Hacker News Reader

Comment by gwbas1c | Hacker News Reader

Apparently, this will break a lot of (cough) features (cough) that no one uses, like call forwarding. I also wonder if this will break VOIP systems that small businesses use?

The reality is that no one should care. The telephone system is broken when most of the calls we get are fraudulent. I want my phone to be useful; I don't care if fixing it breaks some phone system set up by a sketchy IT wannabe.

View on HN

I am glad that you "don't care" about breaking a few million phone systems across the world. Every single IT manager, however, does care. If you start having carriers wholesale-blocking calls based on their lack of STIR/SHAKEN's verifications, then you will completely disable the vast majority of IP- and POTS-based phone systems in the country, many of which were purchased/installed in the early-2000's.

You can have the "I don't care" attitude when you have one telephone number in your life. You have to care when you have a couple hundred thousand telephone numbers in your life, like I do, working for a Class 3 ITSP.

> If you start having carriers wholesale-blocking calls based on their lack of STIR/SHAKEN's verifications, then you will completely disable the vast majority of IP- and POTS-based phone systems in the country, many of which were purchased/installed in the early-2000's.

It's far too early for carriers to block by default, but consumers should have the choice. If I could set my phone to give a busy signal to any caller not authenticated through STIR/SHAKEN, I would in a heartbeat.

This would be great. Push back voluntarily on bad actors.

I have to side with the GP here. The options are completely losing the telephone system because nobody trusts anything coming from it anymore, or having those pre-2000 systems upgraded. It's a no-brainier.

Yet, we seem to be committed into destroying the entire system.

It's really amazing how little trust people have in the telephone system now.

At least on personal devices/lines, everyone I've talked about it with now refuses to pick up any call from a number they don't recognize, which is really the only option when 2/3 of the calls you get daily are spam. Most just assume that if it's important, the caller will leave a message.

everyone I've talked about it with now refuses to pick up any call from a number they don't recognize

I wish this was the case where I work. My boss answers every single call that comes in to her cell phone. Sometimes 15 a day. Then everyone in the office has to listen as she tries to interrupt the sales pitch and tell them "take me off your mailing (!) list."

And she's a millennial. I thought millennials didn't use voice.

> everyone I've talked about it with now refuses to pick up any call from a number they don't recognize

This is true, and also burned me last weekend. My dog set off my alarm system and the phone identified ADT as "potential spam" so I didn't answer it. The police showed up at my house. Fixed by adding ADT to my contacts, but the distrust is real.

Internet-wise, we blocked pop-ups and installed adblockers when we lost trust in the platform. I see no difference in applying that to telephony. Amputate or lose the patient.

Internet-wise, we blocked pop-ups and installed adblockers when we lost trust in the platform

And then pop-ups were replaced by divs, and adblockers got blocked by paywalls.

I don't think either problem has been solved yet.

Doesn't the article say such "features" will be banned under new FCC rules?

Isn't "call forwarding" another name for "caller ID spoofing"?

Does it spoof? If X calls Y and gets forwarded to Z, does caller ID at Z show X or Y? As a possibly naive user, showing X seems like the right thing to do, since that's the number Z will be connected to if someone answers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com