3 ms·

My understanding is that the regulation of phone services in the US is fairly prescriptive and it would be a violation of FTC rules for a phone company to just

My understanding is that the regulation of phone services in the US is fairly prescriptive and it would be a violation of FTC rules for a phone company to just go ahead and cancel accounts without legal authorization. Or to proactively screen your calls and not deliver the ones the phone company thinks are spammy. Though presumably the phone company could also tell your phone "Hey, we think this is spam" and let you know before you decide to answer.

dredmorbius 9y ago
The telcos write the rules. AT&T's lobbyists include Joan Marsh and Robert Quinn, and a few others: Wayne Watts, Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel, James W. Cicconi, Senior Executive Vice President—External and Legislative Affairs, Robert Quinn, Jr., Senior Vice President—Federal Regulatory, David Lawson, Senior Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, Hank Hultquist, Vice President—Federal Regulatory, Michael Paradise, Vice President—Global IP Operations and Infrastructure Services, and Gary Phillips, General Attorney and Associate General Counsel, of AT&T; and Richard Rosen and Maureen Jeffreys, of Arnold & Porter LLP. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001116224.pdf https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001116224.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-342942A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-342942A1.p... https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1011263448484/Status%20ATT%20ex%20parte%2013%20Jan%2017.pdf https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1011263448484/Status%20ATT%20ex... http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521067059 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521067059
dahart 9y ago
I was suggesting that consumers close their accounts, not that the phone company should close spammer accounts. Also the telcos will not violate any rules by allowing consumers to opt into a service that blocks calls originating from companies reported as spammy by a large number of other consumers. It is absolutely within their power to give consumers some control and choice about receiving spammy phone calls. The reason they are choosing not to give consumers this choice is because it would effectively eliminate their income from phone advertising, the public by and large does not want unsolicited phone calls.
- Symmetry 9y ago
  > It is absolutely within their power to give consumers some control and choice about receiving spammy phone calls. Are you sure about that? I thought that the carriers being unable to discriminate between incoming phone calls, for whatever reason, was the whole point of common carrier status. I'm pretty sure that there's a business opportunity for a cell carrier that could offer spam filtering as a selling point and if it's a small mobile only carrier there wouldn't be any phone advertising that they'd be giving up by doing that.
  - dahart 9y ago
    > Are you sure about that? Pretty sure, but by no means certain, I'm not a lawyer and I don't know all the laws. Common carrier status does mean that FCC regulations must be followed by companies placing phone calls. Since they are already illegally ignoring the US Do Not Call registry and spoofing phone numbers, there's plenty of room for enforcement of the existing regulations. Telcos could also advocate for stronger regulation. They don't now and they won't in the future, but that is in their power. Telcos could provide an opt-in system for sending & receiving calls that are verified to be from legit businesses that adhere to the do not call registry, actually stop calling people when asked, and generally aren't shady. They could provide the consumer with more information, without having to block any calls or violate common carrier rules. They definitely have the power to try, and they definitely have a financial incentive not to. They are choosing to pretend like their hands are tied. > I'm pretty sure that there's a business opportunity for a cell carrier that could offer spam filtering as a selling point and if it's a small mobile only carrier there wouldn't be any phone advertising that they'd be giving up by doing that. Yeah agreed, I hope someone comes along and tries!

dredmorbius 9y ago

The telcos write the rules. AT&T's lobbyists include Joan Marsh and Robert Quinn, and a few others: Wayne Watts, Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel, James W. Cicconi, Senior Executive Vice President—External and Legislative Affairs, Robert Quinn, Jr., Senior Vice President—Federal Regulatory, David Lawson, Senior Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, Hank Hultquist, Vice President—Federal Regulatory, Michael Paradise, Vice President—Global IP Operations and Infrastructure Services, and Gary Phillips, General Attorney and Associate General Counsel, of AT&T; and Richard Rosen and Maureen Jeffreys, of Arnold & Porter LLP. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001116224.pdf https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001116224.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-342942A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-342942A1.p... https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1011263448484/Status%20ATT%20ex%20parte%2013%20Jan%2017.pdf https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1011263448484/Status%20ATT%20ex... http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521067059 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521067059

dahart 9y ago

I was suggesting that consumers close their accounts, not that the phone company should close spammer accounts. Also the telcos will not violate any rules by allowing consumers to opt into a service that blocks calls originating from companies reported as spammy by a large number of other consumers. It is absolutely within their power to give consumers some control and choice about receiving spammy phone calls. The reason they are choosing not to give consumers this choice is because it would effectively eliminate their income from phone advertising, the public by and large does not want unsolicited phone calls.

Symmetry 9y ago
> It is absolutely within their power to give consumers some control and choice about receiving spammy phone calls. Are you sure about that? I thought that the carriers being unable to discriminate between incoming phone calls, for whatever reason, was the whole point of common carrier status. I'm pretty sure that there's a business opportunity for a cell carrier that could offer spam filtering as a selling point and if it's a small mobile only carrier there wouldn't be any phone advertising that they'd be giving up by doing that.
- dahart 9y ago
  > Are you sure about that? Pretty sure, but by no means certain, I'm not a lawyer and I don't know all the laws. Common carrier status does mean that FCC regulations must be followed by companies placing phone calls. Since they are already illegally ignoring the US Do Not Call registry and spoofing phone numbers, there's plenty of room for enforcement of the existing regulations. Telcos could also advocate for stronger regulation. They don't now and they won't in the future, but that is in their power. Telcos could provide an opt-in system for sending & receiving calls that are verified to be from legit businesses that adhere to the do not call registry, actually stop calling people when asked, and generally aren't shady. They could provide the consumer with more information, without having to block any calls or violate common carrier rules. They definitely have the power to try, and they definitely have a financial incentive not to. They are choosing to pretend like their hands are tied. > I'm pretty sure that there's a business opportunity for a cell carrier that could offer spam filtering as a selling point and if it's a small mobile only carrier there wouldn't be any phone advertising that they'd be giving up by doing that. Yeah agreed, I hope someone comes along and tries!