Section 202 of Telecommunications Act details that telecoms cannot discriminate connections so they have been unwilling to block spam if it can lead to breaking the law[1]. The FCC has been trying to change that by rolling out new guidance on what can definitely be blocked[2]. One of the new rules defines a new legal safe harbor for carriers that block calls that are unauthenticated using a new protocol that is expected to be rolled out by year end, 2019.
[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/202 [2]: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-affirms-robocall-blocking-d...
Services like twilio avoid this easily by simply requiring me to purchase the callback number or at least validate that I have control of the callback number I want to use.
After seeing cable companies fail to get into the internet, I'm convinced companies try to stop progress instead of embracing it. They don't see progress as an opportunity, but rather as a threat. They don't realize how much they are hurting themselves.
I read an interesting article on here about the rise of the cell phone camera, the amount of R&D into it compared to traditional cameras, and how slowly traditional camera manufacturers have progressed. Sure, cell phones have to overcome a smaller sensor... but traditional camera sales have been obliterated.
Steven Sasson invented the first digital camera (and a device to display it on) in 1975 while working at R&D at Kodak. He had a fully functional DSLR by 1989, complete with memory cards. Kodak never released his work, never manufactured that camera. They kept the patent of the work and sat on it, and when others tried to innovate and create a digital camera, Kodak sued them with that patent and kept suing people right up until the patent ran out in 2007. By 2012, the company was bankrupt.
Innovation, true innovation that really pushes technology forward, is anathema to the average business.
While I appreciate how hard it would be to implement properly, I don't think that should be an impediment to getting the process started.
Isn't that part of what it means to acquire a patent? Trying to get a patent on something that I don't yet know how to actually implement should be denied, right?
Of course the risk is that if someone else challenges you on it, and you can't provide the implementation, you can have your patent invalidated.
At least that's my understanding of the tactics of patent warfare.
other than selling $20 million worth of 1991 Kodak DCS 100, and following it with many more advanced models ....
If that's not dragging your feet I don't know what is. They could have defined the marked for professional digital cameras. Instead they just proved that a digital nikon would work nicely.
I bought a Kodak digital camera in the 90s, and other brands too, so I doubt that version of events.
> when others tried to innovate and create a digital camera, Kodak sued them
I haven't had a "land line" in multiple-decades. My short list of "the next thing" requires:
- Ability to install on a mobile device without any connection to a "phone number." Phone numbers in my mind are dead. - Skip the synchronous social convention of calling. Everything should be async by default. You don't ever cause someone's device to interrupt them. This is already culturally "accepted" with SMS. Unopened messages are deleted after some number of days. - With permission, these asynchronous messages should be forwardable. You give permission in advance of course, and then you can avoid having to repeat yourself again and again. - TMDA style whitelisting for unknown public keys wishing for contact. Addresses need some kind of seniority (older than 30-days) and some reasonable integration into the network at large (vouching connections between other people with "skin in the game", akin to a shared reputation--If I could remember the name of that early social network that tried to do this, avogato.org? Something like that.) - Mesh networking forever. Decentralize it all.
This is not something that I think can be a "startup," because this needs to be a protocol, not tied to any firm. If anyone's software works with the protocol, then let the "best installable" win. The closest thing to this right now is Scuttlebutt protocol and if someone could re-introduce contact sharing via "bumping" (using the accelerometer and GPS location and time together) devices together to exchange public keys, that particular bit of UX could go a long way to making it easier to adopt. However, the worst part of Scuttlebutt's capabilities has been the storage consumption for very popular identities that often consumes all the available memory on smaller devices. It needs data-storage hygenics--some way for the end-user to state what kind of data they want to keep and what they wish to ignore.
I'd love to have a land line but it completely stopped working decades ago. After deregulation, no one was responsible.
Countless attempts to get anyone to fix it were in vain.
This year I saw a thick line completely knocked down by a fallen tree. I called the power company. They said it was a telephone line not a power line. And that there wasn't anyone left for them to contact to get it fixed. Asking around I found it actually didn't matter. No one was actually using it. No one has land lines any more. The technology is obsolete, irrelevant, and should be removed.
I remember many times where everything else was out of service except the good old POTS line...
SS7 its the primarily utilized protocol stack nowadays. The PTSN (Public Telephone Switching Network) and the Internet have been combined for a while now.
The problematic part of SS7 is it allows for setting arbitrary unauthenticated origination info in the rough equivalent of a "From" field in the initiation process.
There are attempts ongoing to attempt to implement a "Web of Trust" layer a la TLS on in front of the preexisting telephony infrastructure in the form of STIR/SHAKEN, but it'll have some of the same warts that current "Web of Trust" implementations now currently suffer.
Is that incorrect?
It feels super reasonable to ask for telecoms to blacklist stuff after complaints
> fine the telecoms for allowing the illegal calls
You can certainly fine companies for making illegal calls. But you can't easily fine telcos for allowing them. That requires you to know the call is going to be illegal.
Users are even ready to give up open protocol for proprietary one (imessage, etc).
Closed platforms can also be spammed. Twitch, HN comments, etc.
I currently have 'do not disturb' on and whitelist my contacts but it's not ideal.
What kind of phone do you have? There are definitely Android apps that do this. This is the one I happen to use, there are many others: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.grus.callb...
Just go to: Settings > Phone > Silence Unknown Callers
(Calls from unknown numbers will be silenced, sent to voicemail, and displayed in the Recents list.
Incoming calls will continue to ring from people in your contacts, recent outgoing calls, and Siri Suggestions)
Defining a silent ringtone by default, and a non-silent one for your contacts, is another.
Better management tools on phones themselves would be a bonus.
I've identified a few possibly concerns:
- Privacy.
- Avoiding distraction.
- Cost.
Others?
Have people been able to get around these limitations? and how is it done? I hate having a phone as much as anyone else.
Just put in random crap. 555-555-5555 works almost everywhere. They don't want to call you anyway, that costs way more than an email.
What I meant to say is that, right now, my provider is the one who has substantial control over my main id of communication, i.e. phone number. This adds additional friction to move to a different provider, but also move across borders and so on. As my way of communicating moves onto other services, the telcos do not control my id anymore. Everything becomes easier and less friction. For example, if I could, I would probably buy a data plan from one telco and a phone number from another, and I would experiment with my data much more, shop around etc.
Oh yeah?
I've been paying for number portability for I guess at least 30 years.
I was just told by my cell provider this week that as of next month the 3G networks are being shut down and I have to buy a new phone from them.
I said sure, I already have an unactivated no-contract phone I got on clearance, let's transfer my number to that one.
They said, sorry, no can do, you can only transfer the number to a phone you bought from us.
I said wait I've been paying for number transferability, something I didn't even want, for literally decades, and you're saying I can't do it?
In the end I bought a $15 flip phone, switched carriers, and now have a stupid new number.
Number portability is a fiction and a scam. I paid that fee for 30 years and it did nothing. Fuck everyone involved in making me pay for that scam. Almost but not quite as bad as insurance, another total scam that never pays and is designed for suckers.
Are telecom companies not realizing how much they are hurting themselves with this in the long term? People will stop using phone numbers altogether. Using the phone has become such a pain, at least in the US, that whenever I can, I used different ways of communicating. WhatsApp, iMesage, Skype, etc. The incessant robocalls have definitely motivated me to move away from traditional phone calls faster than I would otherwise.
Lastly, maybe this is what these companies want, i.e., that I just use their data plan, but then that makes me way less likely to stay loyal.