Truth in Caller ID Act
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Dave on April 11, 2007, 4:50 pm
Please log in for more thread options Now that I moved back to the USA and set up phone service I've been getting hammered by illegal prerecorded telemarketing calls. Often times the caller ID is spoofed on these calls. I've always had sort of a sideline interest in telecommunications and so I started reading about Caller ID spoofing. Apparently there has been a lot of talk around the US about making caller ID spoofing illegal including a "Truth in Caller ID Act". Somehow I doubt the telemarketers will be dissuaded. Now forgive me as I know very little about how actual telephone networks function, but it seems like it would be trivial for the phone companies themselves to seal up this gaping hole in security. Would it not be much simpler for the US government to just hold the telephone companies accountable for this billable service they provide? Why don't the central offices just reject any incoming Caller ID info and stamp on the correct info? In the case of VoIP, stamp on the VoIP provider's phone number and require VoIP providers to divulge the contact info of it's subscribers to called parties.... In the case of calls from unknown or untrustworthy providers - don't provide any caller ID... Is there something technologically impossible or unfeasible about these ideas? There has to be something I'm missing. If it requires caller ID technology upgrades, then why not just rip off the band-aid and do it. 10 years from now we'll all have phones that support the new protocol and hopefully a feature for upgrading the caller ID software. I just don't see why the government would even bother with making impossible to enforce laws aimed at the telemarketers. Enlighten me... Dave | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Linc Madison on April 11, 2007, 7:25 pm
Please log in for more thread options On ordinary single-line telephone service, the Caller ID data is inserted by the telco switch. The problem comes from PBX's. The telco's line ID for the trunk is pretty much useless for Caller ID purposes, especially since on most PBX's that line is outgoing only. In fact, it may even have a non-dialable number, like (xxx) 0xx-xxxx. Thus, the PBX inserts the Caller ID data, which the telco accepts on faith. It's very difficult to separate out the PBX administrators who "accidentally" transmit invalid CLID from the ones who do it intentionally. It should be possible, though, for the telco to do some sort of "sanity check," making sure that the CLID is at least a potentially valid number, or better yet ensuring that the CLID transmitted by a PBX is within a specified range of numbers. For example, the PBX might have DID numbers of xxx-2000 through xxx-3999. If that's too much to do in real time, telco could at least do random spot checks. I recently got a call from "Rachel" of "Cardholder Services," offering me my "final opportunity" to lower my interest rate on my credit card debt (if I owe more than $2,500). Unfortunately, my phone with CLID display wasn't connected, but I've discovered that the same recording pops up all over the country, often with completely bogus CLID -- for example, non-existent area code. A few years ago, I was getting illegal prerecorded telemarketing calls to my personal 800 number in the wee hours of the morning, even on weekends. Happily, in that instance, the number to call back for more info (about automated telemarketing services, naturally) was a personal 800 number that rang into the owner's bedroom, and there were more payphones in my neighborhood than he had slots in his call-blocking list. I suspect it was his wife who made him turn off the robodialer. -- Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom at Linc Mad d0t c0m URL: < http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits
US, California, and Washington State laws apply to LINCMAD.COM e-mail.
Read my political blog, "The Third Path" <http://LincMad.blogspot.com> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Grant Edwards on April 11, 2007, 7:36 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> [...] Happily, in that instance, the number to call back for
> more info (about automated telemarketing services, naturally) > was a personal 800 number that rang into the owner's bedroom, > and there were more payphones in my neighborhood than he had > slots in his call-blocking list. I suspect it was his wife who > made him turn off the robodialer. Payphones? Like the ones you see in old movies and TV shows where you put coins in? ;) OK, they're not quite that rare... yet. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! I'm shaving!! I'M at SHAVING!! visi.com | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by on April 19, 2007, 4:29 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> Payphones?
> > Like the ones you see in old movies and TV shows where you put > coins in? ;) > > OK, they're not quite that rare... yet. They're getting harder to find. In NYC there are lots of them. To my pleasure, many offered 25c/minute long distance. A recent TV show just pictured a person using a pay phone, with the ding-ding sound when she put in the coin. Payphones haven't done that in years. Ironically, the story line was about the girl earning some extra money to get her own cell phone. She was grossed out using the dirty school's pay phone. They tell me schools have removed pay phones because the kids used them for abusive purposes. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by T on April 20, 2007, 6:45 pm
Please log in for more thread options
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... > > Payphones?
> > > > Like the ones you see in old movies and TV shows where you put > > coins in? ;) > > > > OK, they're not quite that rare... yet. >
> They're getting harder to find. In NYC there are lots of them. To my > pleasure, many offered 25c/minute long distance. > > A recent TV show just pictured a person using a pay phone, with the > ding-ding sound when she put in the coin. Payphones haven't done that > in years. Ironically, the story line was about the girl earning some > extra money to get her own cell phone. She was grossed out using the > dirty school's pay phone. > > They tell me schools have removed pay phones because the kids used > them for abusive purposes. I remember seeing the old three slot pay phones but never got to use one. The only payphones I'd ever used were the armored types, where you could hear the beeps in the handset when you dropped coins in the chute. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| Truth in Caller ID Act | April 11, 2007, 4:50 pm |
| Caller ID ??? | April 7, 2006, 12:11 am |
| Caller-ID | December 4, 2006, 4:21 am |
| Caller ID | January 9, 2007, 10:56 pm |
| Sending a different caller ID | November 29, 2004, 2:43 pm |
| Understanding caller ID | October 23, 2005, 8:11 pm |
| CTI Caller ID Capture | January 31, 2006, 12:56 pm |
| NEC DS 2000 - no caller id | April 11, 2006, 7:22 am |
| Caller ID disappears | June 11, 2008, 6:27 pm |
| Partner ACS 6 and a T1 module for DID & Caller ID | August 19, 2004, 5:03 pm |
| Caller ID Name Delivery (CNAM) | November 10, 2004, 2:12 pm |
| UK Caller ID test equipment | November 22, 2004, 2:03 pm |
| Caller I.D. "Spoof" Detector | June 2, 2005, 1:48 am |
| Outgoing Caller ID Blocking | July 13, 2006, 10:20 am |
| Intermittent dropped caller id | October 21, 2006, 7:55 pm |
> getting hammered by illegal prerecorded telemarketing calls. Often
> times the caller ID is spoofed on these calls. I've always had sort
> of a sideline interest in telecommunications and so I started reading
> about Caller ID spoofing. Apparently there has been a lot of talk
> around the US about making caller ID spoofing illegal including a
> "Truth in Caller ID Act". Somehow I doubt the telemarketers will be
> dissuaded.
>
> Now forgive me as I know very little about how actual telephone
> networks function, but it seems like it would be trivial for the
> phone companies themselves to seal up this gaping hole in security.