•   over 10 years ago

A Joke?

Is this a joke? We have robodialers because the FCC lets telcos do whatever they like. Form a local monopoly? Sure! Take stimulus money, raise rates, and cut service? Yes, you can! There's no competition and no reason for a telco to spend a penny on this problem. This was solved on the internet a long time ago with two trivial rules: 1) Keep abusers off your network or we won't accept your traffic. 2) An end-to-end two-way handshake is needed to establish communications.


  •   •   over 10 years ago

    As long as they earn money on the number of calls they will support it. When they do not get money on individual calls anymore, they will become sensitive saving their resources and then they might do something ;-)


  •   •   over 10 years ago

    I think this is a HUGE joke from the standpoint that there IS NOT SOLUTION! If the telcos can't even determine the real caller id, then how in the world are we peasants supposed to come up with some sort of software/hardware solution that would surely need accurate caller id to even be able to work?? Joke's on us!!!

  •   •   over 10 years ago

    Yes, 90+ % of their phone numbers and more important their inter carrier trunks wit or without SS7 still rely on "Trust by Wire". "Trust by Authentication" does not fit to legacy PSTN.

    Mobile is not much better since they authenticate the access only and can not handle e2e authentication through PSTN.

    … so PSTN / SS7 is the real weak link in the chain that was made even weaker by the Telecoms act of 1996.

  •   •   about 10 years ago

    I think you're missing the point of a "challenge". The FTC would love to have a solution that can help them track down, prosecute the spammers and keep the public safe from scammers.

  •   •   about 10 years ago

    Chris B, you are VERY WRONG! How 'shortsighted' can you be? Saying "there is NO solution" is incredibly shortsighted!

    I submitted a proposal for "Real-time White-Listing" (RWL); that is the only viable solution - if ALL telcos and email providers verify against my proposed RWL servers, against user-created White Lists (those are lists where YOU list ONLY those people & email senders that YOU will allow to call you or send email to you); then there will be virtually NO phone or email spam (This is how FACEBOOK is so successful - because you only get 'social' with those people YOU CHOOSE TO ADD as "friends." Facebook is a "white-listing" platform).

    IF the FCC is serious, they will pick up my proposal and run with it. Several differentiators exist on my RWL method vs. some 'static white list' at the recipient's end. Details are in my proposal.

    If they are NOT serious, then they will "fear" the partners of ISPs and telcos and find some reason NOT to use "Real-time White-Listing." Because, IF they DO implement RWL, then virtually NO cell phone, land-line or email spams will get to end-users - meaning RANDOM JUNK MARKETING DIES! Can't you see the ad/marketing agencies just CRINGE at this type of proposal? The outcry will be SO HUGE that FCC will have to have REAL GUTS to stick to its guns and implement my proposal. Here's the summary of RWL: http://t.co/M8w70d2w

  •   •   about 10 years ago

    To add to the RWL selling points: All phone & Internet traffic "past the root severs" will see a HUGE bandwidth increase (i.e., "relief from the current inundation of droves of random spam," that has to get filtered past the root servers and at the recipient's end). This will return Telephones and the Internet to being "quiet" again. And since RWL reduces spam, it reduces viruses and malware, on phones and the Internet, overall.

    Is it a perfect solution? No solution is perfect.

  •   •   about 10 years ago

    Epic fail on the RWL. Nobody wants to maintain a whitelist and we're back to the whole reason that this is a joke: There is nothing to use for the whitelist lookup. The phone number is anything the caller wants it to be and telemarketers are already spoofing legitimate phone numbers. There's no end-to-end handshake, like e-mail has, to verify where anything is coming from or going to.

  •   •   about 10 years ago

    Obviously, you miss the point - YOU put YOUR choices on the whitelist. You cannot speak for 'everyone' - saying they don't want to maintain a whitelist - SIMPLE: copy your contacts to your white list - duh, it really IS "that" simple!

    And, your point is still moot, because I would have to KNOW "who is in your contacts" (i.e., your 'white list,'), before I could spoof it.

    Are you dense at all, or just most of the time?
    Epic fail back at ya!

  •   •   about 10 years ago

    Granted, let's say I'm a hacker - I just MIGHT happen to "strike gold" and guess a number of your buddy that it on your whitelist. IF I am THAT lucky, AND I have the ability to spoof, then sure, I can spam you - but that is TONS better than things are right now - with any "random phone-dialer" being able to hit me.

  •   •   about 10 years ago

    There are already phones that do whitelisting and blacklisting using Caller ID. A denied call sends a signal back to the telco, and then the telco usually produces a busy signal or some other message. If your idea worked the problem would already be solved. Give one a try. You'll find that telemarketers have already worked around it.

    I restate that this contest is a complete joke. The FCC knows exactly what needs to be done but they no longer have the balls to do it. Telcos will threaten to pull their lobbying money and suddenly career politicians will claim that there's not actually any problem in need of solving. We instead get tax money wasted on silly distractions like this to make people feel like the FCC hasn't become useless.

  •   •   about 10 years ago

    And I reiterate that, 'no they wouldn't already have done it.' My method is different from what you state. Again, I cannot give details - they are in the proposal. Below is a bit more of a summary, to give you an idea. But clearly, since you are touting "ancient methods," you don't have a clue how this would work.

    Your mentioned method has been in place forever. My method has nothing to do with existing, non-centralized lists and/or 'phones sending signals back to a telco.' ALL calls would go to central switches (like they do now); and those switches, in conjunction with central servers, would verify if the sender is on your white list - no "signals needed nor involved." If the caller / sender is on your white list, that person or robot gets through; if not, he is sent to the "bit bucket" and/or given a DNR/busy.

    Remember, the "push back" from consumers and businesses NEVER has been THIS strong, regarding getting rid of junk phone calls - the FCC is OVERWHELMED - there are times that we have "do not call festivals" and we inundate the FCC with violators' info - because we are SUPPOSED to report infractions; and we DO! And just over the past 2 years, they've realized that it is just too much to keep up with. And when we do submit violators to them, I always make the suggestion of also contacting the Attorney General of the state where the call originated as well as the local AG of your own state, and the BBB and the telco who owns the offending phone number - yes, even "burn phones" have telcos who own those numbers. :-) AND, ALWAYS let your "legislators" (reps, congresspersons, etc.) know as well.

    The impetus also really does need to be in changing the laws from "opt-out" to "opt-in-only." NOBODY should send me email or call me, if I have not, personally, added them to an "authorized list of blessed senders." Up to this point, marketers have ruled the Internet and phones (cell and land-line); FORCING recipients who never "opted-in" to their lists, to waste time (and money) in "opting out." Instead, it should be completely 'reversed;' You, as the marketer, should wait for me, the recipient, to send you a subscription request saying, "Please send me your spam - I love it!"

    You are right about one thing: The "old" methods, like those you cite, will NOT work! And that's what this challenge is all about - fresh new ideas (or new 'twists' on older ideas) that have not been tried yet. It may very well be "smoke and mirrors" - and they may indeed "cave in" to "marketing/constituent pressure" in the end, but at least we tried.

  •   •   about 10 years ago

    And, for the record, I also have the same doubts about FCC and the government following through on whatever "winning proposal" comes from this challenge - if they do, then some faith in them can be restored - and we can hardily applaud them. If not, then we keep inundating and keep complaining - that's about all we can do.

  •   •   about 10 years ago

    And I continue to believe that this IS a complete joke. As Kevin M pointed out, epic fail on the RWL idea. First of all, know one wants to maintain a white list. So, every time you "meet" someone, or pass out a business card, or whatever, you need to first ask them for THEIR number so that you can enter it into your RWL? What if you forget and you miss a very important call, that could have been a new job or something?

    There is also the possibility of missing an important call from say your mom who is stranded somewhere and tries calling you from an unknown phone number. AGain, you miss the call.

    I could go on and on with why an RWL just won't work, but I'll stop here.

    This reminds me of a time that "friend" had some sort of RWL setup for his email. I sent him an email, and it responded with some sort of procedure I had to go through to "request" permission to email him. Needless to say I did not go through that procedure and am no longer in contact with that person. People are inherently lazy, and the RWL will just prove to be too much of an inconvenience.

Comments are closed.