number or flag the ID as private. You can have anonymity and I can refuse your call if you chose not to tell me who you are. That way anonymous whistleblowers and such can hide their identity and everyone else can either tell who they are or expect to be ignored.

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

      No, the assholes are the robocallers. You may call this self-defense if it makes you feel any better.

      It's the same sort of self-defense that would argue for banning automobiles because automobiles kill lots of people and you prefer to walk anyway.

    27. Re:Baloney by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      Easy fix. If the number is from overseas it's a fake and gets dropped.

      This breaks your VOIP to your foreign call center? Cry me a river. Get a U.S. exchange. Put your call center in country. I have no sympathy for you.

    28. Re:Baloney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They've abused the system. We are not the assholes.

    29. Re:Baloney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I can't have all my direct inward dial lines use the same outgoing CallerID number so I only have to pay the e911 fee on one line instead of all of them? Are you going to pay that extra $1.50/line/month for me?

    30. Re:Baloney by Holi · · Score: 2

      What do you mean expired? The Do Not Call list is not expired, It's ineffective, but it is still in effect.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    31. Re:Baloney by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      Not being in you contact list is something you can fix. It's what I do. If they're not on my list my phone goes direct to voicemail. They can leave a message. If it's from someone I do business with and expect to talk to again I add it to my contacts. It take literally 30 seconds. Bonus: that means when they call I know who they are before I pick up.

      If they won't leave a message that's on them. I've never had a legitimate business contact refuse to leave a message.

    32. Re:Baloney by Holi · · Score: 2

      >The problem is that most of those robo-calls are not US based, so nothing you do here in the US really effects the problem.

      I disagree, go after the companies that provide the VOIP to POTS interface. They know who their customers are, they know if they have been abusing the system. If you want access to our phone system, you have to follow the rules, Move enforcement to the places it can work and oversee it with an iron fist. If you are acting as a gateway, you have a responsibility.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    33. Re:Baloney by Holi · · Score: 2

      Because robo-calls are illegal, and if you could identify the companies responsible you or law enforcement could go after them. Having the ability to change your number makes it exponentially harder to track down the origin of the call.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    34. Re:Baloney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. He means Silence Dogood, Caelia Shortface, Martha Careful, Busy Body, Anthony Afterwit, Alice Addertongue, Richard Saunders, Polly Baker, Benevolus, and any other pseudonyms under which Benjamin Franklin penned indictments of authorities.

    35. Re:Baloney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if it wasn't, you could block it.

    36. Re:Baloney by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      It is, and it would break every VOIP system out there which can set its own Caller ID.

      Double edge swords cut both ways.

      Not if they implemented a reply-to address, like SMTP. That would let you have both useful spoofing for company PBXs and the like, while still having an identification of the originating number.

    37. Re:Baloney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the incentive to do so?

    38. Re:Baloney by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 2

      There's no reason it has to end VOIP systems. We'd just need a way for a VOIP system to register the IP address with the phone company when it makes the phone call and some sort of authentication to say, "Yes, I'm me, so let my phone number appear for people who receive this call." It just has to be built into the protocol.

    39. Re:Baloney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >snowflake

      Let me tell you why I consider you and your argument to be absolute noise...

    40. Re:Baloney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it's to stop every automobile out there from calling itself an emergency vehicle-- which is actually illegal in most states.

      Your analogy is a classic example of inflammatory hyperbole, and I hold you partially responsible for the downfall of civilization.

    41. Re:Baloney by magarity · · Score: 1

      It is, and it would break every VOIP system out there which can set its own Caller ID.

      Double edge swords cut both ways.

      Why didn't IPv6 fix this?? :(

    42. Re:Baloney by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      or just get a new number.

      There are no "new numbers". Any "new number" you get is likely to have been owned previously by a teenager who gave it to all his friends and entered it on thousands of websites, etc. It's even likely, these days, that the reason the number is available is because the previous user got so tired of crap calls that HE decided to "get a new number". With number portability, even changing carriers doesn't require a number change.

      It's like buying used underwear because the ones you have are dirty.

      By the way, non-spoofable CID doesn't solve the problem of robo-calls, it just makes identifying the source easier. When the source is outside the US, then US law is going to have a hard time doing anything about them, and US carriers won't have any way to.

    43. Re:Baloney by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      Not being in you contact list is something you can fix. It's what I do. If they're not on my list my phone goes direct to voicemail. They can leave a message. If it's from someone I do business with and expect to talk to again I add it to my contacts. It take literally 30 seconds. Bonus: that means when they call I know who they are before I pick up. If they won't leave a message that's on them. I've never had a legitimate business contact refuse to leave a message.

      I'm still not getting it. Let's suppose "no-callerID-spoofing" goes through. In that future, when you refinance your mortgage then you'll get one call from Bill in accounting, another from Jill in brokereage, another from Dill in risk assessment, and they'll all have different numbers (rather than having been spoofed to look like they all just come from the main central InsuranceCo number). So for the first month or two you'll be playing each of your voicemails to check if it came from someone in the new business you did. Still 90% of those voicemails will be from robocallers.

      Or you get a call from your kid's school. Is it your teacher calling? the school nurse? the counsellor? the deputy head? there's no way you're going to anticipate all those numbers. Some of them might be real emergencies that you should respond to immediately, rather than leaving to voicemail.

      In addition to still having to listen to your voicemails, you've also got the extra administrative burden of entering each of those numbers into your contact list.

      (not that it would even help me... I almost never speak live to business when they call me; I always call back at my convenience. So that work of adding into the contact list wouldn't even buy anything. But I understand it would buy something for people who do want to respond to businesses live).

    44. Re:Baloney by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the system needs to be modified to allow setting a "call back" ID while not allowing the caller ID to be hidden.

      If a number shows up in caller ID that will be the number people call back, even if you are EXPLICIT in your messages that they should call you at some other number. I have a second line at work that I can use so I don't tie up the main published office line. I have lost count of the number of times someone has tried calling me on that line (which usually has the ringer turned off because it is/was a modem line) instead of the number they already have for me in their contact list. They get really pissed when I ask them how they got that number and why they are calling it.

      Having an invisible "call back ID" will just mean more of the same.

      There are valid reasons to allow caller ID to show another number, and valid reasons for it to be hide-able. Any solution to this problem needs to take those concerns seriously, and not just wave them away.

    45. Re:Baloney by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      Because robo-calls are illegal, and if you could identify the companies responsible you or law enforcement could go after them. Having the ability to change your number makes it exponentially harder to track down the origin of the call.

      I don't think I follow that...

      The telcos already know the companies responsible for each call, but I guess they're not able to classify whether each call is spam or not. Also it's not in their interests to pursue damages.

      We end-users are already able to more-or-less the companies responsible for each robocall, because each robocall is selling us something, and we can just see what they're trying to sell us. But perhaps this chain of reasoning isn't robust enough for a lawsuit.

      What you're describing is that robocalls will be stopped by empowering end-users to take it upon themselves to launch class-action lawsuits. Except that lawsuits require us to show we've suffered damages, and I think it'd be hard to argue that robocalls have much monetary damage.

      What you said is that robocalls are *illegal*. That's a different matter, one for the government to prosecute. I can't see any mechanism by which "end-users knowing the originator of the robocall" would contribute to either (1) police or state prosecutors being more able to assess which robocall companies to pursue, (2) them being more incentivized to pursue them.

      Maybe a different approach is to prevent caller-id-spoofing and then pass a new law saying "the damage caused by each spam call is deemed to be $100". That'd allow class-action-lawsuits to go ahead. But I bet this kind of law wouldn't be legal...

    46. Re:Baloney by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "You're okay with breaking something you don't personally use. "

      If they have to impose an external cost 26 billion times a year, that's not a viable business to be concerned about.

    47. Re:Baloney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they can't use caller ID spoofing, the same company won't be able to call me five times a day with a different fake phone number like they do now. If they have to show an actual caller ID, I could just block the number. Roughly 90% of all the calls I receive are the same robo-spam about credit card services. The spam company very likely does not actually have an infinite number of phone lines so I could eventually quiet it down by blacklisting, while the dog groomer and landscaper will still get through.

    48. Re:Baloney by radarskiy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "a way for a VOIP system to register the IP address with the phone company when it makes the phone call "

      The phone company knows who to bill when they complete a phone call. Just impose a near zero call completion fee and hold the phone company liable if they can't figure out who to bill it to upstream.

      On average, most callers will net close to 0. In bulk, the net calls could be rounded down to the nearest 1,000 to avoid the effort of chasing the small fry. All that's left are the big fish, and the phone companies have their incentive to keep track of who they are.

    49. Re:Baloney by HiThere · · Score: 1

      If it's a part of an agreed standard, there can be a standard "quick key" to do the callback. That gets around, or at least alleviates, that problem.

      There isn't one, because the system designers have not motive to build one, not because it's difficult.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    50. Re:Baloney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely. But they've got little incentive to act because doing so would reduce their revenue and the consumer's only alternative is to not use the phone.

      (And old people wonder why kids never make phone calls anymore)

      This is something the FCC can and should tackle, but Pai is an industry stooge and will never take action that the carriers deem inconvenient. The man just rolls over and does whatever they want.

      I don't like heavy handed regulation or bad policy, but this is what happens when there is just no regulation.

      I have been getting robocalls since before the Pai days at the FCC. You know, when the Dumbo-crats ran everything into the ground !

    51. Re:Baloney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boo hoo. Anyone relying on spoofing a number SHOULD be broken. They can either fix it or go bankrupt - I really don't care which.

    52. Re:Baloney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't get to "show another number" on your car's license plate. I'm sure that would be convenient, but we just don't permit it. If you're calling from your real number, the recipient will get that number as a callback. If you're not, tough shit. Find another way - the rest of us shouldn't have to put up with all this crap to coddle a few tiresome fools and spammers.

    53. Re:Baloney by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      If you're calling from your real number, the recipient will get that number as a callback.

      Define "real number". The number I call people from on the second line is a real number. It's the WRONG NUMBER to call back. I thought that point was obvious. For many reasons, the number attached to a line may not be the right one to call back to, and having no number is sometimes the correct option.

      Find another way - the rest of us shouldn't have to put up with all this crap

      In other words, your personal convenience is more important than any reason someone else has to hide their CID. Got it. Anonymous cowards are often selfish like that.

    54. Re:Baloney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question is whether allowing VoIP system to set their own Caller ID is OK.
      In Japan, it is illegal. The VoIP businesses here (including my own) work around it.
      The lazy ones moan and groan, but the serious ones just deal with it. We get almost
      no spam calls as a result - maybe 1 a week.

    55. Re:Baloney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. The companies that use pass through CID want it for one of two reasons.

      1 - they want to be able to just route any call through any circuit and have it look
      the same. This is why email is bust as well. Laziness on the part of the VoIP providers.
      It needs to be stopped or strictly controlled.
      2- They are crooks who want to spam. These guys need to be shut down.Period.

    56. Re:Baloney by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      The way Caller ID was originally implemented, the Caller ID information is transmitted along with the call as a set of ultrasonic tones,

      Uh, no. The way it was originally implemented, and is still done for landline phones, is as standard Bell 212 tones -- just like an old modem. Those are sent between the first and second ring. That's why if you answer the phone as soon as it rings the first time you will lose CID info.

      It cannot be ultrasonic because you'd lose CID if you ever get DSL, which is "ultrasonic" (for a nonstandard definition of ultrasonic).

    57. Re: Baloney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct: Bellcore TR-TSY-00030 and -00031.

    58. Re:Baloney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...All that's left are the big fish, and the phone companies have their incentive to keep track of who they are.

      The point isn't so much that you've given a valid solution. It's that we see no evidence that the phone companies are even _looking_ for a solution.

      Here is another valid solution that any VOIP company could probably implement. probably within a month or so. Calls they can certify come from someone on your whitelist pass through. Most other VOIP calls that originate with their service that they can certify pass through, though if one connection starts making too many, a human investigates and possibly disconnects them. Everything from outside that isn't on the white list gets halted by the are you human filter?

      For the people who don't like dealing with the are you human filter, well perhaps they should ask their phone company to implement similar measures and coordinate.

    59. Re: Baloney by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like your personal convenience is worth more than the desires of hundreds of millions of people. If you had half a brain you would just turn off the ringer on that second phone and change the voicemail to say "this phone number is not being monitored, please call me back at the number I gave you". But no, everyone else has to suffer because you're lazy or incompetent.

    60. Re:Baloney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real number: One the calling party owns.

    61. Re:Baloney by Ami+Ganguli · · Score: 1

      I get way too many spam calls for this to work. It takes time to listen to voicemail.

      I just turn my ringer off, and disable my voicemail. People who really know me understand that I can be reached through email or text message.

      Unfortunately a lot of companies aren't set up for this. They demand a phone number and try to call me. If it's important and I'm expecting a call, I might turn on my ringer temporarily. Mostly I just let them ring, though.

      --
      It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
    62. Re: Baloney by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like your personal convenience is worth more than the desires of hundreds of millions of people.

      Were the desires of "hundreds of millions of people" to be not to get calls from me with fake caller ID, then you'd be right. But since I'm not calling millions of people with fake caller ID, you are not.

      If you had half a brain you would just turn off the ringer on that second phone and change the voicemail to say "this phone number is not being monitored, please call me back at the number I gave you".

      If you weren't a flaming asshole you might think for a minute that maybe a MODEM line doesn't have voice mail? And that just turning off the ringer (which I do, moron) doesn't stop people from calling a number that will never get to me, nor can it be answered by someone else in the room who doesn't have access to that line. Since you took an insulting tack, I did the same in response. Helped a lot, didn't it?

      But no, everyone else has to suffer

      The number of people who would suffer if the second line I use carried the caller ID of the main office line is exactly and precisely ZERO. Shut the hell up if you don't know what you are talking about.

    63. Re:Baloney by strikethree · · Score: 1

      No it wouldn't. The company that is legitimately setting its own caller-id owns all of the numbers that it is setting its caller ID to. You are equating

      stop third-party caller ID spoofing?

      with every phone must report its own number unambiguously.

      Oh, and if you contract with a third party service for some functions, then you just submit that paperwork to the telco and they can add a number you do not own to a number that you can use as part of presenting your caller id information.

      Seriously. This shit is NOT hard to figure out. The only thing making it difficult is greed and desire.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    64. Re: Baloney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except there are calls created over IP (VOIP) that donâ(TM)t use physical phone lines until they get near(?) your neighborhood telco endpoint. Dozens of companies, both good and spam might use the same endpoint.

  3. Raise your hand if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    You thought the Drumpf administration was going to solve a real problem like this under Ajit Pai. Now, look around the room. Those people with their hands raised are fucking morons. You may put them down now.

    1. Re:Raise your hand if by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      This isn't a problem for the FCC to fix. it's not that Ajit Pai is the problem. Or that it's a Republican problem. The FCC has always been the poster boy for regulatory capture. Before it was the telcoms it was the networks. The next FCC head will just be beholden to another industry, be it big data, steaming companies or the MPAA

      This is a problem that needs to be fixed in law, by congress. Good luck with that. They write exemptions for themselves and anyone who throws money at them.

    2. Re:Raise your hand if by MNNorske · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Caller ID issues have just been growing for years. This is not a "this administration" or "that administration" issue. It's a fundamental flaw in the way the caller ID protocol was bootstrapped onto the existing landline networks. Landline networks were harder to spoof because phone numbers were hard tied to geographical regions and if you spoofed stuff on a landline chances were the landline would get cut off or if you were a provider you would lose access to the network.

      Then along comes number portability which gave consumers the right to move their landline phone number to a cell carrier or take it from one carrier to another. And, at the same time the growth of VOIP and suddenly there was no way to say provider X actually does have that number on their network. Because the numbers can bounce all over the place now in terms of ownership and whether they are landline, VOIP, or cellular.

      Then VOIP hardware became cheap and easy to implement. Et voila! The perfect storm. This has been building to this point for at least two decades. Now anyone can pass a law saying they have to stop it, but the telecom companies have to come up with a solution of how to stop it that all of them can implement before that will do any good. It sounds like there are some good proposals out there, but for them to work a lot of hardware will have to be replaced/installed and it will take a while.

      Taking aim at one administration or another in this case is just not helpful and doing so in such a childish way is not helpful. If you want people to agree that something needs to get fixed on something that should arguably not be political then don't turn it into a political mudslinging contest.

    3. Re:Raise your hand if by strikethree · · Score: 1

      You are noise. Unwanted noise. Shut the fuck up.

      Great, Trump sucks. What do you want? A medal?

      Your words have no use other than to stir shit up. We don't need assholes like you always stuck in a hatred loop.

      As much as Trump sucks, I bet if someone found one good thing about Trump (unlikely, but work with me here), you would be utterly incapable of acknowledging it. That is how we know you are worthless shit. Hating is boring. Go away child.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  4. How by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does this report no that 60 calls were numbers not in my address book? How do they have access to my address book and all my inbound calls and are able to make that correlation?

  5. Telcos don't care by orev · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Telcos have 0 incentive to resolve this issue. They get paid every time a call traverses their lines, and they desperately want the wireline phone system to die so they can get out of regulatory obligations, maintenance costs, and union obligations. The only chance they have to allow this to happen is if customers get so annoyed with the service that they cancel, and when enough people cancel they can make the case to shut it down.

    1. Re:Telcos don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean Telcos have a NEGATIVE incentive to resolve this issue since it would eliminate a revenue stream.

    2. Re:Telcos don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? It seems like while data is limited these days virtually ever phone plan available offers unlimited voice calling. Very few people can actually rack up and sort of bill by voice calling today.

    3. Re:Telcos don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, but what about robocalls on Wireless devices?

  6. Challenge accepted! by fafalone · · Score: 1

    a growing challenge for regulators and telecom companies

    And that challenge is: How to placate the plebs without actually taking any action that would jeopardize the fortune they make off of allowing these abusive calls.
    I'm sure Ajit Pai and his masters will feed us something good!

    1. Re:Challenge accepted! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      The biggest thing that needs to be done is stopping Caller ID Spoofing.
      If you have a legitimate reason to spoof your caller ID, say your a doctors office, and your automated appointment reminder call should seem like it is from your doctors office, and the number would bring you to the receptionist desk. Then the company would need to register that change with their telecom, and have them make sure the return number will go to a valid return number for that company.

      I think having the Robo-callers forced to deal with call backs of angry people would make it more expensive for them to operate, and insure that it isn't just some get quick rich scheme.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Challenge accepted! by SteveSgt · · Score: 1

      Why not require the Telcos to permit any number to operate as a "premium-rate telephone number" (what we in the USA call a "900 number")?

      Government agencies would be automatically whitelisted, and you could upload your own whitelist of people who would not be charged. You could set your own price--whether it's a one-time or a by-minute charge--the telco would get their profitable cut, and you would be credited the rest. But the default would be that a caller would have to be able to pay on their phone bill if it's a call handled through the telco exchanges, or would have to supply billing information if they came-in through VoIP.

      Of course, this is the kind of thing would so decimate the telemarketing industry that they would spend tremendously on lobbyists for their survival.

    3. Re:Challenge accepted! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Of course, this is the kind of thing would so decimate the telemarketing industry

      No, it would just remain overseas where a lot of it already originates.

      What would be decimated is the idea that someone can call you to tell you something important without being charged an arm and a leg, an unpredictable amount to boot. Like your child's teacher calling from his personal cell phone to talk about a problem. Or your neighbor calling to tell you that your water line is broken and your front lawn is flooding.

      If you can predict the phone numbers of everyone who might have a valid reason to call you so you can whitelist them all, you've got a very small circle of life.

      Imaging Gramma's reaction when her phone bill shows up with $900 in charges because she called her grandkids and they hadn't remembered she changed her number and put the new one in some online "whitelist" somewhere. Or she calls them from the vacation spot she's at ...

  7. Chinese embassy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    About 26.1 billion of those were Chinese embassy scam calls to my cell phone.

  8. Oh so they can track exactly how many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh so they can track exactly how many but can't block them using existing laws?

    Yeah , I think the FBI are too fucking lazy, love too much dick in their ass, and don't give a SHIT about the average American. FBI serves faggots interests only, since the founder was a faggot.

    1. Re:Oh so they can track exactly how many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Made me wikipedia that part. Didn't find what you said about FBI founder, however I found this curious "The bureau's first official task was visiting and making surveys of the houses of prostitution"

  9. Same exchange trick by scorp1us · · Score: 1

    Some of these bastards are using phone numbers in the same exchange YYY of XXX-YYY-ZZZ, so that the number looks familiar... They don't even have to buy a number, they can just spoof the caller ID.

    Why, in 2019 can't I trace calls coming to me? (and have it be accurate)

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    1. Re:Same exchange trick by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2

      A couple of days ago, they came up with a new one: They called me and spoofed my own number AND name. I guess it worked; I picked it up out of sheer curiosity, but as expected it was a typical robot scam. After they did it again a few hours later, I had to block my own damned phone number.

    2. Re:Same exchange trick by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Some of these bastards are using phone numbers in the same exchange YYY of XXX-YYY-ZZZ, so that the number looks familiar... They don't even have to buy a number, they can just spoof the caller ID.

      Why, in 2019 can't I trace calls coming to me? (and have it be accurate)

      I love it when they do that. I have only ever known 2 people with my same middle 3 digits, my sister and myself. So any call with my area code and 1st 3 digits I immediately ignore then block. Really cuts down on the spam calls.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:Same exchange trick by Kyr+Arvin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's pretty good. I suspect in the future, higher-value phone numbers will have other numbers associated with them. IE, scripts will look through Facebook pages, trying to draw connections between people, trying to find out phone numbers. Then those numbers would be sold like they are now, but they could be charged a premium, as spammers could spoof their numbers to be someone you know.

    4. Re:Same exchange trick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A couple of days ago, they came up with a new one: They called me and spoofed my own number AND name. I guess it worked; I picked it up out of sheer curiosity, but as expected it was a typical robot scam. After they did it again a few hours later, I had to block my own damned phone number.

      They probably only spoofed your number and your phone looked up your name in it's address book.

  10. I believe it. by MikeDataLink · · Score: 1

    My cell phone rings constantly with every scam attempt in the world. About a year ago I just blocked all numbers not in my contacts. But now I get a ton of voicemails I have to constantly delete.

    --
    Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
    1. Re: I believe it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm to the point now that I would rather have a tooth extraction than have to deal with voicemail. If I didn't need to have it ready to recieve important calls at the moment, I would just say "fuck it" and let the damn thing fill all the way up, and leave it that way.

    2. Re:I believe it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just blocked all numbers not in my contacts. But now I get a ton of voicemails I have to constantly delete.

      I setup my phone to be in permanent quiet hours so that no calls ring through unless they're on my contacts list OR the same number calls me two times in three minutes or less. The scammers are always varying their numbers to get around people blocking their numbers and they very rarely try again in less than three minutes or even when they do it's almost never from the same number twice so it resets their break-though counter to zero. The scammers are so busy trying to avoid people's number blacklists that they get tripped up by my whitelisting scheme. Most scammers don't bother leaving a voicemail either, probably because that takes too much time and the opportunity cost isn't worth it. In the 20 seconds that it takes them to wait for the greeting to end and play their robocall, to a voice mail box that probably wont ever be read or listened to, they could have made 5 more robocalls to different numbers. Scammers may be jerks, but ironically they also know that talking to machines doesn't make them any money. Clearly voicemail is a losing proposition to them.

  11. What "Americans"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TFA is concerned only with the US, no mention of anything else from the Americas.

    1. Re:What "Americans"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using "Americans" to mean "those living in the USA" is common parlance globally since at least the 1950s, and I suspect is far older. The term can also be used to refer to those on both continents, but that's a much rarer usage since there's less need to refer to all of those people as a group. Both usages are correct.

  12. Phone company greed by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

    Why hasn't phone company greed solved the problem by now? This seems like the perfect opportunity for the cell phone network to switch to caller pays, and bill for every single call attempt, even if it doesn't connect.

    This is proof positive that phone companies aren't motivated solely by greed—they're also actively working to piss off as many people as possible.

    1. Re:Phone company greed by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Why hasn't phone company greed solved the problem by now? This seems like the perfect opportunity for the cell phone network to switch to caller pays, and bill for every single call attempt, even if it doesn't connect.

      This is proof positive that phone companies aren't motivated solely by greed—they're also actively working to piss off as many people as possible.

      They are billing the callers. If Robocallers stopped paying the telcos, then the problem would disappear instantly. But the telcos make a ton of money off those calls, and have a negative incentive to stop anything.

  13. Why is this an issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When I lived in the US I got constant calls and sms.
    Here in the netherlands I haven't had a spam call in more than 10 years.

    1. Re:Why is this an issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Canada, I just stopped answering the phone and let everything go to voice mail. That was the only way to preserve my sanity. Phones have become quite useless as a result.

  14. Government "Solutions" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good thing I registered with the 'DoNotCall' registry. I cannot wait for the government to take over healthcare, something much less important :(

    1. Re:Government "Solutions" by Kyr+Arvin · · Score: 2

      Good thing I registered with the 'DoNotCall' registry. I cannot wait for the government to take over healthcare, something much less important :(

      The problem becomes when their is no enforcement. Regulations should have teeth, otherwise what is the point?

  15. They get one chance by The+Snazster · · Score: 1

    I get a call from a number I don't recognize then I don't answer. They get one chance to leave a message. If they fail to do that they are blocked. Life is too short for a more forgiving policy.

    1. Re:They get one chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get a call from a number I don't recognize then I don't answer. They get one chance to leave a message. If they fail to do that they are blocked.

      Perhaps you've noticed that they change their number if they haven't gotten through to you after a certain number of missed calls. Blocking their randomly shifting numbers is a game of whack-a-mole. You have to whitelist your contacts. Blacklists just don't work.

  16. Phone numbers need to go away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The entire voice telephony system is untrustworthy and ripe for disruption. The only thing tying us to that broken pile of garbage is the phone number. Let's replace phone numbers with domains and put public keys into DNS to prevent spoofing. We could use E.164 as a compatibility layer for phones that have no way of entering alphanumeric addresses, but I'd argue for a clear cut.

  17. Americans Got 26.3 Billion Robocalls Last Year by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    Americans Got 26.3 Billion Robocalls Last Year

    It's has to be more than that. I feel like I had 2.6 billion myself.

    In all seriousness, I get an insane number of them. My home landline typically receives 5 calls before 10am every morning lately.

    But my favorites are the ones that come to my work mobile. I can't figure out why my social security number keeps getting canceled. Or the warranty, that I don't have, on my car keeps expiring. My student loans are also past due, even though I don't recall ever getting any. It's been quite a few decades since I was in school though, so maybe dementia is kicking in.

    1. Re:Americans Got 26.3 Billion Robocalls Last Year by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      I finally enabled NoMoRobo's alternate ring service today after "Affordable Health Care" called three times within an hour, from a different number each time - which makes limited (up to ~50# number) blacklists useless.

  18. Yes, treasonous = treasonous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's treason albeit without war "declared" - but Russia is absolutely not a neutral country, they are an adversary / enemy under Putin. It's treasonous.

    Yes, I'm aware "treason" as a formal requires war declared, thank you pedant. Every single other aspect of that term is met. It applies just fine.

    1. Re:Yes, treasonous = treasonous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this is why Trump sold them 20% of our Uranium?

  19. Could Telcos Mark All VOIP Calls As UNKNOWN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Might this solve the problem?

  20. Try looking for a job by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

    I get massive amounts of spam and yes, robocalls.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  21. Re:Republican moron whining about standards again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess you're butthurt about having to share Putin, demoKKKrat communist loving dirtbag. You've been fellating him all along. You want to make the US just like the USSR.

  22. They don't care and it makes them money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Robocalls make them money in talk time they can charge customers. Telecom's spend a lot of money in technology that can throttle connections. They could invest in tech to limit or eliminate robo calls, but there is no money in it for them, (even though they got a big tax break) so they just don't do it, and they don't care. As consumers our choices are limited, and as far as I know none of the carriers deal with robo calls in any real way.

  23. Is that per person? by oddaddresstrap · · Score: 1

    Seems about right to me.
    Actually got a scam call while typing this...

  24. Just give the FTC drone strike authority by Facekhan · · Score: 1

    Just give the FTC drone strike authority and problem solved.

  25. "Unwanted" doesn't begin to describe robocalls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    1. They're flat-out scams. All of them.
    2. They don't identify themselves, instead using some generic name like "Card Services".
    3. They robocall all phone numbers, including mobile phones, in violation of the Do Not Call List, as well as the Telecommunications Act.
    4. They fraudulently fake caller ID. And randomize it so it's never the same number twice. And use related prefixes to trick you into thinking it's a local call.
    5. They start with a pre-recorded message intended to mimic a live caller, to trick you into thinking you're talking to a person. "Now, are you the homeowner?"
    6. etc

  26. Everyday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyday I am getting a robo call, allegedly from Philly. I say "allegedly", because it could be coming from anywhere in the world, and thanks to the criminal incompetence when Caller ID was designed and introduced decades ago, anybody can very easily spoof whatever number they choose. Only now are we starting to see some half assed non-universal security measures being introduced to try to combat this.

  27. Spam could make the phone obsolete by ripvlan · · Score: 2

    I rarely answer the phone these days. At home I've turned off the ringer on the land line. On my cell I look to see if it is a known number or not.

    Last week I had a repairman coming to the house, and I missed several calls that I should have taken. My insurance company called me with an important announcement - I let it go to voice-mail.

    Why? Because 99.999% of all calls are spam/scam calls. That is my new conditioned mindset. If I'm not answering the phone, legit companies need to find a way to get a hold of me. The phone isn't the reliable method.

      Therefore, the phone will become obsolete.

    1. Re:Spam could make the phone obsolete by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      My mom had an appointment with the gas company. She missed it because they didn't leave a message. The only legitimate calls I get on my landline is from my mother and my brother. Everything else is spam. Even my cellphone is getting more and more spam.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    2. Re:Spam could make the phone obsolete by ripvlan · · Score: 1

      The call-bot from my insurance company was supposed to leave a message and didn't. For whatever reason I decided to lookup the 800# in the caller-id (most spam calls these days are local numbers) and determined that it was a legit call.

      But I'm like you. I don't even get up to answer my landline when I see the lights flash indicating an incoming call. My kids get excited "dad the phone is ringing aren't you going to get it!!?" -- so let the 4 year old answer it. She can practice her speech on unsuspecting callers. It goes like this "hello?!... [long silence while child listens with interest & waits for a response] daddy you take the phone [click]" I can't wait for the Microsoft Tech support people to call.

      Of course Grandma would like if we answered the phone more often :-) Although my older child can read and I've told him what Grandpas name is on the callerid can that he can answer it - it's probably grandma calling.

      They don't understand why I'd ignore the call. What am I teaching them?!

  28. ZERO robo calls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've lived in two different OECD countries and have had ZERO unwanted robo calls. In fact I can't remember having more than a handful of warranted robo calls.

  29. Scam Likely by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    Is my new best friend, judging by number of calls I receive.

  30. Here's an idea.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Let the number I am really from be X, a number that I want to claim to be from be Y, calling number Z. Let us first assume that there can be a legitimate reason to spoof a number, and X and Y may be different (in normal cases, they will not be, but let's allow for the case where spoofing is permitted). You will see in a moment how this won't inherently be a problem.

    If X and Y are different, X first tells Y that it is making a call to Z. If the number at Y recognizes X as authorized to make calls on its behalf, it adds a reference to Z in its cache and can be looked up later. Entries in the cache only stay active for about a minute or two, or until they are queried, and then they are purged. Single number residential lines have no such cache, the line must be awake and in use for a specific call for it to be queried.

    When Z receives its call, showing up as coming from Y, it asks Y if it is currently making a call to Z. If the response is affirmative, then the number can be considered verified by a number reachable from Z. If the number Y is not reachable from Z, or Y otherwise does not answer (because it never got a request from an authorized X that it was calling Z) then the number will not ever be verified.

    Until there is a response, the call display device can show the number claimed as unverified. Note that if a person answers the phone too quickly, the number may not be verified before they pick up, but should be shortly afterward.

    If X conspires with some number Y which is reachable from Z, the recipient can still block calls from Y. It is not feasible for X to keep arranging for many different Y's which are all reachable from Z to be able to respond to these queries on its behalf.

    This entire system allows call centres which may have direct lines to make outgoing calls and still use a main office number as the one to show on call display, and does not completely break compatibility with existing phone technology with unverified calls where the relevant exchanges have not yet upgraded to that technology.

    My 2c.

    1. Re:Here's an idea.... by mark-t · · Score: 1
      I reaized I missed a stage in the case where X and Y are different.

      When X is telling Y that it is going to make a call to Z on its behalf, it goes through the same protocol... it asks X (which must be on a list of trusted numbers for Y to be a substitute for) if it is really making a call to Z. This stops someone other than X from trying to pretend to be X and use Y as its intermediary when calling Z. If someone other than X tries to call Z using Y, Y will try and check to see if X is calling Z, and since it isn't, it will not cache Z as I described above.

  31. Re:Pay attention stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    ORANGE MAN BAD! Arglbrglaglbrgl!!!Eleventy!!!

    Show me on the doll where the orange man grabbed you.

  32. manual whitelisting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My solution (and that of many of my friends) to robot calls is to simply not answer any calls from numbers I do not recognize. I expect people who wish to contact me to leave a voice mail message from which I can call them back. Yes, some robot calls leave voice mail, but it is much less annoying (and takes fewer minutes) to delete them as soon as they start their playback..

     

  33. How about caller pays the *recipient*? by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

    You'd have to do this through legislation, since the telcos are never going to cannibalize that sweet, sweet robocall revenue stream, but if you implemented a small fee from the caller to the recipient - say, a nickel - this problem would dry up. Friends and families that call each other would essentially keep trading that nickel back and forth, so there'd be little to no real net cost. Same for legitimate businesses that both receive and make calls. It only becomes costly when you start calling millions of people, and a few dollars back on your phone bill each month would at least make you feel a bit better.

  34. The carriers have to know who's doing this by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 1

    That volume of calls coming into the wireless carrier must leave a huge footprint.

    Either they're getting a cut, or they're willfully ignoring it.

  35. One possible solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If a caller wants to spoof their number, charge them a dime. If there were 23B calls spoofed, that is 2.3B cost for them. Me thinks it would stop immediately. Any valid caller like your bank or whatnot can absorb the extra dime. They hopefully are not calling customers that often, or let them call with the manager's direct number instead of a spoof line.

  36. How about a bounty system by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    Legislate a new law that sets a minimum bounty reward for information that leads to the arrest, conviction and castration of robo callers. The bounty is paid from the convicted robocaller's assets. So the investigation required becomes self funding as long as the minimum bounty is set by law at a high enough reward.

    It will create new job opportunities for the people so inclined, and with the right skills to track down these scum.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  37. I think I received 25 billion of them on my wirele by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too much spam. Email tools are getting much better. Phone apps don't seem to be there yet.

  38. Re: robo my buttocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, right? Like oh my god, robots receiving calls from robots?

    Who else would put up with a two party (binary) system and call themselves a democracy?

  39. I'm no longer receiving robocalls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All I had to do was change how I answer the phone. When a person answers the phone, the recipient usually says something like, "Hello?" Most robocallers wait for that and interpret that as being a human on the other end of the line. At that point, it spews out its spiel like, "Your warranty is about to expire on your car. This is definitely not the last time you will hear from us. Press 1 to talk to a human who wants to scam you out of your money. Press 2 to not be removed from the list and you will get another call from us in the next 48 hours once you've had a chance to think about how much you really do want to be scammed."

    However, if the person doesn't say anything, the system will wait 15-30 seconds and then automatically hang up. When it hangs up, two things happen: You never hear the scammer's automated message and...the phone number is removed from the calling list, which causes the robocaller to cease making calls. Repeat that process a half dozen times and the robocalls drop off like a rock after that. Pressing buttons or anything constituting an "action" tells the system that there's someone there. Not doing anything causes the system to think nothing is there and that its time is just being wasted. There are plenty of suckers out there, so removing the unresponsive phone number just cleans up the calling list to increase the likelihood of finding a person they can scam/con/whatever. Putting a number on the Do Not Call registry is an open invite to receive robocalls because that means those numbers most definitely want to receive automated phone calls.

    1. Re:I'm no longer receiving robocalls... by neurocutie · · Score: 1

      I do this also (Unknown number? pick up and say NOTHING) (Real caller? always eventually says Hello) (Fake caller, hangs up)

      Another variant is: Unknown number? pick up then hang up immediately. Real caller/important call? invariably will call you back quickly, Fake? doesn't call back...

  40. This is how Holland does it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=nl&sl=nl&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bel-me-niet.nl%2F

  41. Pay attention stupid Republican traitors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One side shut down the government on a bullshit whim based on known-false info and cost the country BILLIONS for NOTHING. The other side tried to get a compromise on health care and faced the same GOP obstructionist bullshit.

    You're trying to pretend it's 50/50, because that's exactly the sort of bullshit math the Republican faggot traitors causing the problem have put out as bullshit PR.

    You want solutions? Stop supporting baldfaced liars and pretending they're 50% correct just because they have an unsupported alternate opinion about the laws of physics. You're a known moron equivocator.

    Stop supporting bullshit if you don't like bullshit, bullshitter.

    1. Re: Pay attention stupid Republican traitors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit

  42. caller ID needs an update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need laws forcing TelCo's to pass along the real number of who is calling in caller ID with 2 exceptions.

    1) Someone explicitly blocking their caller ID info, most people would just have their phone set to block receiving these calls
    2) An organization who has a licence from the Government to translate a specific list of phone numbers to one more simplistic number. (so for example a legitimate company with a customer service call center) if an organization is found abusing their licence then the Gov't and/or TelCo's can revoke the licence making only the real number show when dialing out, or blocking calls from that organization all together.

    Also all numbers should be registered into categories so a category ID/name is transmitted in the Caller ID data. (Business, Residential, Sales Center, Customer Service, etc...)

  43. Calls per year per person by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    That is only 110 calls per year per US resident.

  44. Simple solution by Big+Bipper · · Score: 1

    Just get a 900 number. The robo callers and telemarketers get charged charged a fee every time you answer, but you can refund the fee to your friends and legitimate callers. Problem is either solved, or you just sit back and rake in the cash.

    --
    You live and learn, or you don't learn much.
  45. Re: An Idea for you by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    He will probably point you to Snopes and tell you to piss off. And your disbarment request will generate a lot of laughs.

  46. You're VERY wrong - TELCOS are co-conspirators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They always testify to congress that this probel is just too tough to solve and they do not know where these calls come from.... Call your congresscritter and point out the following facts:

    [a] The phone companies have to know where calls are coming from in order to route them and also to bill for the service.

    [b] The phone companies make money charging for all the lines that run into any call center or robocall hub, and they can easily see if the phone lines from one of those centers are dialing sequences of numbers or all numbers in an area, etc.

    [c] Because the phone companies are charging for all the lines used by the robocallers, the phone companies are in fact making money from all the robocalling and it is therefore not in their financial interests to limit robocalling in any way.

    [d] Since the phone companies have control of their lines and signals, there is no reason for them to allow caller ID spoofing. They can easily determine if any call they are routing is reporting a false originating number.

  47. on my cell + on work VOIP by jsepeta · · Score: 1

    I constantly get calls from a robocaller on my phone. all attempts to block have failed, as they keep using new random numbers with the same prefix of my google voice number - which is different than the Verizon number assigned to the phone.

    The calls to my work phone started 6 months ago and the number is always blocked. I rarely receive phone calls at work, so the robocalls are the most frequent use of that phone.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  48. Re: Pay attention stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right here, he grabbed me right in the pussy.