Anti-fraud tools can't keep pace with robocall scammers
Robocall and phone scam volumes are so high that many people no longer answer unknown numbers, highlighting a growing loss of trust in the traditional phone network. Commenters argue that existing technical measures like STIR/SHAKEN are undermined by telecoms’ financial incentives and regulatory gaps, especially in the U.S., where carriers profit from both scam traffic and paid blocking services. Suggested remedies range from stricter carrier liability and bonding schemes to more aggressive network-level filtering and, in the long term, replacing legacy phone systems with authenticated, internet-based communication.
Structural causes of robocall spam
- Phone numbers and telecom networks are centrally controlled, but carriers have weak obligations to block abuse.
- Incentives are misaligned: carriers earn money from scam traffic and then sell “premium” anti-spam services back to users.
- Some commenters argue the problem is fundamentally economic/regulatory, not technical: penalties for abusive traffic are too low, enforcement is rare, and attempted scams are effectively ignored.
- In rural areas and legacy infrastructure, lack of modern interconnects (e.g., SIP trunks) makes authentication schemes harder to deploy.
Effectiveness and limits of current tools
- STIR/SHAKEN authenticates caller IDs but doesn’t create accountability: untrusted networks aren’t consistently blocked or penalized.
- Loopholes via legacy trunks and shady intermediate carriers allow scammers through.
- Carrier-level filters (e.g., “Scam Shield,” “Call Filter”) work reasonably well for some, but often as paid add-ons; compared to email, many think spam must be stopped at the network, not handset, level.
- Some VOIP/cable systems use risk-based approaches (high/medium/low risk, CAPTCHAs, voicemail routing), which commenters see as a strong model.
User coping tactics
- Common strategies: silence or block unknown callers, rely on voicemail, maintain separate “clean” and “public” numbers, use Google Voice, or front calls with SIP systems that require keypad input (human check).
- Others periodically replace public-facing numbers or use neighborhood/area-code filters.
- Drawbacks: risk of missing urgent calls from hospitals, schools, doctors, government offices that use unpredictable or non-text-capable numbers.
Vulnerable groups and real-world harms
- Elderly people are seen as especially at risk: less able to configure protections and often unable to block unknown numbers due to medical and care-related calls.
- Landlines serving older or rural users reportedly receive even more spam than mobiles.
- Personal stories describe constant spam during critical medical situations and a general collapse in trust in the phone network.
Policy and technical proposals
- Carrier bonding / surety schemes and “spam/fraud buttons” that trigger financial penalties up the carrier chain, making spam unprofitable.
- Strong KYC for phone numbers and authenticated caller ID traceable by law enforcement; some note this resembles stricter regimes abroad, others flag privacy concerns.
- Ideas to retire legacy phone systems in favor of PKI-based, decentralized, reputation-driven communication, balanced against the need for redundancy in disasters.
- Simpler suggestions include universal allow-lists, better “report abuse” flows, and getting legitimate organizations to stop behaving like scammers (random numbers, robocalls, magic-link emails).