Americans Got 26.3 Billion Robocalls Last Year, Up 46 Percent From 2017 (washingtonpost.com) 162
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2, 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?
Re: (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!!
Re:Forget Net Neutrality (Score:5, 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 [wikipedia.org] 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 [google.com] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a well-known secret that both [wikipedia.org] 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 deviou
Re: (Score:3)
Re: An Idea for you (Score:2)
He will probably point you to Snopes and tell you to piss off. And your disbarment request will generate a lot of laughs.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: Forget Net Neutrality (Score:1)
See? One vote already. Check it out politicians!
Re: (Score:2)
Baloney (Score:5, 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?
Re:Baloney (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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Baloney (Score:5, 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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 whe
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Baloney (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 acc
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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. Te
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?? :(
Re: (Score:2)
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 thin
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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... [ietf.org]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (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
Just give the FTC drone strike authority (Score:2)
Just give the FTC drone strike authority and problem solved.
Re: (Score:3, 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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 bu
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (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.
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Raise your hand if (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then along comes number portab
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Telcos don't care (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
You mean Telcos have a NEGATIVE incentive to resolve this issue since it would eliminate a revenue stream.
Challenge accepted! (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 c
Chinese embassy (Score:1)
About 26.1 billion of those were Chinese embassy scam calls to my cell phone.
Same exchange trick (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I believe it. (Score:2)
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.
Phone company greed (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Why is this an issue? (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.
They get one chance (Score:1)
Americans Got 26.3 Billion Robocalls Last Year (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
Re: (Score:2)
I finally enabled NoMoRobo's alternate ring service [nomorobo.com] 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.
Try looking for a job (Score:2)
I get massive amounts of spam and yes, robocalls.
Is that per person? (Score:2)
Seems about right to me.
Actually got a scam call while typing this...
"Unwanted" doesn't begin to describe robocalls (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
Spam could make the phone obsolete (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 unsuspect
ZERO robo calls (Score:1)
Scam Likely (Score:2)
Here's an idea.... (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 s
How about caller pays the *recipient*? (Score:2)
The carriers have to know who's doing this (Score:2)
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.
One possible solution (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.
How about a bounty system (Score:2)
It will create new job opportunities for the people so inclined, and with the right skills to track down these scum.
I'm no longer receiving robocalls... (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 g
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Calls per year per person (Score:2)
Simple solution (Score:1)
on my cell + on work VOIP (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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?