News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:FCC hits robocaller with agency's largest-ever fine of $120M by cletus on Saturday June 24, 2017 @07:10AM (#14625193)
So basically robocalls can only exist because of second tier telcos who cater specifically to them. They have enough legitimate traffic to essentially launder spam. They charge robocallers more and know exactly what they're doing.

A lot of people deal with robocalls incorrectly by declining calls from unknown numbers. Don't do this.

The correct solution is to answer the call, say nothing and hang up after 3 seconds.

If it's a real call you'll hear background noise most of the time or the caller will say "hello?" Or they'll call back thinking something went wrong. Most robocallers are programmed to do nothing until they hear a voice.

But the critical part of all this is hanging up within 6 seconds. This is the one thing that hurts the telco knowingly supporting this. If a telco has too many such calls they essentially get punished as a bad actor, which is why they need legitimate traffic. I think robocallers and their telcos have wished up to this as I suspect they'll stop calling you if you do this.

When I started this I got 2-3 robocalls a week. Not a huge amount but annoying. Now I think it's been at least 2 months since I've gotten one. It could be that crackdowns on robocalls are yielding results but I'm not convinced.

Re:FCC hits robocaller with agency's largest-ever fine of $120M by kharms on Saturday June 24, 2017 @08:20AM (#14625340)
>But the critical part of all this is hanging up within 6 seconds. This is the one thing that hurts the telco knowingly supporting this

You should explain why that number is critical, what happens before, what happens after.

Re:FCC hits robocaller with agency's largest-ever fine of $120M by notyourday on Saturday June 24, 2017 @10:51AM (#14625778)
It is caused by the 6 second billing.
Re:FCC hits robocaller with agency's largest-ever fine of $120M by losteverything on Saturday June 24, 2017 @11:10AM (#14625834)
If call is cell to cell and no direct access or egress to landline does the 6 second still apply?

All kinds or rules here https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0198-telemarketing-sal...

Re:FCC hits robocaller with agency's largest-ever fine of $120M by jessaustin on Saturday June 24, 2017 @03:35PM (#14627118)
It's not clear why the phone company with lots of 5-second-billed-as-6-second calls will suffer while the one with lots of 7-second-billed-as-12 will prosper?
Re:FCC hits robocaller with agency's largest-ever fine of $120M by MichaelGG on Saturday June 24, 2017 @03:53PM (#14627197)
Telcos judge your traffic quality by several metrics including short call percentage, usually cut off at 6 seconds. Too many calls being shorter than this, and they'll add big surcharges.

The robodialers are so stupid, though. They don't want to pay for the second 6 seconds, and will hang up quickly. So intermediary companies keep the calls open to keep their stats good, then charge the dialer guys more.

Telecom is filled with actors that can't handle basic algebra.

Source: I've run billions of calls as a VoIP network and consulted for folks doing dialer.

Re:FCC hits robocaller with agency's largest-ever fine of $120M by dennisgorelik on Sunday June 25, 2017 @01:53AM (#14628832)
How can robocaller keep the call running if party on another end ended the call?
Re:FCC hits robocaller with agency's largest-ever fine of $120M by MichaelGG on Sunday June 25, 2017 @09:34PM (#14633393)
That was my question! The issue is that the robocaller is hanging up early, because they get billed on 6 second intervals. But they pay so much more for their bad traffic that it's profitable to absorb a 6 second interval on the intermediaries end, just to avoid the short-call penalties. Yes, if they'd hold the call open themselves, instead of the middle-man, they'd get lower prices overall.

I see things like this in telecom too much. Where people are mathematically going to lose, guaranteed, but prefer a certain billing because it's easier to understand, or looks cheaper. While this is understandable for an SMB that isn't in the telecom business, I've seen big names take these same deals. And I've seen the other end: they 100% are losing a few % in doing so.

Re:FCC hits robocaller with agency's largest-ever fine of $120M by omginternets on Saturday June 24, 2017 @11:44AM (#14625953)
Could you elaborate?
Re:FCC hits robocaller with agency's largest-ever fine of $120M by wfunction on Saturday June 24, 2017 @09:56AM (#14625581)
The whole point of blocking calls from unknown numbers is that your phone doesn't ring or distract you. Picking it up is obviously not a solution.
Re:FCC hits robocaller with agency's largest-ever fine of $120M by JadeNB on Saturday June 24, 2017 @10:35AM (#14625718)
I believe that cletus's suggestion is that the short-term inconvenience of picking up on a few such calls will yield the long-term reward of reduced or eliminated robocalls.
Re:FCC hits robocaller with agency's largest-ever fine of $120M by djrogers on Saturday June 24, 2017 @10:49AM (#14625769)
Without any more details as to why or how this will make a difference, I think imma just keep blocking the cams.
Re:FCC hits robocaller with agency's largest-ever fine of $120M by sillysaurus3 on Saturday June 24, 2017 @03:37PM (#14627127)
I think it's incorrect. If you pick up a robocall, you get flagged as a legit number. They'll call you more, not less.
Re:FCC hits robocaller with agency's largest-ever fine of $120M by nacs on Saturday June 24, 2017 @03:45PM (#14627159)
> say nothing and hang up after 3 seconds.

The "say nothing" is the important part here I think. Most robocall systems would wait for some kind of voice before starting their spam and that's the point where they probably mark the number as 'legit', not as soon as you pick up as they don't know if it's an actual person that picked up.

Re:FCC hits robocaller with agency's largest-ever fine of $120M by sillysaurus3 on Saturday June 24, 2017 @04:29PM (#14627328)
It just seems unlikely. I suppose it's not impossible, but in my experience robocalls start immediately. And maybe it would work if you pressed "mute", but without that, you'd leak environmental noises into the call. (People talking around you, cara going by on the street...)

It might just be a trick that people pass along regardless of effectiveness.

Re:FCC hits robocaller with agency's largest-ever fine of $120M by PretzelFisch on Saturday June 24, 2017 @11:02AM (#14625803)
you might be able to let the answering machine pick it up on the first ring?
Re:FCC hits robocaller with agency's largest-ever fine of $120M by jasonkostempski on Saturday June 24, 2017 @12:44PM (#14626231)
I pick up the calls because I hate having to clear the "missed call" notification. If they leave a voice mail, my entire day is filled with fury. If it's a human and I'm not doing anything important, I usually say something stupid or make gross/odd background noises for fun. I'm not sure if what you saying about the 3 to 6 second stuff is a real thing or if it would make a difference in the grand scheme of things but if so, it would be nice to have a "Punish Them" button on my incoming call screen that does all of this for me.
Re:FCC hits robocaller with agency's largest-ever fine of $120M by anigbrowl on Saturday June 24, 2017 @04:53PM (#14627427)
The correct solution is to answer the call, say nothing and hang up after 3 seconds

Actually I like the idea of fining people into bankruptcy so I don't have to deal with their nonsense. This is literally the basis for paying taxes. If I have to do my own guerilla defense against robocalls it's literally a waste of my time, so I typically let calls go to voicemail instead.

Re:FCC hits robocaller with agency's largest-ever fine of $120M by gist on Saturday June 24, 2017 @11:39AM (#14625927)
> The correct solution is to answer the call, say nothing and hang up after 3 seconds.

Fwiw this hasn't worked with the calls that I get (landline) which start out with what sounds like a fax tone at the start (but is definitely not a fax machine).