Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

VoIP to Fuel Plague of 'Dialing for Dollars'/Spam

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the this-is-a-discourtesy-call dept.

Communications 396

Ant writes "Broadband Reports says Internet News is exploring how telemarketers world-wide are realizing they can dodge long-distance costs (and U.S. "Do Not Call" restraints) by voice spamming VoIP users. Different from SPIT (spam over internet telephony) because it's not automated, an analyst in the article predicts homes and businesses could see some 150 calls a day from overseas call centers."

cancel ×

396 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The ring that keeps on ringing (5, Interesting)

erick99 (743982) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936708)

I am surprised that this hasn't happened sooner but I believe it will happen. I wonder what sort of culture shock we will have when our home telephones are rendered useless because they ring non-stop? I am getting just over 400 email spam a day so 100 to 150 phone calls a day (especially at a cost of only a penny or so each according to the article) seems believable. While spam filtering rids me of all but two or three email spam a day in my inbox, is there a technology that will do the same for my home phone. God, this sure will be interesting (and yes, I understand I have employed a bit of hyperbole).

Re:The ring that keeps on ringing (1)

MrDoh! (71235) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936740)

Some sort of filtering is going to be needed, and I'm sure the telco's will be happy to sell stuff that needs upgrading every few months. Some sort of enforced Caller ID that tracks IP/no. to the originating country might help a little bit. Definately going to be a problem in the future.

Re:The ring that keeps on ringing (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936806)

Filtering/callerID is good, but I don't understand how this gets around Do Not Call lists?
-nB

Re:The ring that keeps on ringing (1)

rpdillon (715137) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936876)

It's from overseas. They are not bound by Do Not Call lists, because there is no enforcement outside the US.

Re:The ring that keeps on ringing (2, Informative)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936916)

They already do this over standard dialup.

I get phone spam from the US, and I'm in the UK do-not-call equivalent (the TPS), so never get any UK based phone spam.

You can always tell it though... it's international with the number witheld, and the moment you pick it up someone with a US accent starts "Hi, you've won..." (I slam the phone down before he gets any further).

Re:The ring that keeps on ringing (1)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936887)

Hint:
You talking about the US Do Not Call list?

Re:The ring that keeps on ringing (5, Interesting)

dsginter (104154) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936830)

Here's what I don't get:

There exist many methods for anti-spam authentication [google.com] . Why hasn't someone implemented one of them in an "Email 2.0" style service with the single feature being "not compatible with existing email, including spam"? After the first service opened up for business, there would be more. And more. Until Spam was gone for good.

We can see that people are getting to the point of ditching it entirely [slashdot.org] so why not move to something that fixes the problem at the expense of backward compatibility? This befuddles me to no end. I'd sign up in a heartbeat and so would everyone email user that I know.

Can we just FUCK backward compatibility for once? Why is it so damn important?

Re:The ring that keeps on ringing (1)

drunkennewfiemidget (712572) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936881)

Because backwards compatibility of a large basis of the Internet as it exists?

Imagine all those automated devices out there that can send e-mail now? Devices that don't have controlling terminals, only firmware. You're talking BILLIONS. Maybe even TRILLIONS of dollars in software development time to make them support any new system.

Re:The ring that keeps on ringing (4, Insightful)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936960)

Why hasn't someone implemented one of them in an "Email 2.0" style service with the single feature being "not compatible with existing email, including spam"?

Why on earth would I (or anyone) use this? The entire point of email is communicating with people. If I got an "email 2.0" address, but nobody who needs to email me has one, what would be the point in me having it? And if it got popular enough that the people I want to communicate with all had it, wouldn't the spammers just get it, too?

Now, I could maybe understanding coming up with something like this for intra-company communications or something, where a specific list of people would get the new format of email and they could all talk to each other but nobody from the outside could email in. But they'd still need traditional email for any communications outside the company. And what company could do any business these days without emailing (or receiving email from) anyone outside?

I just can't see any way at all that something like that would work.

Re:The ring that keeps on ringing (1)

Red Alastor (742410) | more than 9 years ago | (#11937028)

We could just make clients supporting both and encouraging people to send to our new email 2.0 adress while still receiving email 1.0 messages (and spam). It would all come in the same mailbox and you would not see a difference, exept that when nobody would be e-mailing you at your email 1.0 adress, you could ditch it and say good bye to spam.

Re:The ring that keeps on ringing (1)

winkydink (650484) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936964)

After you my dear Alphonse

Re:The ring that keeps on ringing (3, Insightful)

cas2000 (148703) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936980)

> There exist many methods for anti-spam
> authentication. Why hasn't someone implemented
> one of them in an "Email 2.0" style service with
> the single feature being "not compatible with
> existing email, including spam"? After the first
> service opened up for business, there would be
> more. And more. Until Spam was gone for good.

because that wouldn't work either.

idiot windows users would tell their mail software to remember their authentication password, and spammer viruses would be rewritten to look for those passwords and use them. within a very short time, the new "secure" authenticated mail protocol would be compromised by spammers.

as long as people are using insecure garbage like MS Windows & IE & Outlook on the net, there will be millions of spam zombies.

Re:The ring that keeps on ringing (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936981)

What good is an E-Mail service that doesn't let you send e-mail to people. Becides, replace it with something else, and you'll just get a different type of spam.

Re:The ring that keeps on ringing (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#11937037)

there's some systems like that in use.

now, can I send an email to you in any of those protocols? probably not.

compability is useful because it makes the whole thing useful and more than an inhouse mailer.

Re:The ring that keeps on ringing (2, Interesting)

That's Unpossible! (722232) | more than 9 years ago | (#11937041)

Why hasn't someone implemented one of them in an "Email 2.0" style service with the single feature being "not compatible with existing email, including spam"?

1. These exist already. They're called whitelists.

2. In addition to blocking spam, they block email from many legitimate sources, such as companies/mailing lists/etc trying to send you email from an address you aren't expecting. We get subscribers all the time who sign up and yet never get on because they have a whitelist service and are too stupid to let our email through.

Silly Idea (5, Insightful)

fembots (753724) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936717)

What happens if the cost of each almost-continuous call is incremental?

Say the first 10 VOIP calls are free, and if you make the 11th call within 5 minutes of the 10th call, you pay 1 cent, and if you make your 12th call within 5 minutes of your 11th call, you pay 2 cents, then 4 cents, 8 cents and so on.

Private callers shouldn't have to pay anything due to the engaging nature of personal calls.

Businesses will have to register to get exemption from the charges, thus easily identifiable.

Like spam filters, this won't stop spammers from spamming, but hopefully it's enough to make it less profitable.

We didn't see email spams coming, but we should definitely do something on VOIP when we have the opportunity.

Re:Silly Idea (4, Interesting)

blanks (108019) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936795)

Yes this would make it more expensive for the spammers to make the calls, and maybe it will keep some of the companies from following through, but with telemarketing if I remember correctly, the costs could be up to .25 per call (connected call) so anything less this this would be doable.

Also keep in mind that a way around this would be to have a dozens (hundreds?) of VOIP services, meaning you would just need a system to switch between "lines". And that technology all ready exists.

Re:Silly Idea (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936914)

What happens if the cost of each almost-continuous call is incremental?

Say the first 10 VOIP calls are free, and if you make the 11th call within 5 minutes of the 10th call, you pay 1 cent, and if you make your 12th call within 5 minutes of your 11th call, you pay 2 cents, then 4 cents, 8 cents and so on.

Yeah, next thing you know even us honest folk get creamed. No thanks, buddy.

"Sorry it took so long to call you, but I was running down the list and had to get in touch with so many people that it would have cost me a pile of money."

Hello Friend,

Perhaps we can be of assistance to each other. I am Dr. Vincent Nagumbo of Nigeria and I could use your assistance in claiming $8,000,000 in telephone usage fees. This is a confidential matter and ... etc. etc. etc.

Re:Silly Idea (1)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 9 years ago | (#11937032)

Yeah, next thing you know even us honest folk get creamed. No thanks, buddy.

Oh come on, how often do you honestly make more than 10 calls in a five-minute period? I could see it happening occasionally, when someone needs to call everyone on their softball team to tell them a game's cancelled or whatever, but not often enough that it would have a huge impact on your phone bill. The only time I could see it seriously impacting the average person's phone bill is when their 13-year-old is voting for American Idol...

Re:Silly Idea - We saw it coming (4, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936954)

We didn't see email spams coming,

Actually we did. The infamous Green Card Lawyers carpet-bombing Usenet told everybody paying attention that we stop it now, or it will only get worse.

Problem with politicians is that they don't react to a problem until after it has grown out of control. And they don't listen to the people who do see it coming.

That's why to this day, CB radio skips clear around the world. They didn't listen to the experts about assigning frequencies. Even now, with spam a problem for everyone, there is little in the way of effective law against it.

Better fix this (4, Interesting)

BWJones (18351) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936718)

"The average enterprise or household could see as much as 150 calls a day from these telemarketers. It has to happen, because it is a market force that takes the market feedback and makes it into a profitable approach."

Ah, so this is how they are going to use all that dark fiber. :-P

Seriously though, it would be in the phone companies best interest to figure out how to block this. After the legislation for the do not call list, calls to our home plummeted. And rightly so. If I have to deal with telemarketers calling my home again, I will simply have the phone company disconnect my land line, especially with the prospect of 100-150 calls/day. Most people that really need to get ahold of me immediately can use the cell phone or email/IM me anyway. As for calling people at work, I cannot figure out how businesses will tolerate this. Businesses will be more likely to pressure phone companies to limit this kind of activity as it impacts productivity.

So, I don't really care how they do it, but from an end users perspective......They can either fix the loopholes and prevent phone spam or they will lose business.

On another note. Serious question to all the Slashdotters: Has anyone here actually bought ANYTHING from a telemarketer who called you? I have never purchased any good or service solicited over the phone, and I am wondering who it is that actually keeps these knuckleheads in business.

Re:Better fix this (2, Insightful)

shawn(at)fsu (447153) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936763)

I think one of us is missing the point. I think from what I understand that this will only affect people who use VoIP. Course I could be wrong. If it only effacting poeple like vonage users I don't think the telcos will be doing much to fix this. Thinking further it will be like spam in taht there probably wont be a quick and easy fix.

Re:Better fix this (1)

mmkkbb (816035) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936835)

If it only effacting poeple like vonage users I don't think the telcos will be doing much to fix this.

What makes you think so? Vonage users can call anywhere for free. That's what makes this whole thing feasible and so much like spam in the first place. The only difference is that you have to pay someone to pick up the phone and call, but that can be someone in a third world country at 50 cents an hour.

Re:Better fix this (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936767)

I have never purchased any good or service solicited over the phone, and I am wondering who it is that actually keeps these knuckleheads in business.

Sad, lonely, and impressionable shut-ins who are so desperate for someone to talk to that they will actually entertain marketers. At first it seems like that would describe slashdotters, but that group can always go to a LUG. I'm talking about elderly and infirm people.

Re:Better fix this (1)

Lusa (153265) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936784)

I don't buy anything but if I'm bored I try to string them along for as much as possible wasting their money. With any luck I'll eventually be blacklisted and not receive any more calls.

Re:waste a telemarketers time (1)

baomike (143457) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936953)

If the call doesn't interupt anything important, talk to them, the time you are talking to them is time they are not bothering anyone else.

I think of it as a small contribution to the improvement of the world.

Re:Better fix this (1)

Mumpsman (836490) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936816)

I voted for John Kerry, does that count?

Re:Better fix this (4, Informative)

blanks (108019) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936828)

To answer your question, most telemarketing is either collections or credit cards, or charities. I have had many friends that have worked in collections and charities and you wouldnt belive the amount of positive sales they would get.

Re:Better fix this (1)

Alchemar (720449) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936834)

Two thoughts - Is having the phone company in charge of regulating VOIP companies a good idea, they already are trying to get them taxed out of existance. I can see it now ... "We have blocked all those anoying telemarketers from VOIP phones" "Anyone who wanted VOIP must be a telemarketer right?" Second, what makes you think that people will be able to reach you on a cell phone that is also receiving 150 call a day ?

Re:Better fix this (4, Interesting)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936917)

get a 1-900 number. Simple.

All your friends have an unlisted number that is held private, or have a code to bypass the billing on the 1-900 line. Everyone else pays a buck a min. (15 min. minimum). I'll let them telemarketers pay me ~$180/Hour (figuring an average 5 min. call).
-nB

zerg (1)

Lord Omlette (124579) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936965)

Has anyone here actually bought ANYTHING from a telemarketer who called you? I have never purchased any good or service solicited over the phone
Actually, yes, you did. Don't believe me? Go back and check your credit card bill.

Even if 99.9% of people they cold-called call back and demand that the charges get removed, enough people won't call back. Do the math and you'll find this is highly profitable.

Re:Better fix this (3, Insightful)

alienw (585907) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936995)

Actually, the phone company would want to encourage it. Phone companies hate VoIP and would love to see it die.

However, I can't see this becoming a problem. VoIP traffic is very easy to block. If you get a telemarketer, block them. It's not like they can change their internet provider every other day, and VoIP traffic, being two-way, is rather difficult to proxy through a hijacked machine (unlike email). And it's rather difficult to move a call center to another country.

Re:Better fix this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11936997)

On another note. Serious question to all the Slashdotters: Has anyone here actually bought ANYTHING from a telemarketer who called you? I have never purchased any good or service solicited over the phone, and I am wondering who it is that actually keeps these knuckleheads in business.

As we all know, if it didn't pay off, they wouldn't do it. And getting a weak-willed, timid person on the phone who can't say "No" always pays off. Whether the "customer" is happy with the purchase is probably the least of their concerns, because there is an (almost) endless supply of new victims out there.

Vroom! (4, Funny)

greg_barton (5551) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936721)

Gentlemen, start up your whitelists!

Re:Vroom! (1)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936971)

Really.

I've always wondered why there werent any cellphones with a white-listing feature in them.

What? (5, Funny)

bigtallmofo (695287) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936733)

You mean U.S. laws don't apply everywhere? We should get that law changed!

Re:What? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936849)

I think could still be prosecuted if a US company is paying an overseas company to do this.

I think this is a dirty tactic. As it is, I don't answer calls which the caller ID is blocked or otherwise not visible to me.

Re:What? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11936972)

As it is, I don't answer calls which the caller ID is blocked or otherwise not visible to me.

Better yet, I bought a cheap 2.4GHz phone with CallerID, something like 30$, and discovered in the manual that there's option to block "private" callers, or even block number by putting them in memory with a # in front of the number. Doing this, the phone does not ring at all! So when a telemarketer call (the 1st time I put the number in memory with a #) or someone who block his number, I do not hear it, pretty cool feature :)

Re:What? (1)

huge colin (528073) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936910)

Parent should be modded "Insightful", not "Funny".

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11937009)

Actually we have started in Iraq. One of the first things we did there (before protecting folks from random bombings) was to install our intellectual property laws. That should help the rapidly growing Iraqi movie and software industries.

They will throw themselves upon the firewalls... (5, Funny)

FyRE666 (263011) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936736)

Russia, China, India... Who'd have thought these would be new sources of spam?! I routinely block these domains/net blocks from sending email into our networks (along with a few of the other well known spam sludge pits), so would it really be that difficult to firewall out all VOIP traffic from these places too? Maybe if enough people just cut them off they'd change their attitudes to providing havens for (mostly) American spam "companies".

In fact, I'd imagine these call centres would be easier to firewall off the 'net than spammers, as it would be harder to switch net blocks once a blackhole service was set up to list the offending address ranges.

Re:They will throw themselves upon the firewalls.. (1)

huge colin (528073) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936943)

Parent should be modded 'Insightful', not 'Funny'.

Re:They will throw themselves upon the firewalls.. (5, Insightful)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 9 years ago | (#11937046)

"Russia, China, India... Who'd have thought these would be new sources of spam?!"

Make sure you add to your list America's own 2nd/3rd world state, Florida.

Call Blocking? (4, Insightful)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936737)

So how long until someone hunts down those IPs and offers up a list for call blocking of them? Also, how long until someone writes a program that will DDoS of some form or another those same call centers or something similar that will harass the call centers?

Re:Call Blocking? no caller ID (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11936866)

Won't work.

Obviously they are NOT going to respect "caller ID".

Re:Call Blocking? (1)

clickster (669168) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936961)

Now see, I would call this an upshot of VOIP. You can DDoS the call centers. Sweet.

Not automated. Hmm (5, Interesting)

wowbagger (69688) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936747)

So, when one of these turkeys calls me, I can keep them on the line until I traceroute where his call is coming from, then go after him and his ISP with any number of legal charges as well as possible DDoSs.

Yes, that sounds like a GREAT way to make money.

Re:Not automated. Hmm (3, Funny)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936970)

Yeah, cause grandma jean has a whole trove of zombie machines out there just waiting to DDoS the first sucker that dares to spam her VOIP phone.

Common knowledge tells us that Telemarketing in general should not be a viable business. And yet, it is isn't it?

The joys of computer controlled phones! (3, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936748)

And with VoIP it would be quite easy to enable an easy to update whitelist for inbound calls. People could use something like the various spam blocking sites (i.e. Spamhaus) that would put and end to that crap.

There are so many possibilities for controlling this crap that I don't even want to go into it. Personally? I would use my addressbook (LDAP?) as the whitelist. Anyone else would get a message to find another way to contact me to be added to the whitelist, to enter the passcode to get through, or they be routed to /dev/null.

Anyone showing up as "UNKNOWN", "UNAVAILABLE", or originating numbers coming from outside the country would automatically be re-routed to /dev/null. I would sort of expect these options to be built into the software and easily enabled by end users as that would make the most sense.

Yeah, it could cause you to lose some callers. How many times do people call you that you don't know and that you actually want to hear from? I'll take the 1 caller a year that doesn't know the passcode and can't find another way to contact me.

YMMV.

Re:The joys of computer controlled phones! (1)

morcego (260031) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936890)

People could use something like the various spam blocking sites (i.e. Spamhaus) that would put and end to that crap

Maybe I missed the part where it put an end to that crap of e-mail spams.

Maybe the problem won't be as big as the article claims, but it surely won't be that simple to solve.

Culture shock (4, Interesting)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936751)

> I wonder what sort of culture shock we will have when our home telephones are rendered useless because they ring non-stop?

It's already starting.

Ignoring people who have abandoned land-line phones for wireless, most of my friends are in the "phone by appointment only" mode.

If you want to talk to me on a land line, email (or IM) me first and tell me when you'll call. Otherwise, the damn thing stays unplugged, and/or with the ringer off. If I ain't expecting someone's call, it ain't getting answered.

Re:Culture shock (4, Insightful)

panaceaa (205396) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936983)

Maybe this works for you, but in my life things don't always go as planned. If my girlfriend is in an emergency situation (and it has happened), she contacts me by phone. Because it is an emergency, it may be from a phone number I do not recognize. She will likely not have access to email or IM before calling me. So a random call comes in from a random number... and guess what? I have to answer it because I care about her and it might be her. Until other less-obtrusive technologies like IM are ubiquitous and can be used in emergencies, this cannot change for me.

VOIP spam is a really scary and almost unavoidable future. To combat it, I only give out my cell phone to people I know. I always give businesses my home or work number. But if it starts to be a problem, I bet a lot of the profiling techniques already used for filtering email will start happening on phone networks. And thankfully, I have never heard of a VOIP open relay, so we'll have a better chance at stopping the problem at its source.

expect it. (1)

blanks (108019) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936753)

I was wondering when people would start talking about this. Its just another form of communication that people will use to exploit and take advantage of others.

Yes VOIP is good, so was the telephone until people realized their was money involved.

The only way I can see being able to slow down the title wave that is going to hit is for the companies that are supplying VOIP to listen to customers when they call and complain about phone numbers spamming them..... But again, we all know how well that works with telephones.

word nazis (1)

baomike (143457) | more than 9 years ago | (#11937003)

> stick with tsunami

unless you mean a "tidal wave"

Herm wait . . . (5, Informative)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936756)

so the DNCL only covers POTS Spam? IMO my number is in there, so no matter where they're coming from or through, be it POTS or VoiP they can't call me, further more theres'a nice tidbit on that DNCL site:

33. Are telemarketing calls from overseas covered?


Yes. Any telemarketers calling U.S. consumers are covered, regardless of where they are calling from. If a company within the U.S. solicits sales through an overseas professional telemarketer, that U.S. company may be liable for any violations by the telemarketer. The FTC can initiate enforcement actions against such companies.

Re:Herm wait . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11936821)

Dude, LTS. You don't have to MWIA ATT; there's plenty of room in this HTML TA to fit all your CCSes.

Re:Herm wait . . . (1)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936935)

Did you miss the fine print in there?

IP Blocking? (1)

borwells (566148) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936758)

Won't this be a lot easier to stop than telemarketers? Can't I simply block the IP address or block of IP addresses?

Re:IP Blocking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11936860)

Well, they can always change the IP address, but I'd doubt they'd change the domain name, so we could block that. That is one of the many joys of VoIP.

I've already started (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936760)

recieving wierd calls on my Skype account.

Re:I've already started (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936968)

No, that's just you.

Re:I've already started (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 9 years ago | (#11937025)

heh.

How to Suck Cock (Happy Beef n Blow day!) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11936761)

For gay men and straight women.

Document history:
Mar. 10, 2005 More cleanup of the section on technique
Mar. 6, 2005 Updated intro and section on technique
Apr. 23, 2004 Added information about the hormonal content of semen
Nov. 30, 2003 First version
Aug. 6, 2003 Initial rough draft

I love blow jobs. Not just receiving them but giving them. I am not typical since I am a gay man. Straight men and women generally have an aversion from dick sucking. Guys are generally afraid of their own equipment (which explains why they particularly like watching lesbian pornos among other things) and don't know how to give blowjobs since they've never given any. Females generally don't know how to suck dick and give up after one or two tries. They don't own the equipment, they don't understand the male drive, they don't know how a blow job feels, they're afraid of semen, and they don't know how penises work. In fact, while many women have experimented with dick sucking, 90% of them don't like or don't want to try sucking dick. That's unfortunate because they are missing out on a rewarding experience. Likewise, their men are missing out on a very exciting experience. Let's face it, if you want to receive not just a blowjob, but a blowjob, you probably want a guy for a partner. Unless, of course, this guide helps transfer the carnal knowledge of pleasuring a man from a gay man to the straight women out there. If not, I hope to at least transfer this knowledge to another gay man out there. :)

The penis is one of the most wonderful parts of the body to suck. Nothing can compare to its size, shape, texture, warmth, taste, and its response to touch. Female breasts are rather inanimate in comparison. Their only redeeming qualities are the nipples that respond to touch, but guys have nipples too, so it's not an exclusively feminine part of the body.

It is important to give yourself a weekend of privacy the first time you try to suck off a guy. You may not be able to the first time and will need extra time the next day or two to try again. If you don't give yourself a weekend, you can end up failing and then next time you will make the same mistakes again because you will not remember what you did wrong the previous time.

You probably have noticed it's much harder to masturbate while standing up. It is much more difficult to get a guy off if he's standing up, especially if you've never sucked off a guy before. Although blowjobs are stereotypically associated with a kneeling giver, in practice, that is an uncomfortable position for the receiver as he must either sit or stand. Instead, have your partner lie down on his back on a bed (or somewhere soft and flat). Get on your hands and knees in a position that allows you to get his dick in your mouth. You can have him spread his legs a little and straddle one of his legs or you can kneel between both of his legs. You could also kneel beside him. Whatever way works the best for the both of you.

Notice how the dick is not completely cylindrical, but is slightly flattened? That shape is designed to fit perfectly in the mouth. There's no way evolution could have better designed a part for sucking. Note that the most sensitive portion of the penis is the length underneath the shaft. This should clue you in on how to position yourself to suck him.

The underneath of his shaft should rest on your tongue and his penis should lie flat in your mouth. Once you take him into your mouth, try turning your head 90 degrees around his cock and you will notice that you will have to open wider to accomodate him. The wider you have open your mouth, the quicker you will tire, so make sure you align yourself for the most comfort. Likewise, your partner will enjoy it more if your tongue is in the right place.

Lick along the length of the shaft and give the tip a few licks around the ridge of the tip. Have fun. Take his tip in your mouth and suck. You may want to hold his shaft down at an angle just enough to allow his penis to enter your mouth smoothly. By now, you may notice a drip of clear liquid forming at the tip of his dick. Some men produce a lot of precome, others a little, some none at all. Take a lick at it. It's sweet tasting and quite a bit different from come. Think of it as an appetizer. Once you are ready for main course, note that you do not actually have to suck like you would a drinking straw and probably shouldn't because it's very tiring. Instead, let your lips and tongue do the work. Some guys like a little bit of teeth, but be careful with them. Teeth are very rough, so the slightest touch goes a long way. You will want to stimulate him by taking him in and out of your mouth. The amount of pressure needed will vary from person to person. You may be able to start out with a light stroke with your lips brushing against his shaft, however you will need to more pressure to get him off. One way is to press your tongue hard enough against the underside of his dick until your tongue feels like it's resting against a flat surface. If you do start out with a light touch, increase the pressure once you start feeling his dick swell. Use your own experiences of masturbation in private to guide you as much as possible. Move your mouth up and down his shaft. Make the motions with your whole body, not just your neck otherwise you will quickly become uncomfortable. On the downstroke, go down only as far as comfortable. Remember, it will take many minutes to get him off, so avoid anything that causes you to ache or prevents you from breathing. On the stroke upwards, let your lips slide over the tip, but do not actually let the penis come out of your mouth. Try to keep contact at all times. If you need a moment to breathe, take him deep into your mouth as far as comfort allows and breathe through your nose. If you have trouble breathing through your nose, pull up off his dick a little bit. If you are getting tired and need a few moments rest, pull off of him and relax beside your partner. Chances are he'll be going down on you in a few minutes! However, if it is your first time to suck him off, it's best that he not bring you to climax. You will want to be plenty horny when the time comes.

It will take some practice learning to sense the moment your partner comes. As he nears orgasm, his tip will swell and he may arch his back. If he's not circumsized it may be a bit more difficult to feel the tip swelling. The second he comes, the tip softens again while the shaft remains hard. His body will relax and his breathing will change. Often you will hear a puff of breath at the moment of climax. Now's your cue to slow down. Don't stop completely as that reduces the pleasure, but be careful. If he flinches, you are causing him pain, so slow down even more. It's best to go overly slow than not slow enough. Now you will taste him cum. If he's a distance shooter, it will take several seconds before you will taste him. Most of his cum will shoot against the back of your throat and the roof of your mouth. You will only taste the cum once it dribbles down to your tongue. The experience is kind of like drinking water from a watergun. You've done that before right? Except water guns have higher pressure than your partner will. While a watergun can shoot a dozen or two feet away, your partner will only be able to squirt several feet in distance. The pressure is not strong enough to feel. But you will know for certain he has come when you finally taste him. If your partner spurts out a thick jet of cum only an inch or two in distance, you will taste him the moment he shoots. Instant gratification!

Your partner's penis will now be very sensitive, so wait until the orgasm subsides before pulling off. Once his shaft begins to soften and shrivel in your mouth, slowly pull off and swallow his come. Yep, swallow. If you like the taste, you can wait before swallowing, of course. But if you don't like the taste, swallow anyways. You will just end up tasting more of it if you spit it out, something that most dick sucking women unfortunately never learn. That's because they are not afraid so much of the actual taste than they are of your penis and semen. If you are a woman, resist your fears of the male body and just swallow! If you'd rather not taste it at all, you can try pulling off the moment your partner comes. However, that sometimes fails (like coitus interruptus), so for now, get use to the taste. It's a natural side effect of pleasing a male and it won't hurt you. It certainly hasn't hurt me. :) Although semen tastes kind of bitter, don't judge it by taste alone. It is full of harmones that are linked to sensations similar to that of an orgasm. There is nothing dirty about the male genitals or the liquid product of a male orgasm. Also, spitting out is uber unsexy for the male on the receiving side of the blowjob, something women generally don't comprehend because they are not male. You've got to be a male to understand, so just trust me. Your boyfriend will thank me (and you, too).

I hope you find these steps helpful as they fill a void in today's sex education that only details boring coital missionary position sex. It's an important procedure for the reproduction of the human species, but hardly the last word in sexual intimacy. Experiment and have fun.

Re:How to Suck Cock (Happy Beef n Blow day!) (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11936871)

Can we please block Anonymous Cowards from posting? ...

er... wait. Never mind. Erase erase.

Can't beat it! (1)

digThisXL (252109) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936772)

As long as I'm paying the price I'm paying for VOIP now (read: inexpensive), I'm not going to complain; I'm going to use the technology to filter out the spam! Besides that, the tech will keep improving and will be light years ahead of anything regulation could provide.

I can put an end to this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11936775)

1) Get me a shotgun
2) Users from /. pay to send me overseas
3) End to all of this crap

Re:I can put an end to this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11936999)

it is odd, all it would take would be a vigilante that shoots the CEO of these companies and as soon as he/she is replaced then shoot them, ad nauseum

in the end people might value their lives more than their job, how no-one has killed ken lay or ebbers is a mystery, if someone took my lifes savings i would hunt him down with a rifle until he was dead, after all i would have nothing to lose

I've had VoIP for 3 years (1)

cybrthng (22291) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936776)

and not a single telemarketer or sales call.

Infact i get more on my cell phone than i do on my VoIP.

Spamming is only done because it gets customers (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936779)

I hunch that if you get really huge volumes of VoIP calls, people will boycott the spamming companies and thereby the feedback will make the whole system self throtling.

VoIP spamming will be far more intrusive than email spamming, since a phone call *demands* an action in real time. This will make it far more annoying.

Re:Spamming is only done because it gets customers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11936870)

Regular old telemarketing wasn't self throttling.

Overseas call center labor is cheap. Also, a call center can survive by just convincing an infinite supply of stupid companies to hire them for a "champaign", even if they never actually get sales.

Re:Spamming is only done because it gets customers (1)

rewt66 (738525) | more than 9 years ago | (#11937005)

Wrong. A phone call only requests an action in real time.

You can turn the ringer off. It's not illegal, immoral, or even fattening. You also can listen to it ring and still choose not to answer it (we sometimes do this during meals - and we should do it more).

Realizing that you don't have to answer the phone every time it rings can be very freeing...

New MaBell filter (2, Informative)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936810)

You can automatically block all VoIP call from your phone for just $1. For $5.99 you can add a whitelist. Or you can just tell all your friends to get a MaBell line and save that $5.99! Sounds like a win-win for the Bells!

Re:New MaBell filter - crush the competition (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936996)

You can automatically block all VoIP call from your phone for just $1.

It ought to be free. Even better, they ought to pay you to allow them to block VoIP. After all, you've just asked them to kill their only real competition!

Re:New MaBell filter (3, Informative)

edudspg (784007) | more than 9 years ago | (#11937001)

Anyone that runs a voip system can always have the system route UNKNOWN or ANONYMOUS callers to a computer based screening tool. One bored gent wrote an elaborate voice-mail maze for telemarketers to wander into.

Telemarketer Torture [voip-info.org]

So far the only prank SIP call I have received was one from a buddy that was testing his SIP knowledge and wanted to see if he could really make my phone ring.

re-routing (4, Interesting)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936812)

until I start re-routing their calls to each other. Think of it, a simple firewall that sits on your network that re-routs overseas calls to each other. Just keep a list of numbers and add new ones as they come in, completely automated...get a couple thousand Voice over IP users to do this and viola, problem solved. Old fashioned ping of death, DOS attacks. Perfectly legitimate because I am just returning their calls right???

Re:re-routing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11936957)

Sorry, but that is considered terrorism.

On the bright side you can choose between this brigtht orange jumpsuit, or wearing your own birthday suit.

Re:re-routing (1)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 9 years ago | (#11937023)

hmmm I think I may have been a bit misunderstood. I am talking about the calls that come into my system, routed back out. Not intercepting all their calls. However I do look pretty good in a birthday suit...

Two Words... (1)

BradySama (755082) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936836)

Auto Attendant!!!
(or is that one word - autoattendant?)

Simple solution? (0, Flamebait)

grundie (220908) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936838)

Maybe I'm looking at this in a too simplistic way, but why not make it illegal for telemarkers who circumvent national do not call lists to trade.

Or to put it another way - if you go to India to get cheap VoIP calls and to get round our do not call regs. Then we will make it illegal for your products to be traded, sold or delivered in our country.

If you take away the market, then hopefully telemarketers will stop.

"SPIT?" (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11936839)

You just made that up, didn't you?

Just Like Your PC (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936855)

You can't be exposed to a network, or the internet, without burdening yourself with a bunch of software which does nothing, but protect you from the shortsightedness of the advanced technology and those who would exploit it. Guess this must make people at Symantec rub their little hands together and hop about with glee. Next you'll get SPAM,SPIM,SPIT and probably your Fax (SPAF?) as well.
Phirewall for Phones!
tiny fish through glass penned picture green paper plant. brown cat sunny dust ate when bat came late at hall party. byzantine rages small dimple television time for wood car.[Picture of Model with Cell Phone]

How about just a built in traceroute and block?

This is unlikely (1)

funkdid (780888) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936858)

(I didn't RTFA disclaimer) You would need to have these call centers staffed, and fed by a few DS3 links. Even supposing that you staffed this call center with the little kids that make the soccer balls, your still talking some heavy costs. You need sales to pay your bills. Most big corporations have been using VoIP in their call centers for years now, but to compare the budget of Compaq's Tech Support division with some sales based company I don't see it happening. VoIP calls use a lot of upstream.

Scenario 2 is to have a SPIT box making one call at a time over a cable modem from 8am to 10pm everyday. Now THIS is profitable! This scares the hell out of me. I get bombarded at work with "Hi this is Sally and I'm selling crap! Press 1 now to speak with an operator about buying some of it"

Mark my words... (2, Funny)

rscrawford (311046) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936867)

This is just more proof that the Internet is the worst thing that could have ever happened to our civilization. No, really. It'll all end in tears and heartbreak.

Asterisk whitelists (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936878)

Problem solved...

We need laws, but tools too (4, Informative)

Frater 219 (1455) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936879)

We're going to need some basic trespassing legislation here: in brief, a recognition that my phone is my property and that your freedom of commercial speech does not extend to the use of my property to carry your speech at my costs.

However, we're also going to need some software tools. A lot of sites, my own workplace included, are rolling out VoIP systems. Some of these are COTS systems of various levels of quality. Others (like us) are using open systems like Asterisk PBX and SIP Express Router (SER). Currently, as far as I have seen neither the proprietary nor the open tools have what it takes regarding abuse rejection:

  • Dictionary attack rejection. Any caller who makes a vast number of wrong numbers in a day is just trying to guess numbers, and should be rejected.
  • Call rate limiting. A single caller IP address should not be able to make a vast number of simultaneous or near-simultaneous inbound calls.
  • Site-local blocklisting. One good way of telling if an IP address is going to spam me is if it has spammed the guy the next office over. The VoIP PBX is a good place to aggregate abuse information. Asterisk has the beginnings of a blocklist system, but it's not quite there yet.
  • Distributed blocklisting. DNSBLs have worked very well in the email world, where a single highly reliable list such as Spamhaus SBL-XBL [spamhaus.org] can deflect over 50% of spam. We will need this ability in VoIP.
  • Abuse reporting. If I'm getting VoIP abuse from your site, I need a way to report it to you or your ISP. Likewise, VoIP sites that want to be reputable should offer call recipients a way of reporting harassment, spamming, and other sorts of abuse.

Re:We need laws, but tools too (1)

GMFTatsujin (239569) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936988)

A well-designed protocol with flexible user-defined safeguards will trump legislation any day in my book.

Lord knows that last thing I want is another bipartisan effort to ream me up one end and down the other. Because CAN-SPAM was so, you know, USEFUL.

Whitelists (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936895)

The first step is a whitelist for people who get through immediately. Everyone else to voice mail after being required to punch back in a numeric code given verbally to dispense with automated calls altogether.

Next, a numeric code to let whitelist people through when not calling from a whitelisted telephone number.

Third, ASAP simple voice recognition to replace typing in a code for whitelisted callers. (E.g. "Hi, it's Mom...").

Someday, absolute identification of the person making the call so that Caller ID is accurate (i.e. "Insert national identity card in slot to complete this call..."). (Note to privacy freaks: When you're calling me, you already know who is on the other end of the telephone line, and I feel I should have that same right in return.)

If technology can create the problem, it darn well ought to create the solution as well.

And when technology doesn't work, massive fines for those who invade one's private telephone space!

This looks like a job for Ted Kaczynski (1)

ValuJet (587148) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936906)

After these businesses start getting enough special packages from our cabin living friend, these type of businesses might dry up.

Cell phones (1)

mntgomery (620581) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936919)

Hopefully, the cell phone companies see this coming and will start to work on technology to drop calls from known offenders. A cell phone provider that can pull this off will likely have large groups of people flocking to their service if cell phones start to see this kind of call volume.

I've learned to live with the telemarketers calling my house frequently because friends and family rarely use my home phone unless they just want to leave me a message. I'd be very upset if my cell phone started ringing constantly, though.

legislative solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11936920)

this could become a problem without an extension of the do not call legislation. Phone companies can't filter out spam calls since they're common carriers. VOIP companies probably have a bit more leverage but would also directly profit from having VOIP spammers. All the parties will feel heat if the do not call legislation is expanded since it would probably require some form of gatekeeping by a domestic company somewhere along the message path.

Computer-controlled VOIP madness! (1)

GMFTatsujin (239569) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936941)

It seems like there is a whole lot of potential for messing with VOIP spammers' minds, moreso than over a telephone or through email.

Push the incoming stream quietly into the background while you go on computing, no problem. Tie the spammer up as long as they'll let themselves get tied up. No skin off your nose.

For example, the VOIP software could have a set of control plugins that could be used to redirect the spammer's voice back at them (WILL YOU STOP REPEATING ME?), or direct your outgoing voice stream to a looping message about how you don't accept spam. If you get two spam calls at the same time, hook them to each other and let *them* figure it out. Do it a la JACK -- if you want a new plugin to hassle would-be telemarketers (put reverb on their voice as you pump it back, or cange the pitch maybe?), just write one up and plug it into your existing sound architecture.

I imagine doing this at a desktop, so maybe that why it seems so controllable to me. Especially with the Libre OS of Your Choice at the helm. Mobile VOIP devices might be tougher... or maybe not.

asterisk (2, Interesting)

clymere (605769) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936947)

my understanding is that its not hard to avoid such thigs if yo're running asterisk. The people i know runnign it use some sort of "telemarketer hell" function that leads these people through multiple layers of prompts, where they then leave a message which is promptly deleted.

I want to say its as simple as detecting whether they are using a blocked number. None of these people are going to offer up their number right? What are the legal issues around spoofing? I know this is another capability asterisk has, but I would think there would some issues with a telemarketer using this to outright lie about where they are calling from...of course, would be hard to catch them too.

IVR Honeypots (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11936948)

How long until we see IVR (Interactive Voice Response) honeypots written for Asterisk?

I can see it now, an UNKNOWN/UNKNOWN call comes in and is immediately kicked into a simple IVR app that says "hello", waits for a pause and then says "Very interesting, tell me more" and repeats until the person at the other end realizes that there's noone there.

You could even add automated attacks against the originating system, as well....

And like email... (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936958)

...I will start a white list. And I will only accept phone calls from people on my white list. I meet you, you give me your phone number, and I make sure I can recieve your calls when I get home.

Spammers will find their way around that too, I have no doubts. I can already change my outgoing callerid #, so i don't see why they can't either.

Cell Phone (1)

a_greer2005 (863926) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936969)

Get a cell phone, it costs a little bit more, but no one can telamarket to you on it (legaly) and only the people you tell (or call) have your number - use the voip for crap like subscriptions and any list that may get sold.

Re:Cell Phone (1)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 9 years ago | (#11937006)

I've been called on my cellphone by scammers that my callerID identified as 1-305-675-6263 [google.ca] .

Those scumbags aren't above using wardialers.

Voicemail voicemail voicemail (4, Funny)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 9 years ago | (#11936992)

"Hi this is John. I am screening my calls. Please leave a voicemail and I will call you back."
"Hi John, this is Pete. You just tried to call me, and left me voicemail about my attempted call a few minutes ago. Please call me back."

Since it's Voice over IP... (1)

Cyclometh (629276) | more than 9 years ago | (#11937018)

Firewalls will be your friend to stop this sort of thing. The backlash will be harsher too- people are more likely to get irked at phone calls than emails; spam is something that you can take care of at your leisure. A phone ringing at 3 AM, not so much.

Impartial source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11937031)

"an analyst in the article predicts homes and businesses could see some 150 calls a day from overseas call centers."

Any chance this analyst has recieved money from the bells recently?

Sounds like we need a RBL for phone numbers too. (1)

madstork2000 (143169) | more than 9 years ago | (#11937040)

I can see a big market for automated RBL (Real-time Black Lists) for phone numbers caught spamming. Also someone with a little turnkey Astreisk based computer that has a "junk" voicemail box, recognized calls ring through, everything else silently gets sent to the junk box.

I think it would be great if we had little boxes at home that we could flag messages as SPAM, that would update a RBL. And also check the CallerID against an RBL before answering.

We have fairly mature methods for identifying spam. Obviously the phone stuff will be a little more difficult because we won't be able to adjust filter based on subject or content (at least easily). But some type of automated RBL should be relatively easy with VoIP. A fix for the Caller ID spoofing will have to be in place for this to be effective.

Though it seems like there would be a way to distinguish between a real and a spoofed number. Maybe not at the handset, but at the point of entry on the VOiP network. It would seem like a call from a regular POTS line would look much different than a call orginating on a VOiP line.

The other thing if VOiP lines are being used as SPAM calls it seems like it would be relatively easy to see a pattern in call logs. I.e. a disproportionate amount of outbound calls to inbound calls. The amount of outbound calls per day. The length and duration of outbound calls. The destination of outbound calls.

The VOiP providers should also have a internal call number or something so that when we look at our logs we can flag the call (via a web interface) as probable SPAM. The provider could then use their internal tracking number to determine where that call came from. If it orginated on a competing provider hopefully there would be some type of industry wide anti-spamming effort to make sure assholes like these Spamming vermin don't ruin it for everyone.

I am just speculating as to possible methodsto combat the problem. There are obvious issues with my suggestions, like number poratibility and privacy issues, but the fact remains that if VOiP spam becomes a problem there *should* be some ways to leverage our existing expertise in weeding out shitty shit spewed forth from the lowest life forms that we are currently forced to share of planet with.

It would obvisously be nicer if there was some way to instantly smite the scum with the wrath of God, and have them immediately and permantently cease their existance; however, since that seems unlikely, a combination of filters, RBL and industry action seem like the way to go.

MS2k
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?