Our cutting edge nuisance call detection algorithms are currently shielding swathes of the UK and USA from scammers.
We’ve previously said that we won’t provide a Hayne’s Manual on the logic used, because that just educates scammers on how to bypass them. That said, the stats show us a clear lack of some partners acting properly on a 404 response.
While we would love to be first place in every one of our customer’s LCRs, for various reasons we aren’t. We can see that, because, where we know we aren’t, various stats worsen
One of those is the UAP which Pete blogged about recently. Or, in other words, a signal that “this number is not in service”. Our depth of interconnection means a 404 from us is reliable, but it’s also pretty reliable on modern networks such as those in the UK and USA anyway.
So, if your first choice has said 404 no, sending it to us is only going to get you another no. Only, if you’re only sending us what you’ve been told no once, the monitoring is going to have a hair trigger as your stats deteriorate. That’s going to cause a review of the capacity you have with us, and even the existence of your account with us.
This isn’t new news – it’s in ITU-T Q.1912.5, and if you’re operating in the UK, those pesky General Conditions of Entitlement require the fullest account to be taken of the standards issued by our friends in the International Telecommunications Union.
In other words, blindly ignoring a 404 and route advancing, is not compatible with UK regulation. (I checked with Pete, he agrees).
The exception would be the limited situations in the various standards, where route advancing is permitted where you have more authoritative data. If you’re only doing it in those scenarios, then the volume is unlikely to trigger any alerts or issues.
Finally, we consider it highly unlikely that a legitimate direct marketing campaign to UK persons can have a significant UAP. We aren’t going to advertise the values we use for alerting, but, consent cannot be given to call a number not in service, and, if your counter argument is about churn, the age of the data is going to be a serious issue. Consent given on a number that has been recycled since, is not consent either.
TL;DR – quit sending us traffic that’s already been 404’d elsewhere. Unless you really know what you’re doing.
