Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday September 14 2019, @03:18PM   Printer-friendly
from the it's-a-start dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow2718

Most of the robocalls you get aren't coming from AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile numbers

Most of the robocalls you get aren't coming from AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile numbers

A new report suggests that the United States' top mobile carriers are making headway in the fight against annoying robocalls.

The data analytics company Transaction Network Services (TNS) released its bi-annual "Robocall Report" on Thursday, and some of the emerging unwanted call trends included an increase in hijacking mobile numbers and a shift to spoofing toll-free numbers.

However, the most promising news for consumers was that only 12% of high-risk calls received during the first six months of 2019 originated from numbers owned by AT&T, CenturyLink, Comcast, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon.

These carriers account for 70% of the nation's overall call volume.

Bill Versen, the chief product officer at TNS, said in a statement that means top-tier carriers are successfully blocking more robocalls. He added that regulatory and policy action, as well as the adoption of AI and advanced data analytics, have made it "more difficult for bad actors to place scam and fraud robocalls."

Versen also warns that it's too soon to call that a victory.

"The report suggests the need for diligence as the battlefront may shift to smaller regional and rural carriers further behind on their path to a call authentication framework and utilizing call data analytics," Versen said.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 15 2019, @07:48PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 15 2019, @07:48PM (#894414)

    So you say. Documentation? Do you have any?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 15 2019, @08:01PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 15 2019, @08:01PM (#894420)

    Yes, already shared this above:

    In enacting the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, Congress amended section 227 of the
    Communications Act to create a new subsection (e) focused on prohibiting the use of misleading and
    inaccurate caller ID information for harmful purposes. 7 In so doing, Congress recognized that there are
    some legitimate reasons why calling parties may wish to alter their caller ID information. 8 For example,
    domestic violence shelters sometimes alter caller ID information to ensure the safety of their residents. 9
    However, bad actors can easily abuse altered caller ID information to mislead and defraud consumers. 10
    Therefore, rather than prohibiting all caller ID spoofing, Congress made it “unlawful for any person
    within the United States, in connection with any telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service,
    to cause any caller identification service to knowingly transmit misleading or inaccurate caller
    identification information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value. .
    . .” 11

    https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seeks-combat-illegal-spoofed-texts-international-calls-0 [fcc.gov]

    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday September 15 2019, @09:21PM (2 children)

      by sjames (2882) on Sunday September 15 2019, @09:21PM (#894428) Journal

      I see nothing in there requiring telcos to pass on spoofed caller ID information or to complete calls from foreign telcos where the caller ID is spoofed.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 16 2019, @04:59PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 16 2019, @04:59PM (#894681)

        Well, you are blind or lack much imagination then. It is obvious the law puts the burden of proof on the telco to prove the call is involved in some form of fraud.

        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Monday September 16 2019, @06:58PM

          by sjames (2882) on Monday September 16 2019, @06:58PM (#894766) Journal

          Will you point out where replacing the provided bad caller ID with "withheld" or "unavailable" is forbidden in any case at all?