Or better yet, ask them to press a random number to connect the call --- before the phone will even ring or go to voice mail. This effectively weeds out most auto-dialers.
I have a Panasonic phone (connected to VOIP) that has this feature built in. It also has text to speech that reads the caller ID out loud. It's amazing how creative these hardware vendors have gotten now that their market is shrinking.
Mobile phones have some catching up to do.
Worth the occasional missed call IMO; I say on my VM msg if you are calling me and I don't know you leave a message otherwise your call will go to VM without ringing.
In theory, I could get a voicemail and then follow-up, but that would result in significant time wasted for both sides (e.g., calling doctors again or setting up re-delivery), and the total time I spent on dealing with spam calls is ~1 minute (5-10 seconds x 5-10 occurrences).
Snail mail is so overloaded with spam it might as well be the same.
The fact two fundamental and official mass communication channels are functionally useless is a sign of the rot in our country.
Email is teetering on the void. Chat is balkanized and siloed, same with social media, unlike telephony there is no source monopoly or tradition of cross standards.
Txt is the last bastion. It'll die in the next decade I'd guess.
It's a problem everywhere. This is what you get when you let the advertising industry operate unchecked. Scam calls and snail mail spam are just piggybacking on the fact that phone companies and postal services encourage and make money on telemarketing and mass marketing e-mails.
It's going to be hard to solve one without solving the other, as the difference between those scams and typical marketing communication is a matter of degree, not kind.
Here in Poland, the sticker that forbids advertisements does jack all. The post office might stop delivering spam, but most of the garbage in my mailbox comes from private individuals, hired by local companies, delivering the spam personally.
Call/SMS spam dropped somewhat thanks to GDPR, though I've experienced a uptick in the past few years, primarily driven by cryptocurrency scammers and fly-by-night companies selling photovoltaics. I do get an extra amount of phone spam, because I had a business and my phone number is listed in the business database.
Note that I do consider first-party (as in, from companies I have relationship with) cold calls as spam and scam too. Telcos in particular are notorious for scamming people - at this point, there is not much of a difference between scams discussed in this thread, and technically legal upsells and bullshitting done by my phone operator.
(They're not that better off-line, either. Only few weeks ago, a sales rep from a high-profile salon tried to scam my grandmother, by deceiving, manipulating, outright lying and using psychological pressure tactics, to get her to sign for a TV and Internet service she doesn't want or need. That happened physically, in the salon, when she went there to take over my late grandfader's phone contract.)
1. Reading a message is low-obligation compared to answering a phone or taking physical mail out of a box.
2. A shorter message has less room to both contain a scam and a cover story. Necessarily, either the payload or the cover story or both are thinner in an SMS message than a scam email.
3. But most importantly, social customs around text messages conversations are different from phone etiquette: besides being unauthenticated, caller-id came after decades of being expected to answer the phone without knowing who was calling or why.
A stranger sending a legitimate but unexpected text message feels obligated to explain WTF they're contacting you. "You don't know me, but..." Scammers, on the other hand, are trying to bypass this. "Oh, you know me."
Tying into point #2, a low-data channel like an SMS conversation is a high-context interaction. Have you ever gone back and read old SMS conversations and noticed a difference between the richness of your memory of the interaction and the sparseness of what the text actually said?
(Google search results pull the quote, "Generally, high-context cultures prefer oral communications, while low-context cultures favor written communications." My thesis is the telephone is a technology that turns oral communication into a low-context activity, and SMS is a technology that turned textual communication into a high-context activity. It's not impossible but more difficult for untargeted scams to go unnoticed in a high context channel.)
(It’s happened with a package delivery, as well as a washing machine installation. In the latter case it was Home Depot, when I finally got ahold of them they said it was my fault for not answering the phone and that I had to reschedule for 2 weeks out, meanwhile I didn’t have a working washing machine. I cancelled the order instead, went to Lowe’s and had a washer in a few hours.)
Mobile phones just don't offer it by default --- the best most have is a "Do not disturb" setting.
There is a marketing opportunity here for some software developer --- lots of people would actually *pay* for a mobile app that could effectively weed out auto-dialers and/or selectively send only unknown callers directly to voice mail without ringing the phone.
Or even simpler, put on his Beam-a-Thought helmet and sent a message back in time directly into the noggins of every delivery driver at the warehouse.
Victim blaming at its most absurd.
I receive more spam SMS than scam calls too. Some of them are even asking me to provide information for the benefit of fake deliveries...