[coldpie]

> legacy TDM systems

Easy fix. It should be opt-in to accept a call that is routed through one of these. I know they allow it so some grandma in rural France that still uses a dial phone on a copper line that hasn't been touched since 1962 can call her son in New York, but for the rest of us who are not in that situation, we can just blacklist all those calls and lose nothing. This would even fix spam for the people who opt-in, because so few people have grandmas in rural France that it's not worth it for the spammers to bother anymore.

[simoncion]

> Easy fix. It should be opt-in to accept a call that is routed through one of these.

Easier (and correct) fix: Telecoms operators should not be permitted to provide transit to a call that's routed through one of these.

> I know they allow it so some grandma in rural France that still uses a dial phone on a copper line that hasn't been touched since 1962...

This doesn't make sense. Even my inexpensive Mikrotik switches can augment packets with the ID of the port that they originated from. I do not believe for even a second that Telecoms Grade switching equipment is unable to do the same. The fact that that grandma can send and receive calls tells you that both that that equipment exists and that it knows what port her phone is connected to.

[mschuster91]

> I do not believe for even a second that Telecoms Grade switching equipment is unable to do the same.

The example should rather have been some telecom carrier in Africa or India. Telco equipment is expensive, the technology is ridiculously complex and getting companies especially in less well-off regions to replace aging stuff and updating it to modern standards is next to impossible. Think about it, the globally connected phone system includes countries where you get 10 GBit/s symmetric fiber in your home and it includes countries where people don't even have running water because they're so poor.

The fact that we in Western countries can have a realtime conversation with someone in the Saharan desert or in an Indian village that requires days worth of travel [1] is nothing short of a miracle.

[1] https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2024/5/8/an-election-booth...

[simoncion]

> Telco equipment is expensive...

Sure, agreed.

> ...the technology is ridiculously complex...

Odd. I could have sworn that Caller ID, Customer-initiated Dialback, "Tell me the number of my most recent caller", and "Keep calling this number for the next half hour, and ring me if the call is answered" were features that were available on the POTS since the early 1990s. I agree that the tech's complex, but the R&D for the stuff I'm talking about has been over and done with for at least thirty five years. There are adult HN users who have never lived in a world without this stuff.

> ...getting companies especially in less well-off regions to replace aging stuff and updating it to modern standards is next to impossible.

I don't see how that's the problem of "The West"? If it's actually a problem, instruct "Western" telecoms to send a couple-hundred-million dollars in last-gen equipment, along with the techs required to install it and let them declare its original purchase price and the full cost of the manpower as a tax credit.

> ...is nothing short of a miracle.

If we ignore the existence of long-range radio, and if this were prior to 1965 or -at latest- 1970, I might agree. But, like, we've had satellite telecommunications for nearly sixty years, terrestrial microwave transceivers for a couple of decades longer, and short- and long-wave transceivers for far, far longer than either.

Additionally... I don't know if you've noticed, but it's not uncommon to have a satellite phone in your pocket these days.

[mschuster91]

> I agree that the tech's complex, but the R&D for the stuff I'm talking about has been over and done with for at least thirty five years.

Sure, but now have a look at the infrastructure that's physically deployed. Hell in Germany (!), it took until 2020 to finally disable the old and truly horribly aged ISDN infrastructure. When it takes the third-richest nation by GDP that long to replace technology, I am not going to demand better from nations that are a few dozen places below us on the economy rankings.

> I don't see how that's the problem of "The West"? If it's actually a problem, instruct "Western" telecoms to send a couple-hundred-million dollars in last-gen equipment, along with the techs required to install it and let them declare its original purchase price and the full cost of the manpower as a tax credit.

Yeah good luck with getting that past our populations that, no matter if we're talking about the US or Europe, have been riled up by the local far-right and Russia that foreign aid is a bad thing and "national wealth should stay in the nation" (with the end result of course being that Russia has swooped in to replace our foreign aid, and that's why we see so many putsches in Africa).

> But, like, we've had satellite telecommunications for nearly sixty years, terrestrial microwave transceivers for a couple of decades longer, and short- and long-wave transceivers for far, far longer than either.

Sure! But the fact remains that it took a lot of effort to get telephones and their infrastructure deployed effectively worldwide.

> Additionally... I don't know if you've noticed, but it's not uncommon to have a satellite phone in your pocket these days.

In developed economies, sure. But in countries where the iPhone models capable of that (or an outright Starlink terminal) can cost a full year's wages? In South Sudan, the yearly corrected purchase power is about 716 $ per person and year [1].

[1] https://gfmag.com/data/economic-data/poorest-country-in-the-...

[simoncion]

> When it takes the third-richest nation by GDP that long to replace technology, I am not going to demand better from nations that are a few dozen places below us on the economy rankings.

It's odd that you talk about "demanding" nations to foot the bill for upgrades even though I talk about paying "Western" telcos to give it to them, install it, and teach them how to use and maintain it for free. You even quote this plan in your next paragraph. Smells like you have an axe to grind or something.

> Yeah good luck with getting that past our populations that...

Oh boy. Hun, the "expense" is gonna be less than a couple billion dollars, and it's not even going to be an appropriation. Unless some politician wants to use it to score points, literally noone in the public will notice.

> But in countries where the iPhone models capable of that (or an outright Starlink terminal) can cost a full year's wages?

Mmm, tell me what the BOM is for the satellite communications package on the phones that I'm talking about. I bet that not only do you have no clue, you're also largely unaware of the state of radio telecommunications in many of the nations in Africa. As a bonus inquiry, do tell me how many of the people who can't afford to buy the cheapest-available satellite phone are running scam/spam phone call operations in those countries. I bet that number is very close to zero. ;)

Do remember that TFA that started all of this conversation discussed the FCC's plans to require government-issued ID in order to get access to the phone network. This is being presented as the "only way" to "solve" spam and scam calls, but even a moment's thought makes it plain that not only is it not the only way, [0] it will be completely unable to achieve the stated goal.

[0] ...tax credits and their equivalents move businesses to solve every problem that can be solved, after all...

[coldpie]

Your points would come across a lot better if you turned the sarcasm & condescension in your tone down like 15 notches. You're being bizarrely rude & aggressive for a conversation about telcom tech.

[9cb14c1ec0]

> I do not believe for even a second that Telecoms Grade switching equipment is unable to do the same

Mikrotik is a young spring chick compared to the dinosaurs in telecom.

[simoncion]

The simplest phone you can attach to any POTS line in the US is the touch-tone phone. [0] It's a microphone, speaker, ringer, switch, and a DTMF tone generator. The most complicated part of this device by far is the tone generator. The line it's attached to provides the power for all of the electronics/electromechanics inside the phone... and is also responsible for activating the phone's ringer and "knowing" the status of the "on hook" switch. The most basic phone models have no memory or logic inside them of any kind.

Given these restrictions, how does one ensure that one can activate the ringer of a single phone (and connect its speaker and mic to that of the caller, and noone else) in a world where all of the human operators were replaced by electromechanical ones, which were then replaced by fully computerized ones? Once one has figured that out, how does one ensure accurate and correct determination of the calling parties, the transit networks, and the duration of the call? One needs to recover your costs, and one uses usage-based billing to do so. [1]

In order to do those things, mightn't the system that that phone is connected to have to have all of the information about the callers, the systems the call flows through, the duration of the call, etc, etc, etc?

[0] Rotary phones are even simpler than touch-tone phones because they replace the tone generator with an elecromechanical gizmo that bangs on the line when it's rotated. Because I vaguely remember hearing that some phone networks were phasing out support for rotary phones, I'm assuming that you're not guaranteed to be able to attach one and have it function.

[1] I'll only briefly mention POTS features from ~35 years ago such as "Caller ID", "Read to me out loud the phone number of my most recent caller", and "Keep calling this number for the next half hour and ring me if they pick up", which had to (and did) work with these dumb-as-bricks phones.

[inigyou]

It is opt/in. There's three categories (according to that defcon talk): call originates from the number it says it does, call originates from our network but we're not sure about the number, and call came to us unverified (only allowed by regulation on legacy links).

Now, operators of those legacy links make A LOT of money for operating them since they carry 100% of the country's spam traffic, and they're not going to shut them down just because you think they should. The government would have to make them do it and they'll pretend upgrading is super expensive.

[coldpie]

> call originates from our network but we're not sure about the number, and call came to us unverified

I'm saying these two categories should be denied by default by my telecom provider, and the user must opt-in to receiving them.

> Now, operators of those legacy links make A LOT of money for operating them since they carry 100% of the country's spam traffic, and they're not going to shut them down just because you think they should.

Those operators are not my concern, they can do whatever they want. I want my telecom provider to block unknown/unverified calls by default. I have no reason to ever receive a call from an unverified source. Some people might, because they have business or relatives or whatever in such a region, and they can opt-in to receiving them if so.

[inigyou]

If your telecom provider stopped carrying unverified calls you'd cancel your service because you'd miss a lot of important calls. If the government required it for all calls though...

[coldpie]

> you'd miss a lot of important calls

Like what? Who is both a legitimate caller and also trying to call me through one of these unverified legacy services? If their calls stopped going through to a huge chunk of their customers (this is one of the reasons receiving unvalidated calls should be opt in, not opt out), why wouldn't they switch to a verified service?

[inigyou]

Your bank is calling you from a verified network, unverified number, because it's one of their employee's phones but they want the caller ID to be from the main switchboard, and they didn't bother to do the extra work with their telecom to make this verify as a correct number.

[briffle]

and when they can't get lots of "we don't accept unverified calls" messages, they will fix the problem.

[jrockway]

Sure, but why do I care? Let them run the legacy links. Just don't make my phone ring.

[calvinmorrison]

I am, more in tune with "just get it over with" than ever. Ipv6? 25 years of this crap? should have just said, Jan 1 2001, all routers must support 64 bit ipv4 addresses. Like the chrome HTTPS switch over, JUST DO IT

[donaldjbiden]

You mean 128 bit? That's called ipv6. It's ipv4 with 128 bit addresses.