Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #147315 > unrolled thread

Re: OT: spam phone calls

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-20 15:00 +0100
    Re: OT: spam phone calls Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-03-20 15:21 +0000
      Re: OT: spam phone calls D <noreply@mixmin.net> - 2025-03-20 16:27 +0000
      Re: OT: spam phone calls Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-03-20 18:53 +0100
        Re: OT: spam phone calls Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-03-20 18:39 +0000
      Re: OT: spam phone calls Jason H <jason_hindle@yehoo.com> - 2025-05-07 15:20 +0100
        Re: OT: spam phone calls David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2025-05-07 20:39 +0100
          Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-13 22:48 +1000
        Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-07 22:34 +0200
    Re: OT: spam phone calls David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2025-03-20 15:50 +0000
      Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-20 22:32 +0100
    Re: OT: spam phone calls Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-03-21 12:18 +0000
    Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-09 12:50 +0200
    Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-13 15:09 +0200
      Re: OT: spam phone calls Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-05-13 16:08 +0200
        Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-13 20:37 +0200
          Re: OT: spam phone calls Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-05-13 21:27 +0200
      Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-15 20:59 +1000
        Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-15 13:40 +0200
          Re: OT: spam phone calls JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2025-05-15 17:05 +0100

#147315 — Re: OT: spam phone calls

On 2025-03-20 13:10, Graham J wrote:
> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so:

There are groups more appropriate to phone trouble, like 
comp.mobile.android or uk.telecom.mobile. I have added them both to this 
post, so they will see your post below.

> 
> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang 
> her landline earlier this morning.  I did not, and my mobile phone has 
> been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a 
> signal) all morning, with nobody near it.
> 
> The lady used 1471 to find out who had rung her number, and used it's 
> recall facility to ring me; so she didn't make any transcription error 
> in dialling my number.
> 
> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed that 
> they chose unallocated numbers.  That is now apparently no longer true - 
> unless all you here can think of another way that the 1471 service can 
> see an erroneous number.

I thought Britain had some new regulation about faking the A number in a 
call.

I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the 
number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer to 
let them try again, maybe they got interrupted.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#147317

"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:

> On 2025-03-20 13:10, Graham J wrote:
>> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so:
>
> There are groups more appropriate to phone trouble, like
> comp.mobile.android or uk.telecom.mobile. I have added them both to
> this post, so they will see your post below.
>
>> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang
>> her landline earlier this morning.  I did not, and my mobile phone
>> has been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a
>> signal) all morning, with nobody near it.  The lady used 1471 to find
>> out who had rung her number, and used it's recall facility to ring
>> me; so she didn't make any transcription error in dialling my number.
>> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed
>> that they chose unallocated numbers.  That is now apparently no
>> longer true - unless all you here can think of another way that the
>> 1471 service can see an erroneous number.
>
> I thought Britain had some new regulation about faking the A number in
> a call.
>
> I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the
> number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer
> to let them try again, maybe they got interrupted.

It doesn't yet cover spoofed mobile numbers in caller-id.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#147320

On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 15:21:54 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:  
>"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>> On 2025-03-20 13:10, Graham J wrote:  
>>> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so: 
>>  
>> There are groups more appropriate to phone trouble, like 
>> comp.mobile.android or uk.telecom.mobile. I have added them both to  
>> this post, so they will see your post below. 
>>  
>>> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang 
>>> her landline earlier this morning.  I did not, and my mobile phone   
>>> has been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a
>>> signal) all morning, with nobody near it.  The lady used 1471 to find
>>> out who had rung her number, and used it's recall facility to ring
>>> me; so she didn't make any transcription error in dialling my number. 
>>> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed  
>>> that they chose unallocated numbers.  That is now apparently no
>>> longer true - unless all you here can think of another way that the 
>>> 1471 service can see an erroneous number.  
>>  
>> I thought Britain had some new regulation about faking the A number in  
>> a call. 
>> I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the  
>> number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer 
>> to let them try again, maybe they got interrupted. 
>
>It doesn't yet cover spoofed mobile numbers in caller-id.   
 
it's telephone terrorism, and phone companies get their scintillas  
    
since their inception, telegraph and telephone companies have been  
(big brother's black magic marker redacting records of secret data)   
  
there's nothing to see here  ...  keep moving  ...  keep moving ...  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#147324

On 20.03.25 16:21, Richmond wrote:
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>> I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the
>> number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer
>> to let them try again, maybe they got interrupted.
> 
> It doesn't yet cover spoofed mobile numbers in caller-id.

Sure it does: Usually you do not know the spoofed numbers so you do not
take up the call. That is what we do too.

If it is important people can leave a message on the voicemail box.

-- 
"De gustibus non est disputandum."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#147327

Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> writes:

> On 20.03.25 16:21, Richmond wrote:
>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>>> I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the
>>> number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer
>>> to let them try again, maybe they got interrupted.
>> 
>> It doesn't yet cover spoofed mobile numbers in caller-id.
>
> Sure it does: Usually you do not know the spoofed numbers so you do not
> take up the call. That is what we do too.
>
> If it is important people can leave a message on the voicemail box.

You deleted the part I was referring to.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148317

On 3/20/25 15:21, Richmond wrote:
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
> 
>> On 2025-03-20 13:10, Graham J wrote:
>>> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so:
>>
>> There are groups more appropriate to phone trouble, like
>> comp.mobile.android or uk.telecom.mobile. I have added them both to
>> this post, so they will see your post below.
>>
>>> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang
>>> her landline earlier this morning.  I did not, and my mobile phone
>>> has been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a
>>> signal) all morning, with nobody near it.  The lady used 1471 to find
>>> out who had rung her number, and used it's recall facility to ring
>>> me; so she didn't make any transcription error in dialling my number.
>>> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed
>>> that they chose unallocated numbers.  That is now apparently no
>>> longer true - unless all you here can think of another way that the
>>> 1471 service can see an erroneous number.
>>
>> I thought Britain had some new regulation about faking the A number in
>> a call.
>>
>> I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the
>> number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer
>> to let them try again, maybe they got interrupted.
> 
> It doesn't yet cover spoofed mobile numbers in caller-id.

And not easy to enforce. I don't think there's anything in place 
(software/infrastructure) to spot a fake number from real. It's the 
bleeding obvious plague that no one saw coming -\O/-.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148320

On 07/05/2025 15:20, Jason H wrote:
> And not easy to enforce. I don't think there's anything in place 
> (software/infrastructure) to spot a fake number from real. It's the 
> bleeding obvious plague that no one saw coming -\O/-.

Yes there is, although it does have a third category for, basically, 
number from abroad, whose status is unknown.  It has been introduced fro 
all VoIP in the USA.

Providers have to sign information that indicates whether caller ID is 
the true caller ID, or another caller ID from someone they have 
positively identified.  (A and B attestations; C is the third case 
above.)  I haven't gone into the details of how the true identity is 
tracked, but, if it isn't included in the VoIP headers, I assume that 
the provider must log it and provide it to the authorities.

Search STIR/SHAKEN for more information.

Unfortunately this has been cross-posted to world as well as UK groups, 
and I suspect you are in the UK.  Also the real problem is associated 
with VoIP, and it hasn't been posted to a VoIP group.

I believe that the UK didn't want to use the extension to the 
traditional PSTN, and is awaiting analogue switch off, before fully 
implementing the same, or similar.

I believe many US legacy network users see a "V" in the caller ID, if it 
is a true caller ID of the caller.

I believe there are mechanisms for passing on authentication when an 
call is forwarded, but it's something I've researched in depth, only 
noting that complying has tripped up many US VoIP using organisations, 
who used to like forwarding original caller ID to outworkers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148379

On 8/05/2025 5:39 am, David Woolley wrote:
> On 07/05/2025 15:20, Jason H wrote:
>> And not easy to enforce. I don't think there's anything in place 
>> (software/infrastructure) to spot a fake number from real. It's the 
>> bleeding obvious plague that no one saw coming -\O/-.
> 
> Yes there is, although it does have a third category for, basically, 
> number from abroad, whose status is unknown.  It has been introduced fro 
> all VoIP in the USA.
> 
> Providers have to sign information that indicates whether caller ID is 
> the true caller ID, or another caller ID from someone they have 
> positively identified.  (A and B attestations; C is the third case 
> above.)  I haven't gone into the details of how the true identity is 
> tracked, but, if it isn't included in the VoIP headers, I assume that 
> the provider must log it and provide it to the authorities.
> 
> Search STIR/SHAKEN for more information.
> 
> Unfortunately this has been cross-posted to world as well as UK groups, 
> and I suspect you are in the UK.  Also the real problem is associated 
> with VoIP, and it hasn't been posted to a VoIP group.
> 
> I believe that the UK didn't want to use the extension to the 
> traditional PSTN, and is awaiting analogue switch off, before fully 
> implementing the same, or similar.
> 
> I believe many US legacy network users see a "V" in the caller ID, if it 
> is a true caller ID of the caller.

How long before the Spammers start including a 'V' at the start of their 
caller ID, then??

Or will International Telcos then start blocking any incoming calls that 
include a 'V'??

> I believe there are mechanisms for passing on authentication when an 
> call is forwarded, but it's something I've researched in depth, only 
> noting that complying has tripped up many US VoIP using organisations, 
> who used to like forwarding original caller ID to outworkers.
-- 
Daniel70

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148321

On 2025-05-07 16:20, Jason H wrote:
> On 3/20/25 15:21, Richmond wrote:
>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 2025-03-20 13:10, Graham J wrote:
>>>> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so:
>>>
>>> There are groups more appropriate to phone trouble, like
>>> comp.mobile.android or uk.telecom.mobile. I have added them both to
>>> this post, so they will see your post below.
>>>
>>>> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang
>>>> her landline earlier this morning.  I did not, and my mobile phone
>>>> has been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a
>>>> signal) all morning, with nobody near it.  The lady used 1471 to find
>>>> out who had rung her number, and used it's recall facility to ring
>>>> me; so she didn't make any transcription error in dialling my number.
>>>> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed
>>>> that they chose unallocated numbers.  That is now apparently no
>>>> longer true - unless all you here can think of another way that the
>>>> 1471 service can see an erroneous number.
>>>
>>> I thought Britain had some new regulation about faking the A number in
>>> a call.
>>>
>>> I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the
>>> number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer
>>> to let them try again, maybe they got interrupted.
>>
>> It doesn't yet cover spoofed mobile numbers in caller-id.
> 
> And not easy to enforce. I don't think there's anything in place 
> (software/infrastructure) to spot a fake number from real. It's the 
> bleeding obvious plague that no one saw coming -\O/-.

It can be done via regulation.

A major telephone provider has to accept connections coming from other 
provider. If that provider allows faked numbers, break the contract, no 
more calls coming from that provider. Block them all till they do something.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#147318

On 20/03/2025 14:00, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-03-20 13:10, Graham J wrote:
>> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so:
> 
> There are groups more appropriate to phone trouble, like 
> comp.mobile.android or uk.telecom.mobile. I have added them both to this 
> post, so they will see your post below.
> 
>>
>> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang 
>> her landline earlier this morning.  I did not, and my mobile phone has 
>> been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a 
>> signal) all morning, with nobody near it.
>>
>> The lady used 1471 to find out who had rung her number, and used it's 
>> recall facility to ring me; so she didn't make any transcription error 
>> in dialling my number.
>>
>> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed 
>> that they chose unallocated numbers.  That is now apparently no longer 
>> true - unless all you here can think of another way that the 1471 
>> service can see an erroneous number.

I had the same a while ago. Got lots of angry calls on my mobile. For a 
while I changed my voice mail to tell callers my number was being 
spoofed. Seems to have stopped being used now.

> 
> I thought Britain had some new regulation about faking the A number in a 
> call.
> 

I think using a mobile by-passes the regulation, because otherwise it 
would prevent mobile roaming. Expect more use of mobiles by scammers.

> I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the 
> number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer to 
> let them try again, maybe they got interrupted.
> 
> 
I wish others would do that, but of course with a mobile "it might be a 
friend with a new number" so its tempting to return the call

Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#147329

On 2025-03-20 16:50, David Wade wrote:
> On 20/03/2025 14:00, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2025-03-20 13:10, Graham J wrote:
>>> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so:
>>
>> There are groups more appropriate to phone trouble, like 
>> comp.mobile.android or uk.telecom.mobile. I have added them both to 
>> this post, so they will see your post below.
>>
>>>
>>> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang 
>>> her landline earlier this morning.  I did not, and my mobile phone 
>>> has been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a 
>>> signal) all morning, with nobody near it.
>>>
>>> The lady used 1471 to find out who had rung her number, and used it's 
>>> recall facility to ring me; so she didn't make any transcription 
>>> error in dialling my number.
>>>
>>> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed 
>>> that they chose unallocated numbers.  That is now apparently no 
>>> longer true - unless all you here can think of another way that the 
>>> 1471 service can see an erroneous number.
> 
> I had the same a while ago. Got lots of angry calls on my mobile. For a 
> while I changed my voice mail to tell callers my number was being 
> spoofed. Seems to have stopped being used now.

That's horrible luck.


> 
>>
>> I thought Britain had some new regulation about faking the A number in 
>> a call.
>>
> 
> I think using a mobile by-passes the regulation, because otherwise it 
> would prevent mobile roaming. Expect more use of mobiles by scammers.

Argh. :-/

> 
>> I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the 
>> number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer 
>> to let them try again, maybe they got interrupted.
>>
>>
> I wish others would do that, but of course with a mobile "it might be a 
> friend with a new number" so its tempting to return the call

The friend will call again or leave a whatsapp or SMS.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#147343

In article <8kjtalxutn.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, robin_listas@es.invalid 
says...
>

>
>I thought Britain had some new regulation about faking the A number in a 
>call.
>
>I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the 
>number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer to 
>let them try again, maybe they got interrupted.

There are regulations, sure, but there are laws against fraud.  
Currently estimated at 40% of all crime in the UK.

-- 
--
Phil, London

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#147719

On 2025-03-20 15:00, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-03-20 13:10, Graham J wrote:
>> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so:
> 
> There are groups more appropriate to phone trouble, like 
> comp.mobile.android or uk.telecom.mobile. I have added them both to this 
> post, so they will see your post below.
> 
>>
>> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang 
>> her landline earlier this morning.  I did not, and my mobile phone has 
>> been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a 
>> signal) all morning, with nobody near it.
>>
>> The lady used 1471 to find out who had rung her number, and used it's 
>> recall facility to ring me; so she didn't make any transcription error 
>> in dialling my number.
>>
>> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed 
>> that they chose unallocated numbers.  That is now apparently no longer 
>> true - unless all you here can think of another way that the 1471 
>> service can see an erroneous number.
> 
> I thought Britain had some new regulation about faking the A number in a 
> call.

Spain has a new regulation. The other day I chanced on a press article saying that Telefónica, the biggest provider here, is activating measures early.

I hope it is true.

Automatic translation by DeepL:


<https://www.servimedia.es/noticias/telefonica-inicia-bloqueo-llamadas-internacionales-fraudulentas-numeracion-espanola/1411571767>

     Telefónica starts blocking fraudulent international calls with Spanish numbers

     - Ahead of the deadline for the ministerial order against telephone scams

     4-5 minutes

     Telefónica has already begun blocking calls and SMS messages with international origin using Spanish numbers except when roaming is permitted, ahead of the deadlines established in the order against telephone scams recently approved by the government.

     The order of the Ministry of Digital Transformation and Public Function came into force on 7 March and establishes a maximum period of three months for operators, until 7 June, to begin blocking calls, but Telefónica has anticipated this date and has already put it into effect, according to sources from the company, which have told Servimedia.

     The aim of the ban on calls and messages with international origins and national numbers is to prevent scams, as this type of communication encourages identity theft by simulating calls from reliable local numbers.

     In order to block these communications, Telefónica has implemented the necessary technical measures to control roaming calls from Movistar customers originating abroad.

     Another measure provided for in the order, which Telefónica has already implemented in compliance with the established deadlines, concerns the detection and blocking of calls and messages that use as a sender a number not assigned to the operators or that enter the user's telephone with an empty sender.

     On the other hand, the order establishes that the CNMC must create a public register of ‘aliases’, or alphanumeric codes that can be used as senders of messages, which includes both the alias and the identification of the operators or messaging service providers authorised to send SMS or MMS using that alias.

     Messages originating from aliases not included in this register will have to be blocked by the messaging providers.

     According to Telefónica, they have already made themselves available to the regulator to work on the project, which in this case has more time for its implementation, until 7 June 2026.

     COMMERCIAL SPAM

     As for measures relating to the identification of customer service calls and unsolicited commercial calls, which are also included in the order as of 7 June 2025, commercial calls from mobile numbers will be prohibited and 800 and 900 numbers will be enabled for commercial calls by call centre staff. Telefónica is also working on this point by contacting customers who may need changes to comply with this requirement.

     Telefónica has been taking various measures to protect its customers from scams for years. Movistar regularly and regularly launches campaigns with a series of recommendations to avoid fraud, as well as disseminating a series of tips and warnings via direct email to the customer, via social networks and/or on the WhatsApp channel.

     In addition, Movistar implements numerous barriers to make it difficult for fraudsters to obtain customer data. One of them consists of securing the change of credentials in the customer area of the website by sending an OTP code (One-Time Password) to the customer's phone with the message ‘If someone is asking you for this code, do not give it to them. They may be cheating you’. This advice makes it clear that the customer must enter it on the website, no one else, and never give it to third parties.


     Telefónica also collaborates with the State Security Forces and Corps to try to dismantle the schemes involved in this type of scam.

     As regards unwanted commercial calls or spam, Movistar does not make them and only contacts potential customers who have requested information in its shops. Even in the latter case, the teleco always applies the stipulations of the internal code of ethics of good practices in terms of days, times, identification of the calling number and the name of both the calling company and the salesperson making the call.

     (SERVIMEDIA)
     06 Apr 2025
     JRN/gja

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148382

On 2025-03-20 15:00, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-03-20 13:10, Graham J wrote:
>> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so:
> 
> There are groups more appropriate to phone trouble, like 
> comp.mobile.android or uk.telecom.mobile. I have added them both to this 
> post, so they will see your post below.
> 
>>
>> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang 
>> her landline earlier this morning.  I did not, and my mobile phone has 
>> been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a 
>> signal) all morning, with nobody near it.
>>
>> The lady used 1471 to find out who had rung her number, and used it's 
>> recall facility to ring me; so she didn't make any transcription error 
>> in dialling my number.
>>
>> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed 
>> that they chose unallocated numbers.  That is now apparently no longer 
>> true - unless all you here can think of another way that the 1471 
>> service can see an erroneous number.
> 
> I thought Britain had some new regulation about faking the A number in a 
> call.
> 
> I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the 
> number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer to 
> let them try again, maybe they got interrupted.

Spain has announced a new regulation this summer (it still has to be 
processed in Parliament). Commercial entities issuing phone calls will 
prepend a number to their phone number, identifying the company. There 
will be a registry of such prefixes. Telcos will block phone calls 
without the prefix.


+++···················
<https://cadenaser.com/nacional/2025/05/12/bustinduy-explica-las-tres-medidas-de-consumo-para-acabar-con-las-llamadas-comerciales-masivas-a-los-moviles-cadena-ser/>

...

What is the Ministry going to do to put an end to calls from companies 
to sell us supposed offers?

We have done our homework and we are going to introduce a regulatory 
change through two amendments to the Customer Services Act to block 
so-called spam calls. We will do this in three ways:

    * Companies will be obliged to identify all numbers from which they 
make business telephone calls with a specific numerical code (a 
telephone prefix). They will also have to identify customer service 
calls with a different code. On the basis of these codes, 
telecommunications operators will be obliged to block all calls from 
companies that do not use these codes.

    * To declare null and void contracts that are concluded in 
non-consensual telephone calls. In this way, companies will be 
discouraged from making unwanted calls, since the contracts obtained in 
this type of communication will be null and void.

    * All companies will be obliged to renew their consent to receive 
commercial calls with the user every two years, thus ensuring that 
companies do not rely on indefinite or ambiguous authorisations to 
continue contacting consumers.


How will the code numbers work?

There is a register of number codes so that when that prefix calls us, 
it will come up and we will know that it is commercial, it will be 
traceable. If there is a call without a code, companies will have to 
block it immediately.


And how is consent renewed every two years?

We will have to renew our consent every two years. It will also happen 
with the automatic renewal of subscriptions. We are going to introduce 
that 15 days before the renewal takes place, companies will have to send 
an obligatory email to give notice. It is a question of ensuring what we 
contract and how much we spend.

...

···················++-


But I don't understand how Telcos will detect that a phone call without 
prefix is commercial. We still have the problem of faked numbers.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148383

On 13.05.25 15:09, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-03-20 15:00, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the 
>> number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer to 
>> let them try again, maybe they got interrupted.
> 
> Spain has announced a new regulation this summer (it still has to be 
> processed in Parliament). Commercial entities issuing phone calls will 
> prepend a number to their phone number, identifying the company. There 
> will be a registry of such prefixes. Telcos will block phone calls 
> without the prefix.

How long will it take until spammers prepend these numbers?
Come on! This is quite primitive!

The Spaniards should ask Swisscom how these things really work and how
spamblocking is professionally executed in a VOIP-network.


-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148390

On 2025-05-13 16:08, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 13.05.25 15:09, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2025-03-20 15:00, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the
>>> number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer to
>>> let them try again, maybe they got interrupted.
>>
>> Spain has announced a new regulation this summer (it still has to be
>> processed in Parliament). Commercial entities issuing phone calls will
>> prepend a number to their phone number, identifying the company. There
>> will be a registry of such prefixes. Telcos will block phone calls
>> without the prefix.
> 
> How long will it take until spammers prepend these numbers?
> Come on! This is quite primitive!

Maybe by Telcos non routing these calls. Unexpected prefixes.

> 
> The Spaniards should ask Swisscom how these things really work and how
> spamblocking is professionally executed in a VOIP-network.

I am sure they have several professionals advising what and how to do 
things.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148391

On 13.05.25 20:37, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-05-13 16:08, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> On 13.05.25 15:09, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2025-03-20 15:00, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the
>>>> number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer to
>>>> let them try again, maybe they got interrupted.
>>>
>>> Spain has announced a new regulation this summer (it still has to be
>>> processed in Parliament). Commercial entities issuing phone calls will
>>> prepend a number to their phone number, identifying the company. There
>>> will be a registry of such prefixes. Telcos will block phone calls
>>> without the prefix.
>>
>> How long will it take until spammers prepend these numbers?
>> Come on! This is quite primitive!
> 
> Maybe by Telcos non routing these calls. Unexpected prefixes.
> 
>>
>> The Spaniards should ask Swisscom how these things really work and how
>> spamblocking is professionally executed in a VOIP-network.
> 
> I am sure they have several professionals advising what and how to do 
> things.

I guess so. It depends on what is still in the legal framework.
That is why it was opt-in for a long time. Since a couple of weeks it is
opt-out.


-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148441

On 13/05/2025 11:09 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-03-20 15:00, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2025-03-20 13:10, Graham J wrote:
>>> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so:
>>
>> There are groups more appropriate to phone trouble, like 
>> comp.mobile.android or uk.telecom.mobile. I have added them both to 
>> this post, so they will see your post below.
>>
>>>
>>> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang 
>>> her landline earlier this morning.  I did not, and my mobile phone 
>>> has been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a 
>>> signal) all morning, with nobody near it.
>>>
>>> The lady used 1471 to find out who had rung her number, and used it's 
>>> recall facility to ring me; so she didn't make any transcription 
>>> error in dialling my number.
>>>
>>> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed 
>>> that they chose unallocated numbers.  That is now apparently no 
>>> longer true - unless all you here can think of another way that the 
>>> 1471 service can see an erroneous number.
>>
>> I thought Britain had some new regulation about faking the A number in 
>> a call.
>>
>> I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the 
>> number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer 
>> to let them try again, maybe they got interrupted.
> 
> Spain has announced a new regulation this summer (it still has to be 
> processed in Parliament). Commercial entities issuing phone calls will 
> prepend a number to their phone number, identifying the company. There 
> will be a registry of such prefixes. Telcos will block phone calls 
> without the prefix.
> 
> 
> +++···················
> <https://cadenaser.com/nacional/2025/05/12/bustinduy-explica-las-tres-medidas-de-consumo-para-acabar-con-las-llamadas-comerciales-masivas-a-los-moviles-cadena-ser/> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> What is the Ministry going to do to put an end to calls from companies 
> to sell us supposed offers?
> 
> We have done our homework and we are going to introduce a regulatory 
> change through two amendments to the Customer Services Act to block 
> so-called spam calls. We will do this in three ways:
> 
>     * Companies will be obliged to identify all numbers from which they 
> make business telephone calls with a specific numerical code (a 
> telephone prefix). They will also have to identify customer service 
> calls with a different code. On the basis of these codes, 
> telecommunications operators will be obliged to block all calls from 
> companies that do not use these codes.
> 
>     * To declare null and void contracts that are concluded in 
> non-consensual telephone calls. In this way, companies will be 
> discouraged from making unwanted calls, since the contracts obtained in 
> this type of communication will be null and void.
> 
>     * All companies will be obliged to renew their consent to receive 
> commercial calls with the user every two years, thus ensuring that 
> companies do not rely on indefinite or ambiguous authorisations to 
> continue contacting consumers.
> 
> 
> How will the code numbers work?
> 
> There is a register of number codes so that when that prefix calls us, 
> it will come up and we will know that it is commercial, it will be 
> traceable. If there is a call without a code, companies will have to 
> block it immediately.
> 
> 
> And how is consent renewed every two years?
> 
> We will have to renew our consent every two years. It will also happen 
> with the automatic renewal of subscriptions. We are going to introduce 
> that 15 days before the renewal takes place, companies will have to send 
> an obligatory email to give notice. It is a question of ensuring what we 
> contract and how much we spend.
> 
> ...
> 
> ···················++-
> 
> 
> But I don't understand how Telcos will detect that a phone call without 
> prefix is commercial. We still have the problem of faked numbers.

Hmm! I was going to ask "How would the Telcos determine that YOU are 
ringing, e.g., your MUM so the call should go through?? .... but, 
a.t.t., I hadn't read this last paragraph of yours .... which indicates 
you don't know, either!! ;-P
-- 
Daniel70

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148442

On 2025-05-15 12:59, Daniel70 wrote:
> On 13/05/2025 11:09 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2025-03-20 15:00, Carlos E.R. wrote:

...

>> But I don't understand how Telcos will detect that a phone call 
>> without prefix is commercial. We still have the problem of faked numbers.
> 
> Hmm! I was going to ask "How would the Telcos determine that YOU are 
> ringing, e.g., your MUM so the call should go through?? .... but, 
> a.t.t., I hadn't read this last paragraph of yours .... which indicates 
> you don't know, either!! ;-P

Yes. Interesting times ahead :-)

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148455

I had the usual call from 'Bank Security' this morning.

They quoted the two payments that have been claiming for at least the 
last year - same payees and same amounts!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web