#deathoftelephony — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #deathoftelephony, aggregated by home.social.
-
If you could swap your smartphone for another device, what would that be?
You're strongly encouraged to explain your response.
#Smartphone #DumbPhone #FeaturePhone #DeathOfTelephony #Comms
-
@neil No, but this is something I've been actively researching for ... an embarrassingly long time (months) ... with low satisfaction. But as this is on my current to-do list, this toot doesn't count as procrastination 😺
I have a perfectly serviceable early-2000s flip phone which I'd love to reactivate ... but it won't talk to any current-generation mobile cellular networks.
I've looked at current low-feature phones, with interest in the Light Phone and Punkt MP02. Both ... have drawbacks, though I'll likely end up with one or the other.
The MP02 lacks comprehensive protocol coverage, and hence is limited to a subset of local mobile providers, unfortunately the ones I'd most prefer not giving my business. (I'd prefer not giving any of them my business, but that seems unlikely).
The MP02 does offer integrated Signal messaging, which is a strong plus.
The Light Phone is spendy but is also compatible with more carriers, which ... will probably win me. There are a couple of revs on the initial design, though I'd favour e-ink (original) over OLED (LPIII).
What both the MP02 and LP offer is tethering, which means your phone becomes your no-WiFi backup for Internet access, enabling you to use a more-featured, non-telco device for comms.
Which suggests another path:
- Dumbphone for critical on-the-road comms, as needed.
- Dumphone as cellular modem.
- Small-form-factor PC/laptop as primary comms device.
Palmtop PCs (e.g., the Psion 3) are no longer of this world, which is a shame. But smaller laptops, e.g., Framework's 12" (8.45 x 287.00 x 213.88mm, 1.3 kg), are effectively a far-more-capable larger tablet (I've been carrying a 13.3" Onyx BOOX for the past four years), without all the handicapping and crappification of Android. With a Bluetooth earpiece that becomes its own vox comms device, and you have full access to any other comms protocol through your Linux distro of choice, with a full keyboard. The Framework 12 is convertible (360° hinge) with stylus support. It doesn't have an e-ink screen module (yet?), but ... I can live with that. For anything other than on-the-run use, it's likely superior to any smartphone or tablet.
The other issue is vox comms management. I'd prefer not being directly on the PSTN network, so what I'd really like is that my "phone" accepts (and mostly makes) calls to only one other point: a VOIP relay which intercepts all incoming calls and redirects outgoing. Incoming traffic is then limited to only those numbers I allow, or which pass some screening mechanism. And my mobile telco provider gets a Very Boring profile of whom it is I'm in contact with. Whether or not this ideal VOIP service / capability exists I'm not sure, but that's what I'm looking into.
And yes, it would be possible to ditch the phone entirely for a pure-play modem, though the ability to make calls directly in an emergency has its arguments.
-
@neil No, but this is something I've been actively researching for ... an embarrassingly long time (months) ... with low satisfaction. But as this is on my current to-do list, this toot doesn't count as procrastination 😺
I have a perfectly serviceable early-2000s flip phone which I'd love to reactivate ... but it won't talk to any current-generation mobile cellular networks.
I've looked at current low-feature phones, with interest in the Light Phone and Punkt MP02. Both ... have drawbacks, though I'll likely end up with one or the other.
The MP02 lacks comprehensive protocol coverage, and hence is limited to a subset of local mobile providers, unfortunately the ones I'd most prefer not giving my business. (I'd prefer not giving any of them my business, but that seems unlikely).
The MP02 does offer integrated Signal messaging, which is a strong plus.
The Light Phone is spendy but is also compatible with more carriers, which ... will probably win me. There are a couple of revs on the initial design, though I'd favour e-ink (original) over OLED (LPIII).
What both the MP02 and LP offer is tethering, which means your phone becomes your no-WiFi backup for Internet access, enabling you to use a more-featured, non-telco device for comms.
Which suggests another path:
- Dumbphone for critical on-the-road comms, as needed.
- Dumphone as cellular modem.
- Small-form-factor PC/laptop as primary comms device.
Palmtop PCs (e.g., the Psion 3) are no longer of this world, which is a shame. But smaller laptops, e.g., Framework's 12" (8.45 x 287.00 x 213.88mm, 1.3 kg), are effectively a far-more-capable larger tablet (I've been carrying a 13.3" Onyx BOOX for the past four years), without all the handicapping and crappification of Android. With a Bluetooth earpiece that becomes its own vox comms device, and you have full access to any other comms protocol through your Linux distro of choice, with a full keyboard. The Framework 12 is convertible (360° hinge) with stylus support. It doesn't have an e-ink screen module (yet?), but ... I can live with that. For anything other than on-the-run use, it's likely superior to any smartphone or tablet.
The other issue is vox comms management. I'd prefer not being directly on the PSTN network, so what I'd really like is that my "phone" accepts (and mostly makes) calls to only one other point: a VOIP relay which intercepts all incoming calls and redirects outgoing. Incoming traffic is then limited to only those numbers I allow, or which pass some screening mechanism. And my mobile telco provider gets a Very Boring profile of whom it is I'm in contact with. Whether or not this ideal VOIP service / capability exists I'm not sure, but that's what I'm looking into.
And yes, it would be possible to ditch the phone entirely for a pure-play modem, though the ability to make calls directly in an emergency has its arguments.
-
@neil No, but this is something I've been actively researching for ... an embarrassingly long time (months) ... with low satisfaction. But as this is on my current to-do list, this toot doesn't count as procrastination 😺
I have a perfectly serviceable early-2000s flip phone which I'd love to reactivate ... but it won't talk to any current-generation mobile cellular networks.
I've looked at current low-feature phones, with interest in the Light Phone and Punkt MP02. Both ... have drawbacks, though I'll likely end up with one or the other.
The MP02 lacks comprehensive protocol coverage, and hence is limited to a subset of local mobile providers, unfortunately the ones I'd most prefer not giving my business. (I'd prefer not giving any of them my business, but that seems unlikely).
The MP02 does offer integrated Signal messaging, which is a strong plus.
The Light Phone is spendy but is also compatible with more carriers, which ... will probably win me. There are a couple of revs on the initial design, though I'd favour e-ink (original) over OLED (LPIII).
What both the MP02 and LP offer is tethering, which means your phone becomes your no-WiFi backup for Internet access, enabling you to use a more-featured, non-telco device for comms.
Which suggests another path:
- Dumbphone for critical on-the-road comms, as needed.
- Dumphone as cellular modem.
- Small-form-factor PC/laptop as primary comms device.
Palmtop PCs (e.g., the Psion 3) are no longer of this world, which is a shame. But smaller laptops, e.g., Framework's 12" (8.45 x 287.00 x 213.88mm, 1.3 kg), are effectively a far-more-capable larger tablet (I've been carrying a 13.3" Onyx BOOX for the past four years), without all the handicapping and crappification of Android. With a Bluetooth earpiece that becomes its own vox comms device, and you have full access to any other comms protocol through your Linux distro of choice, with a full keyboard. The Framework 12 is convertible (360° hinge) with stylus support. It doesn't have an e-ink screen module (yet?), but ... I can live with that. For anything other than on-the-run use, it's likely superior to any smartphone or tablet.
The other issue is vox comms management. I'd prefer not being directly on the PSTN network, so what I'd really like is that my "phone" accepts (and mostly makes) calls to only one other point: a VOIP relay which intercepts all incoming calls and redirects outgoing. Incoming traffic is then limited to only those numbers I allow, or which pass some screening mechanism. And my mobile telco provider gets a Very Boring profile of whom it is I'm in contact with. Whether or not this ideal VOIP service / capability exists I'm not sure, but that's what I'm looking into.
And yes, it would be possible to ditch the phone entirely for a pure-play modem, though the ability to make calls directly in an emergency has its arguments.
-
@neil No, but this is something I've been actively researching for ... an embarrassingly long time (months) ... with low satisfaction. But as this is on my current to-do list, this toot doesn't count as procrastination 😺
I have a perfectly serviceable early-2000s flip phone which I'd love to reactivate ... but it won't talk to any current-generation mobile cellular networks.
I've looked at current low-feature phones, with interest in the Light Phone and Punkt MP02. Both ... have drawbacks, though I'll likely end up with one or the other.
The MP02 lacks comprehensive protocol coverage, and hence is limited to a subset of local mobile providers, unfortunately the ones I'd most prefer not giving my business. (I'd prefer not giving any of them my business, but that seems unlikely).
The MP02 does offer integrated Signal messaging, which is a strong plus.
The Light Phone is spendy but is also compatible with more carriers, which ... will probably win me. There are a couple of revs on the initial design, though I'd favour e-ink (original) over OLED (LPIII).
What both the MP02 and LP offer is tethering, which means your phone becomes your no-WiFi backup for Internet access, enabling you to use a more-featured, non-telco device for comms.
Which suggests another path:
- Dumbphone for critical on-the-road comms, as needed.
- Dumphone as cellular modem.
- Small-form-factor PC/laptop as primary comms device.
Palmtop PCs (e.g., the Psion 3) are no longer of this world, which is a shame. But smaller laptops, e.g., Framework's 12" (8.45 x 287.00 x 213.88mm, 1.3 kg), are effectively a far-more-capable larger tablet (I've been carrying a 13.3" Onyx BOOX for the past four years), without all the handicapping and crappification of Android. With a Bluetooth earpiece that becomes its own vox comms device, and you have full access to any other comms protocol through your Linux distro of choice, with a full keyboard. The Framework 12 is convertible (360° hinge) with stylus support. It doesn't have an e-ink screen module (yet?), but ... I can live with that. For anything other than on-the-run use, it's likely superior to any smartphone or tablet.
The other issue is vox comms management. I'd prefer not being directly on the PSTN network, so what I'd really like is that my "phone" accepts (and mostly makes) calls to only one other point: a VOIP relay which intercepts all incoming calls and redirects outgoing. Incoming traffic is then limited to only those numbers I allow, or which pass some screening mechanism. And my mobile telco provider gets a Very Boring profile of whom it is I'm in contact with. Whether or not this ideal VOIP service / capability exists I'm not sure, but that's what I'm looking into.
And yes, it would be possible to ditch the phone entirely for a pure-play modem, though the ability to make calls directly in an emergency has its arguments.
-
@neil No, but this is something I've been actively researching for ... an embarrassingly long time (months) ... with low satisfaction. But as this is on my current to-do list, this toot doesn't count as procrastination 😺
I have a perfectly serviceable early-2000s flip phone which I'd love to reactivate ... but it won't talk to any current-generation mobile cellular networks.
I've looked at current low-feature phones, with interest in the Light Phone and Punkt MP02. Both ... have drawbacks, though I'll likely end up with one or the other.
The MP02 lacks comprehensive protocol coverage, and hence is limited to a subset of local mobile providers, unfortunately the ones I'd most prefer not giving my business. (I'd prefer not giving any of them my business, but that seems unlikely).
The MP02 does offer integrated Signal messaging, which is a strong plus.
The Light Phone is spendy but is also compatible with more carriers, which ... will probably win me. There are a couple of revs on the initial design, though I'd favour e-ink (original) over OLED (LPIII).
What both the MP02 and LP offer is tethering, which means your phone becomes your no-WiFi backup for Internet access, enabling you to use a more-featured, non-telco device for comms.
Which suggests another path:
- Dumbphone for critical on-the-road comms, as needed.
- Dumphone as cellular modem.
- Small-form-factor PC/laptop as primary comms device.
Palmtop PCs (e.g., the Psion 3) are no longer of this world, which is a shame. But smaller laptops, e.g., Framework's 12" (8.45 x 287.00 x 213.88mm, 1.3 kg), are effectively a far-more-capable larger tablet (I've been carrying a 13.3" Onyx BOOX for the past four years), without all the handicapping and crappification of Android. With a Bluetooth earpiece that becomes its own vox comms device, and you have full access to any other comms protocol through your Linux distro of choice, with a full keyboard. The Framework 12 is convertible (360° hinge) with stylus support. It doesn't have an e-ink screen module (yet?), but ... I can live with that. For anything other than on-the-run use, it's likely superior to any smartphone or tablet.
The other issue is vox comms management. I'd prefer not being directly on the PSTN network, so what I'd really like is that my "phone" accepts (and mostly makes) calls to only one other point: a VOIP relay which intercepts all incoming calls and redirects outgoing. Incoming traffic is then limited to only those numbers I allow, or which pass some screening mechanism. And my mobile telco provider gets a Very Boring profile of whom it is I'm in contact with. Whether or not this ideal VOIP service / capability exists I'm not sure, but that's what I'm looking into.
And yes, it would be possible to ditch the phone entirely for a pure-play modem, though the ability to make calls directly in an emergency has its arguments.
-
Another solution to phone spam occurs:
The first time a call is made to a new number, the telco intercepts that call and requires a (random, 3--4 digit) code be entered.
Humans would be able to enter that code readily. Robocalls ... not so much.
But wait, there's more!
The connecting telco knows where that call comes from in terms of the connecting network. It's either a local origin (on the same network), or remote. Which means that the telco can monitor the acceptance rate for calls coming through.
The telco can, and should, also solicit feedback from the call recipient of whether or not the call was spam.
Networks which exceed some reasonable threshold for spam call volume would be denied access to the recipient's network for some period of time. I'm a fan of exponential backoff. So, for the first phone spam threshold reached, access is denied for 1 minute. If further spam is received within 4x that interval, it's doubled (2 minutes, 8 minute window), and again 4/16, 8/32, 16/64, 32/128, 64/256, 128/512; 256, 512, 1024. With 11 spams, the denial is > 1 day. 13x is a week, 15x is a year.
Originating networks would be strongly encouraged to clean up their acts.
-
Another solution to phone spam occurs:
The first time a call is made to a new number, the telco intercepts that call and requires a (random, 3--4 digit) code be entered.
Humans would be able to enter that code readily. Robocalls ... not so much.
But wait, there's more!
The connecting telco knows where that call comes from in terms of the connecting network. It's either a local origin (on the same network), or remote. Which means that the telco can monitor the acceptance rate for calls coming through.
The telco can, and should, also solicit feedback from the call recipient of whether or not the call was spam.
Networks which exceed some reasonable threshold for spam call volume would be denied access to the recipient's network for some period of time. I'm a fan of exponential backoff. So, for the first phone spam threshold reached, access is denied for 1 minute. If further spam is received within 4x that interval, it's doubled (2 minutes, 8 minute window), and again 4/16, 8/32, 16/64, 32/128, 64/256, 128/512; 256, 512, 1024. With 11 spams, the denial is > 1 day. 13x is a week, 15x is a year.
Originating networks would be strongly encouraged to clean up their acts.
-
Another solution to phone spam occurs:
The first time a call is made to a new number, the telco intercepts that call and requires a (random, 3--4 digit) code be entered.
Humans would be able to enter that code readily. Robocalls ... not so much.
But wait, there's more!
The connecting telco knows where that call comes from in terms of the connecting network. It's either a local origin (on the same network), or remote. Which means that the telco can monitor the acceptance rate for calls coming through.
The telco can, and should, also solicit feedback from the call recipient of whether or not the call was spam.
Networks which exceed some reasonable threshold for spam call volume would be denied access to the recipient's network for some period of time. I'm a fan of exponential backoff. So, for the first phone spam threshold reached, access is denied for 1 minute. If further spam is received within 4x that interval, it's doubled (2 minutes, 8 minute window), and again 4/16, 8/32, 16/64, 32/128, 64/256, 128/512; 256, 512, 1024. With 11 spams, the denial is > 1 day. 13x is a week, 15x is a year.
Originating networks would be strongly encouraged to clean up their acts.
-
Another solution to phone spam occurs:
The first time a call is made to a new number, the telco intercepts that call and requires a (random, 3--4 digit) code be entered.
Humans would be able to enter that code readily. Robocalls ... not so much.
But wait, there's more!
The connecting telco knows where that call comes from in terms of the connecting network. It's either a local origin (on the same network), or remote. Which means that the telco can monitor the acceptance rate for calls coming through.
The telco can, and should, also solicit feedback from the call recipient of whether or not the call was spam.
Networks which exceed some reasonable threshold for spam call volume would be denied access to the recipient's network for some period of time. I'm a fan of exponential backoff. So, for the first phone spam threshold reached, access is denied for 1 minute. If further spam is received within 4x that interval, it's doubled (2 minutes, 8 minute window), and again 4/16, 8/32, 16/64, 32/128, 64/256, 128/512; 256, 512, 1024. With 11 spams, the denial is > 1 day. 13x is a week, 15x is a year.
Originating networks would be strongly encouraged to clean up their acts.
-
Another solution to phone spam occurs:
The first time a call is made to a new number, the telco intercepts that call and requires a (random, 3--4 digit) code be entered.
Humans would be able to enter that code readily. Robocalls ... not so much.
But wait, there's more!
The connecting telco knows where that call comes from in terms of the connecting network. It's either a local origin (on the same network), or remote. Which means that the telco can monitor the acceptance rate for calls coming through.
The telco can, and should, also solicit feedback from the call recipient of whether or not the call was spam.
Networks which exceed some reasonable threshold for spam call volume would be denied access to the recipient's network for some period of time. I'm a fan of exponential backoff. So, for the first phone spam threshold reached, access is denied for 1 minute. If further spam is received within 4x that interval, it's doubled (2 minutes, 8 minute window), and again 4/16, 8/32, 16/64, 32/128, 64/256, 128/512; 256, 512, 1024. With 11 spams, the denial is > 1 day. 13x is a week, 15x is a year.
Originating networks would be strongly encouraged to clean up their acts.
-
How would you suggest fighting robocalls and phone spam?
Friends in the US are reporting that over 45 of the past 50 calls they've received are robocalls, telemarketers, hang-ups, misleadingly-identified, or otherwise smell strongly of fraud.
STIR/SHAKEN was rolled out two years ago and has quite obviously failed. See: https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/30/22557539/t-mobile-verizon-carriers-fcc-stir-shaken-certification-deadline-spam-calls
I'm looking for systemic solutions here, not personal mitigations. "I've stopped using the phone and am now only communicating by Ansible" may suit you very well, but it doesn't address the billions of people who do have directly-addressable voice coms as mobile or landline service.
Examples of systemic solutions:
Think regulation, making global changes to software or hardware, changing switching and call handling systems, or market-based interventions, such as:
- Bonding callers and telcos. Spam calls would generate compensation from the telco to the subscriber. Telcos would bond for network interconnects, failure to maintain low-spam-call SLAs would forfeit bond.
- Direct reporting from all phone systems (mobile, VOIP, or landline) of spam calls.
- Expanded phone numbers. A sparsely-populated address space would make random war-dialing less viable, individuals might provide distinct numbers to each individual contact. (Organisations couldn't fully rely on this but might in part.)
Things of that nature.
NOT "I downloaded this app and use it on my pocket spy device."
Boosts very much welcomed.
-
How would you suggest fighting robocalls and phone spam?
Friends in the US are reporting that over 45 of the past 50 calls they've received are robocalls, telemarketers, hang-ups, misleadingly-identified, or otherwise smell strongly of fraud.
STIR/SHAKEN was rolled out two years ago and has quite obviously failed. See: https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/30/22557539/t-mobile-verizon-carriers-fcc-stir-shaken-certification-deadline-spam-calls
I'm looking for systemic solutions here, not personal mitigations. "I've stopped using the phone and am now only communicating by Ansible" may suit you very well, but it doesn't address the billions of people who do have directly-addressable voice coms as mobile or landline service.
Examples of systemic solutions:
Think regulation, making global changes to software or hardware, changing switching and call handling systems, or market-based interventions, such as:
- Bonding callers and telcos. Spam calls would generate compensation from the telco to the subscriber. Telcos would bond for network interconnects, failure to maintain low-spam-call SLAs would forfeit bond.
- Direct reporting from all phone systems (mobile, VOIP, or landline) of spam calls.
- Expanded phone numbers. A sparsely-populated address space would make random war-dialing less viable, individuals might provide distinct numbers to each individual contact. (Organisations couldn't fully rely on this but might in part.)
Things of that nature.
NOT "I downloaded this app and use it on my pocket spy device."
Boosts very much welcomed.
-
How would you suggest fighting robocalls and phone spam?
Friends in the US are reporting that over 45 of the past 50 calls they've received are robocalls, telemarketers, hang-ups, misleadingly-identified, or otherwise smell strongly of fraud.
STIR/SHAKEN was rolled out two years ago and has quite obviously failed. See: https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/30/22557539/t-mobile-verizon-carriers-fcc-stir-shaken-certification-deadline-spam-calls
I'm looking for systemic solutions here, not personal mitigations. "I've stopped using the phone and am now only communicating by Ansible" may suit you very well, but it doesn't address the billions of people who do have directly-addressable voice coms as mobile or landline service.
Examples of systemic solutions:
Think regulation, making global changes to software or hardware, changing switching and call handling systems, or market-based interventions, such as:
- Bonding callers and telcos. Spam calls would generate compensation from the telco to the subscriber. Telcos would bond for network interconnects, failure to maintain low-spam-call SLAs would forfeit bond.
- Direct reporting from all phone systems (mobile, VOIP, or landline) of spam calls.
- Expanded phone numbers. A sparsely-populated address space would make random war-dialing less viable, individuals might provide distinct numbers to each individual contact. (Organisations couldn't fully rely on this but might in part.)
Things of that nature.
NOT "I downloaded this app and use it on my pocket spy device."
Boosts very much welcomed.
-
How would you suggest fighting robocalls and phone spam?
Friends in the US are reporting that over 45 of the past 50 calls they've received are robocalls, telemarketers, hang-ups, misleadingly-identified, or otherwise smell strongly of fraud.
STIR/SHAKEN was rolled out two years ago and has quite obviously failed. See: https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/30/22557539/t-mobile-verizon-carriers-fcc-stir-shaken-certification-deadline-spam-calls
I'm looking for systemic solutions here, not personal mitigations. "I've stopped using the phone and am now only communicating by Ansible" may suit you very well, but it doesn't address the billions of people who do have directly-addressable voice coms as mobile or landline service.
Examples of systemic solutions:
Think regulation, making global changes to software or hardware, changing switching and call handling systems, or market-based interventions, such as:
- Bonding callers and telcos. Spam calls would generate compensation from the telco to the subscriber. Telcos would bond for network interconnects, failure to maintain low-spam-call SLAs would forfeit bond.
- Direct reporting from all phone systems (mobile, VOIP, or landline) of spam calls.
- Expanded phone numbers. A sparsely-populated address space would make random war-dialing less viable, individuals might provide distinct numbers to each individual contact. (Organisations couldn't fully rely on this but might in part.)
Things of that nature.
NOT "I downloaded this app and use it on my pocket spy device."
Boosts very much welcomed.
-
How would you suggest fighting robocalls and phone spam?
Friends in the US are reporting that over 45 of the past 50 calls they've received are robocalls, telemarketers, hang-ups, misleadingly-identified, or otherwise smell strongly of fraud.
STIR/SHAKEN was rolled out two years ago and has quite obviously failed. See: https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/30/22557539/t-mobile-verizon-carriers-fcc-stir-shaken-certification-deadline-spam-calls
I'm looking for systemic solutions here, not personal mitigations. "I've stopped using the phone and am now only communicating by Ansible" may suit you very well, but it doesn't address the billions of people who do have directly-addressable voice coms as mobile or landline service.
Examples of systemic solutions:
Think regulation, making global changes to software or hardware, changing switching and call handling systems, or market-based interventions, such as:
- Bonding callers and telcos. Spam calls would generate compensation from the telco to the subscriber. Telcos would bond for network interconnects, failure to maintain low-spam-call SLAs would forfeit bond.
- Direct reporting from all phone systems (mobile, VOIP, or landline) of spam calls.
- Expanded phone numbers. A sparsely-populated address space would make random war-dialing less viable, individuals might provide distinct numbers to each individual contact. (Organisations couldn't fully rely on this but might in part.)
Things of that nature.
NOT "I downloaded this app and use it on my pocket spy device."
Boosts very much welcomed.