Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications The Internet

State Attorneys Urge FCC To Combat Neighborhood Spoofing (biglawbusiness.com) 202

Posted by msmash from the do-something-already dept.
Attorneys general from 35 states are urging the Federal Communications Commission to allow telephone companies to block illegally manipulated calls that appear to come from consumers' neighborhoods. From a report: The rule change could help reduce "spoofed" calls from numbers with the same area code as the consumer, or even calls from the consumer's own number. Combating junk marketing calls has been a top consumer protection priority for FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. The FCC last November adopted a set of robocall rules that allowed telephone companies to proactively block calls from invalid, unassigned or unused numbers. The agency then sought public comments on empowering telephone companies further. The attorneys general want to the FCC to create new rules specifically targeting neighborhood spoofing, they said in comments filed Oct. 9 with the agency.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

State Attorneys Urge FCC To Combat Neighborhood Spoofing More

State Attorneys Urge FCC To Combat Neighborhood Spoofing

Comments Filter:

  • Junk (Score:3)

    by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Wednesday October 10, 2018 @03:24PM (#57457272) Homepage

    Combating junk marketing calls has been a top consumer protection priority for FCC Chairman Ajit Pai.

    Just start castrating anybody caught doing it. It'll soon die out.

    (and no, it's not too harsh)

    • Re:Junk (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10, 2018 @03:30PM (#57457316)
      If you castrate them then unix win, amirite?
    • It would be a little harsh on the women scammers... or are you implying they are ALL men? Kinda sexist, isn't it?

  • Why not block all unverified POTS spoofing? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Etcetera ( 14711 ) on Wednesday October 10, 2018 @03:28PM (#57457298) Homepage

    I realize certain infrastructure bits need to be able to do this, but why not a regulation that requires outbound data be verified to be under the control of the "real" sending entity? A service (Skype, say) initiating an outbound call with a user-entered number must first validate control (voice call or SMS, etc) and record/audit such validation before putting injecting it into the POTS.

    Make that a best-practice at the ITU, but enforce it by regulation for domestic.

    That just leaves international calls as suspect (which has long been the case anyways) and international-but-still-in-NANPA calls as notable (ditto).

    • Re:Why not block all unverified POTS spoofing? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Wednesday October 10, 2018 @03:32PM (#57457328) Homepage Journal
      I don't think call centers care about more regulations, they already ignore the ones in place. There would need to be a technical solution. We would need to get rid off spoofing numbers. The arguments for spoofing aren't good enough to allow the system to be abused.

      • Re:Why not block all unverified POTS spoofing? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by SoonerSkeene ( 1257702 ) on Wednesday October 10, 2018 @03:40PM (#57457360)
        I work in an inbound-only call center (tech support for web host). If we call a client back, we spoof our number so the number they see on their caller ID is the same toll free number they called to reach us in the first place. We used to not do this, and every outbound call looked like it came from somewhere in Colorado (we're in Oklahoma), so it helped our customers in more than one way. First, they recognize it's us calling them back about their ticket, and two, they can call the number they saw on caller ID and reach us again. Previously the Colorado local number they saw went nowhere, it was just some bulk trunk line owned by Verizon and leased by our call ACD routing cloud software company. I'd argue it was worse for our clients when we couldn't spoof. They had no idea who was calling them, they get dead-air if they tried to call it back. Having said that, I'm sick of death of getting these "looks local" telemarketing recorded sales pitches, so much that I essentially treat phone calls like email now: safe senders only. If you aren't in my address book head of time, my phone doesn't even ring anymore. It's insane. I must get 3 a day.
        • I know why people like you do it. There are lots of "valid" reasons to spoof. I don't care. You need to figure out some other method. The entire system is non-functional at this point, so we need to take drastic measures.

          • Re:Why not block all unverified POTS spoofing? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by mentil ( 1748130 ) on Wednesday October 10, 2018 @03:53PM (#57457476)

            How about an update to caller ID so that it shows both the true originating number, and the potentially-spoofed number? Worst case scenario you have to make 2 calls to succeed in calling someone back, but you'd always know what number to make a complaint about to the FCC/phone company.

            • Or just get rid of spoofing. What valid reason is there to spoof a number? The ONLY reason is so the person can't call you back directly and has to go to a central answering service. Companies love that, but that is their problem.

              • Re:Why not block all unverified POTS spoofing? (Score:5, Interesting)

                by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdot.worf@net> on Wednesday October 10, 2018 @05:30PM (#57458148)

                Or just get rid of spoofing. What valid reason is there to spoof a number? The ONLY reason is so the person can't call you back directly and has to go to a central answering service. Companies love that, but that is their problem.

                Lots of valid reasons to spoof.

                1) Business - making outgoing calls uses a trunk line that doesn't necessarily result in a callable number. Instead, you spoof it so you can give the DID or main line number of company so the person being called can call back. Calling trunk lines does absolutely nothing (dead air, or it rings forever).

                2) Call centers - they may handle dozens or hundreds of customers and may need to call you back. It would be nice if the number shown is the company you called, right? I mean, if you called Apple and they said they'd call you back, the number should be the Apple number you called, rather than some random call center number. If you're in urgent need of support and get "Unknown number" calls, you might ignore them, not realizing they're your support call being returned.

                3) VoIP. Again, trunk lines. Be nice if someone was using VoIP for their phone that when they called out, their number showed up, right? Better than some random phone number of the trunk line that was used to complete the call to POTS. And since that number changes, it would make using VoIP almost impossible if no one picked up because of all the strange numbers they were getting. (It still happens where you get all 0's or something Then again, it's only VoIP - I mean, who uses it?

                What should happen instead is the phone company filters what numbers can be spoofed. There's no reason for a business to spoof numbers that it doesn't own, and call centers already "own" the number used to reach it so they can spoof that. They should not be able to spoof random arbitrary numbers. VoIP providers have pools of numbers as well which can be used to limit their available spoof numbers.

                Of course, if you really want to get rid of scammers, ban VoIP. That's it - that's the only way they can call from India and do their scams.

                But of course, VoIP is too valuable and too "high tech" and modern. Perhaps we can ban spoofing VoIP, so every VoIP call shows up as 000-000-0000.which could be your friend with Vonage or Skype or other program, or an Indian scammer. After all, it's not our fault people use VoIP, right?

              • Spoofing is valid in certain scenarios and if you think spoofing is never valid - you've never worked in a call center or answering service and have no concept of the myriad of chaos that would be generated without spoofing. Keep in mind these call centers are generally working with the public. So let's say a person calls in to a call center and agents are busy. The call is logged and an agent calls the customer back without call ID spoofing. That agent was very helpful and the customer was impressed - so

              • > The ONLY reason is so the person can't call you back directly

                Mine sets the caller ID so that they CAN call back, or see who is calling. So precisely the opposite of what you thought the "ONLY" use is. And in order to make the caller OD be accurate, we have to set it ("spoof" it) to be a number we don't control.

                It's a local non-profit organization, made up of several volunteers who can help people in certain situations. Other cities have similar organizations. People needing help can call us. Most of t

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by nasch ( 598556 )

              I'm not totally clear on how this all works but my impression is there is no true originating number. It's just a VOIP connection from some server somewhere that picked up a spoofed number, however it is they do that.

          • Solution is to stop using phone numbers all together. Why are we still using them? Data connection is now more than reliable to make very high quality calls now. Ever since it was allowed to spoof phone numbers was the downfall of caller ID.

            Even my clients don't contact me by phone number anymore. Skype and other methods is gaining more ground. Phone number is just a last resort.

          • Re:Why not block all unverified POTS spoofing? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by EvilSS ( 557649 ) on Wednesday October 10, 2018 @04:09PM (#57457616)
            The problem isn't the spoofing itself, that's not going away, it can't. Companies don't have 1:1 physical lines to extensions, and the numbers assigned to the physical lines usually don't route since they are never actually used in the company phone system. The problem is the phone company systems allow the customer to set any number they want, not just numbers assigned to them. That's the part that needs to change. They need to force the phone companies to start to apply some damn security to the process and prevent assigning numbers not assigned to the customer from being used. Yes it's going to cost money so they won't do it by themselves. They also need to require VOIP companies with outbound calling gateways in the US to log outbound calls and assign to the customer making the calls. Make them financially liable if the customer can't be identified.
            • "Companies don't have 1:1 physical lines to extensions, and the numbers assigned to the physical lines usually don't route since they are never actually used in the company phone system."

              Again, not my problem. Those companies need to figure it out. There is no security for the protocol, it is very simple. If you allow spoofing for one "special case" then everyone else will use it too.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by EvilSS ( 557649 )
                What, you a phone company lobbyist or something? Your "solution" puts all the cost on the legit business users and would actually be a huge boon to the phone company profits forcing companies to buy huge numbers of physical lines they don't need. Mine puts the costs on the phone companies.

            • Re:Why not block all unverified POTS spoofing? (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Strider- ( 39683 ) on Wednesday October 10, 2018 @04:34PM (#57457808)

              I run a (small) phone system, and you're absolutely right. We have 23 outbound lines (gotta love the PRI), and 100 DIDs (in our case, the whole 24xx block). When I generate an outbound call over the PRI, I can technically set the outbound number to whatever I want. The PSTN should reject that call if the ANI I generate is from a block that is not assigned to my PRI.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

              This does sound like the correct solution to me. It's very similar to what we do with email. If a server receives an email with a from address of "Joe@somebusiness.com" but a reverse lookup of the server shows it is not in the "somebusiness.com" domain, then the email is dropped as spam. We are slowly eliminating email relays. We should do the same with telephone.

              I work at a company and we have a PBX and an exchange. If that exchange is registered to "555-555" and we send a number starting with "888-88

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mentil ( 1748130 )

          Call centers can register with the phone company, pay $1,000 or whatever, and get put on the whitelist of lines allowed to spoof a number. If they get a complaint from the FCC or consumers or whatever then you get taken off the list and have to pay up again, maybe send in some business license or other documentation too.

          • A consumer wouldn't know what call center to complain about to the FCC. If the consumers knew that information they would probably burn the places down.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

              Right. This requires local enforcement in order to work. I suspect most of the spoofed numbers come from outside of the UPS though.

        • Ok, so the rule should be that you are only allowed to spoof another number that you OWN, then!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Etcetera ( 14711 )

          I work in an inbound-only call center (tech support for web host). If we call a client back, we spoof our number so the number they see on their caller ID is the same toll free number they called to reach us in the first place. We used to not do this, and every outbound call looked like it came from somewhere in Colorado (we're in Oklahoma), so it helped our customers in more than one way. First, they recognize it's us calling them back about their ticket, and two, they can call the number they saw on caller ID and reach us again. Previously the Colorado local number they saw went nowhere, it was just some bulk trunk line owned by Verizon and leased by our call ACD routing cloud software company.

          I'd argue it was worse for our clients when we couldn't spoof. They had no idea who was calling them, they get dead-air if they tried to call it back.

          Yeah, I think this would be a clear case where regulations should be able to authorize this. The number indicated is a working number going back to the entity making the outbound call. I imagine plenty of other institutions could also have reasons for this (for example, outbound calls from an office where everyone has extensions should just go to the trunk/main number, not one of the random outbound circuits). This is where validation and maybe a self-certification combined with fee would be fine. What we n

          • Everyone can come up with "reasons" to spoof numbers. Too bad for them. They need to adapt because the current system doesn't work.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mspohr ( 589790 )

          I would think that legitimate callers could work with their local phone company to certify that they were legitimate. Of course, this would require time and effort which is why they don't want to do it. (It would also cut down call volume and their profits... so another reason there.)

        • This is why I installed "Hiya" on my phone. I've set it to intercept known marketers and neighboring numbers. I used to get harassed a few times a week, now only one made it through in the past month. I still am able to get calls from those that aren't in my contact list, like an insurance or credit card company (that I have an account with). I've even had AT&T call me with their (obviously) spoofed number and everything worked fine.

          Of course, it's an easy tell when your phone number's area code doesn't

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

          That's not spoofing: you are sending your number. Spoofing means "hoax or trick (someone)." You aren't tricking someone, you are sending the correct callback number. The technological mechanism for sending the correct information and the incorrect information is there, but please stop calling proper use of the mechanism "spoofing." If I send an email from my business and the return email address is "AutomatedNotifications@mybusiness.com" I didn't spoof the email address, that *is* the email address. It

      • There would need to be a technical solution.

        eg. Castration of everybody involved.

      • I don't think call centers care about more regulations, they already ignore the ones in place. There would need to be a technical solution. We would need to get rid off spoofing numbers. The arguments for spoofing aren't good enough to allow the system to be abused.

        I don't think a technical solution is required at all. The best way to end it is to charge a tariff on calls from the originator. They certainly won't allow people to get a DID if they're getting charged a $5 fine for every spam call these asshats make. Just pass the fine along until you exit the country and if the provider overseas doesn't want to pay the fine, block them from making inbound calls to the US. If it's not a spam call, no fine. End of harassment when they can no longer get access to a DID.

    • You could stop all spoofing completely at the telco level and for customers who need to have their public customer service numbers displayed on caller id when their call centre makes outbound calls, the telco can assign a fixed "caller id" number to each outbound line.
      For international calls coming in, they can be denied if they come in with a local number.

  • These days, one of the most effective ways to avoid spam calls is to ignore numbers that look like they're from my own exchange.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by taustin ( 171655 )

      I'm with you on that. I don't know anyone who has a phone number on the same exchange prefix as me, so any call from that prefix is 100% guaranteed to be a criminal trying to scam me. Job at Amazon scammers, mostly, and the occasional I'm calling from Microsoft criminal (though I haven't gotten one of those since I just started chanting "Criminal!" over and over, continuously, until they hung up).

    • These days, one of the most effective ways to avoid spam calls is to ignore numbers that look like they're from my own exchange.

      Exactly. As soon as I see my own exchange as the number, I just press the "Reject" button. It's a dead giveaway that it's a spoofed number. In a way, they're actually making it easier for me to dump their calls.

  • The FCC last November adopted a set of robocall rules that allowed telephone companies to proactively block calls from invalid, unassigned or unused numbers.

    Can't imagine why that hasn't worked? It's not like they have a giant list of valid numbers to use as spoofing sources.

    • All of the calls from my local exchange I've been getting lately have been spoofing assigned numbers that do not belong to them. When I call them back, I get people who are truly "neighbors" and have no idea that their numbers have been utilized. This is, of course, blatantly illegal, but the scamsters don't care.

      I realize that spoofing has value. It is how my Google Home makes calls using my actual number, for example.

      Spoofing needs to be allowed only for registered situations and blocked using technology

  • At Googleâ(TM)s presentation yesterday they demonstrated a feature in the upcoming Pixel 3 phones where an AI bot will answer your call and ask who the callerâ(TM)s name and the purpose of the call. Itâ(TM)ll then transcribe that info in a notification, where you can then choose to take the call or send it off into voicemail/disconnect.

    • How long before the robocallers can spot this and play a plausible recording in response.

      • The robocallers would have to know the name of someone you know. Plus Google's technology can ask other verbal challenges. It'll be an arms race but one I think Google will stay comfortably ahead of.

        • The robocallers would have to know the name of someone you know.

          If you are using an Android phone, Google has your contact list.

          It'll be an arms race but one I think Google will stay comfortably ahead of.

          Ok.

    • Google Voice has a feature where you can mark a number as spam. Once you do this, that person, if they call you again, will hear "this number is no longer in service." I wish that this could work for my normal cell phone except that they seem to randomly generate the last four numbers. Perhaps there should be a "block neighborhood numbers not on your contacts list" feature. This would at least limit the scammers to a tiny subset of possible numbers to work with.

      • Perhaps there should be a "block neighborhood numbers not on your contacts list" feature.

        iPhone has a way to block calls that aren't on your contact list. Go to Settings -> Do Not Disturb -> Allow Calls From and set it to 'All Contacts'. Then turn on 'Do Not Disturb' (the half-moon icon in the Control Center).

      • Perhaps there should be a "block neighborhood numbers not on your contacts list" feature.

        Define "neighborhood number". I can live next door to you and have a number from the other side of the county. I can live on the other side of the country and have a number that looks like it is next door to you. I can live next door to you and have a number that looks like it is next door to you but is actually routed into the system on the other side of the country.

        This would at least limit the scammers to a tiny subset of possible numbers to work with.

        Blocking neighborhood numbers, assuming you mean "same area code and exchange as mine", would remove a vanishingly small amount of the potenti

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dissy ( 172727 )

          Define "neighborhood number"

          It's been defined since the 1950's.

          In 10 digit dialing, neighborhood number is one that shares the same first 3 digits, and area code.
          "Current" 7 digit dialing is the same since it simply assumes the area code remains the same if excluded.

          Original 7-digit dialing was the first two letters and the next two numbers, and specifically was only the numbers on the same local-exchange, where the operator could route your call without patching into any other exchange.

          The rest of your questions and assumptions are u

          • In 10 digit dialing, neighborhood number is one that shares the same first 3 digits, and area code.

            Ummm, in 10 digit dialing, the first three digits ARE the area code.

            I think my point was that "neighborhood number" is a meaningless concept in the current telecommunications market. It may have had a good definition in the 1950's when one central office handled an exchange (what you refer to as the "first three digits" for 7 digit dialing). That central office handled one or more exchanges and thus one or more "neighborhoods". That is so 1950's.

            Today it's all computerized and any number in any exchange

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by dissy ( 172727 )

              "Neighborhood number" is, today, a useless phrase. That's what makes a proposal to block "neighborhood numbers" as spam technically wrong.

              I suppose that makes me jealous of you.
              The area code I'm in ranks #5 in most neighborhood number spam calls in north america.

              Spam calls spoofed with my area code and prefix number 7-10 nearly every single day for the past two years. Last December near Christmas time was a week or two that count dropped to 1-3 per day.

              I count 16 voicemails on my phone from such numbers, all real people who are calling back to bitch and complain about the spam calls all night after my own number was spoofed to them.

              Now lookin

              • Yes, six (6!), in two years. Compared to over 5000 neighborhood number spam calls.

                You keep using that term, even though the definition is meaningless today. Your central office simply cannot look at an incoming number and know that it is spoofed based on your definition of "neighborhood number". I already gave you examples of why it is technically impossible to know. I'll repeat one: I have a valid phone number in an area code and prefix that is 2000 miles away. If I call someone there it would look like I'm spoofing a "neighborhood number", but I am not.

                I'm sorry you get so many scam c

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by dissy ( 172727 )

                  You keep using that term, even though the definition is meaningless today. Your central office simply cannot look at an incoming number and know that it is spoofed based on your definition of "neighborhood number". I already gave you examples of why it is technically impossible to know. I'll repeat one: I have a valid phone number in an area code and prefix that is 2000 miles away. If I call someone there it would look like I'm spoofing a "neighborhood number", but I am not.

                  This is exactly the point.
                  We haven't asked the phone company to do anything, based on location or caller ID data.
                  The person you originally responded to asked for software to block numbers matching a pattern we input. I've been doing just that and recommended robokiller to him.

                  That's it. Nothing more.
                  Central office - doesn't matter and not involved. Their physical location, doesn't matter, not involved.
                  The caller ID being sent (spoofed in this case but it shows up just the same) is all that is needed to c

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mentil ( 1748130 )

      There are several problems with this system. One is that it tells random Joe-caller what model of phone you have (a very expensive one at that). Two is that responses can be automated by robocallers that are listening for these prompts. Three is that using a follow-up question means that there's a person on the other line paying attention to the transcript, so you can tell if it's an active number. Four, you can just cram your pitch into the response to the original or followup questions. Five, it's very aw

  • I get nearly one call a day from the same middle three digits as my own phone number, to the point where I do not ever answer those calls and block them every time. It is crazy the degree of manipulation that incoming calls can undergo in this modern age.

    I'd almost say that enough of a change would be to simply make it so that if a number calls me, I am guaranteed to be able to call back and tie up the line they are using. So many incoming spam calls you can't even call back on.

    • We recently got our kids cell phones (the oldest is in high school and was using a flip phone for years, the youngest is starting middle school). Almost instantly they began getting calls from their area code/exchange. I told them to not answer any call coming from a number not on their contact list. Still, it's annoying for them to randomly get these calls or to pick up their phone after school and see that they've missed 5 such calls.

    • It's so bad, I have people calling me saying I called them all the time, yelling at me for doing so. I just block all local numbers now.
  • Don't allow anyone to spoof numbers at all! Still allow blocking of caller id for anonymous whistleblowing, but NOBODY has a right to call people with MY phone number showing up as the called number! Let's try nuisance-calling thousands of people while spoofing US Senator's phone numbers and see what happens...
    • Exactly. Spoofing numbers is no longer needed. Businesses need to figure it out if their business "needs" to spoof. It isn't our problem.

    • It is needed. For example, my Google Home spoofs my cellular number when I use it to make a call. This is valuable and increases information to the callee because they know my cellular number.

      It just needs to be registered and blocked by carriers when not registered.

  • Can someone explain how this spoofing works and why this is possible? This is a tech site, {i want the technology behind this not the politics.

    • It is possible because a business wants to be able to call you, but not reveal the true number, because they don't want callbacks. It is technically possible because the underlying protocol is very simple and doesn't authenticate anything.
      • On the flip side, legitimate call centers and technical support firms need to be able to provide the callee a consistent contact point. Can't personally advocate nuking it entirely, but they (telcos) really should be more careful with their crap.
    • Spoofing works like this: a company buys service from a telco provider as a bulk service. I.e., like it is a telco itself. Part of the signalling process includes sending along the caller name and number from the source so it can be sold to the destination user. (It should be a crime for telcos to SELL caller id services -- it should be the default. It should also be a crime to sell "caller id name and number" and then provide only the number and the name of the state the call comes from -- and I'm talking

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Strider- ( 39683 )

        Most of the problem here arose out of number portability. In the days of yore, when the telco owned the given block of numbers (and customers couldn't port them away), they could simply reject inbound calls with their own numbers set as the originating phone number. Think the same thing as source route verification for network packets in Linux. With the advent of number portability, when you could port your phone number to Bill And Ted's Excellent VOIP Co., all that went out the window.

        • In the days of yore, when the telco owned the given block of numbers (and customers couldn't port them away), they could simply reject inbound calls with their own numbers set as the originating phone number.

          Almost. It was quite possible for a company to have a local number for people to call but actually be operating out of another area code. In fact, a lot of companies did that instead of paying for an 800 number because it gave them a local presence while still saving the customer money. The phone company sold that service (I forget what they called it, something about a "remote number" I think). Other companies could sell that, providing a local number and using call forwarding to send it to the destination

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mspohr ( 589790 )

      Basically, anyone can spoof a number for their outbound calls. The local phone companies don't do any verification of the spoofed number... they just pass it on through the system and collect the money for the call.
      They could set up a system which verifies numbers and also certifies legitimate spoof uses (such as a central PBX) but that would cut into their profits and would take time and effort.
      On the receiving end, phone companies could flag and reject calls coming from outside their area without a valid

      • Basically, anyone can spoof a number for their outbound calls.

        Can you explain how I, a wireline end-user, can do that? There is no input method I know of that lets me send bogus caller ID data.

        They could set up a system which verifies numbers and also certifies legitimate spoof uses (such as a central PBX)

        Scammers can buy central PBX systems, too.

        On the receiving end, phone companies could flag and reject calls coming from outside their area without a valid return number. This, again, would cost them money

        Au contraire. They'd sell this service and make a huge profit, just like they already charge $10/month for caller ID name and number and don't give refunds when they don't actually provide all the data. (This is a direct analogy to touch tone dialing, which many telcos charged a monthly fee for long after they had installed the hardware

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mspohr ( 589790 )

          Spoof your phone number. Since you can't Googleit yourself:
          https://www.techwalla.com/arti... [techwalla.com]
          https://lifehacker.com/5853056... [lifehacker.com]

          The legitimate PBX owner would need to be certified by the local phone company. This takes time and effort. (They could charge for this service.)

          They could charge for this service. Probably wouldn't go over well with customers.

          • Spoof your phone number. Since you can't Googleit yourself:

            Neither link provides any way for ME to spoof my number. The closest you get is that I can pay for a service where someone else will spoof while forwarding my call through them. The claim was that anyone can spoof their number, and telling me how other people can do it for me isn't me doing it myself.

            The legitimate PBX owner would need to be certified by the local phone company.

            Define "legitimate PBX owner". I didn't steal the damn thing, I bought it for my own use and paid for it. Now I'm paying you, telco, for service. How is this illegitimate? Are you saying that I, a private citiz

  • If your bill is late and they decide to pester you about it, they spoof your local prefix in the same way, so it's not just 'junk marketing' calls (although Comcast/Xfinity is 'junk' if you ask my opinion). Hope the levy nice hefty fines against them for that.

    At any rate if I don't normally answer calls from numbers I don't recognize anyway, doubly so if it's in the same prefix as me, since that makes zero sense. As with many things I don't know why anyone would fall for this. Let everything you don't re

  • And to fix America's problem, switch from the stupid billing system you have where a mobile caller pays to receive calls. Make the caller pay, like the rest of the world.
    Lots of people are doing away with landlines. I don't ever get spam calls on my cellphone, it costs the spammers money. I get the odd "microsoft call centre" call on my landline, but that's ok, they're fun to mess with.

    • Make the caller pay, like the rest of the world.

      The caller pays for his telephone service. You pay for your telephone service. How do you know ahead of time that you are calling a mobile phone and you will be billed extra? Does the destination service office interrupt the start of each call with a notice "this is a mobile call, you will be billed $.10/minute. Press 1 to agree"? How does your local office know that a number in a remote office is mobile versus non-mobile? Do all of your friends know that you expect them to pay more for calling you?

      • When I call a local number, I don't need to put an area code. It's free (depending on my plan)
        If I want to call a national number, I put in an area code. They start with 0. In New Zealand that's 03, 04, 06, 07 and 09
        08 and 05 are national toll free number, like in USA where you have 1800. we have 0800 and 0508. There's also 0900 numbers that charge per minute.
        The 02 prefix is a cellphone number. 021, 022, 025, 027 and 029 are all in use by the different telcos.

        Everyone here knows this. 2 digit area codes ar

        • When I call a local number, I don't need to put an area code.

          And in most places in the US, we do. In those places where 7 digit dialing is still in place (are there any?), reaching a cell phone within the same area code will not require dialing an area code.

          You want US to pay the same way YOU do. That means there must be some way for US to know ahead of time that we will be billed extra for a call. "Needing an area code" isn't it. Try again.

          If I want to call a national number, I put in an area code. They start with 0.

          Again, not in the US. NO area code starts with 0. Area codes USED to have a requirement that they have 0 or 1 as the middle n

          • I don't know how the USA system works. I've never been there. I'm just stating how systems work elsewhere. which effectively make spammers unable to profit from calling mobile numbers because they have to pay to call them.

            Yes, everyone else does things differently. The way they do it doesn't open up the mobile phone system to robocalls, spammers and scammers. The way USA does it, does. There's pros and cons for both. You tell me what's better.

            Personally, I prefer not having to pay for something I didn't ini

            • I don't know how the USA system works. I've never been there. I'm just stating how systems work elsewhere.

              No, you are not. You are telling the US that they should use "caller pays", which is a lot more than just saying how things work for you.

              You don't know the system here, so don't tell us how the system should change to make it better.

              There's pros and cons for both. You tell me what's better.

              I've told you what's better. Not being able to know ahead of time if you are going to be paying for a call to a mobile makes the idea of "caller pays" a non-starter. It's as bad as the scam of getting lured into calling a number in the 809 area code and then being billed a ridi

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • In the model that runs everywhere else the carriers still get paid, they charge the incoming call carrier a termination fee.
        The telco that initiates the call pays the termination fee to the one that it eventually ends up at.

        I have never, ever paid for an incoming call or text message. I couldn't even if I tried, there are no plans available in my country that offer that model.
        The exception would be "premium sms services" where people sign up for bullshit like daily horoscopes to be sent to them.

  • Please don't stop them, I haven't lived in my phone's area code in 10+ years, any time I get a call from my area code and exchange, I know it's spam/scam caller. Makes it super easy to filter them out.

  • I received a phishing? call, where the guy claimed I had earned the right to a new much lower interest rate on my credit cards due to my good payment record.
    He asked if I wanted it on my Visa or Mastercard. I said Visa. He then asked for my Visa card number. I blew up at him big time. I was at work and people in the surrounding cubes laughed at my excellent comeback. I then called the number back and got a woman with children at home who said it had been going on all day and could not get it fixed.
    The guy c

Slashdot Top Deals

"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight

Close