5 ms·

This honestly feels staged. I have never seen anyone in any interview receive a call and pull out their phone to see who was calling. So in this ONE case, someo

by orev 8y ago

This honestly feels staged. I have never seen anyone in any interview receive a call and pull out their phone to see who was calling. So in this ONE case, someone was calling and he had to take out his phone? I imagine CEOs are getting called constantly, even when they are in interviews. How come they never pull out the phone for other calls? Do they just use airplane mode? If so, then why wasn’t it enabled for this interview? Just like most of what AT&T does, this is a lie. To what end I’m not sure. To show everyone their incompetence in dealing with the problem? To try to put pressure on the FCC to make some rules (that AT&T will fight against because it hates regulation)? Or maybe they’re just trying to poke fun at the problem. Edit: OK, so this was on CSPAN, not an actual TV interview. It does seem more natural than something that is clearly staged, so now I have my doubts.

idDriven 8y ago
My guess is this is leading up to a PR campaign where the industry will make a big deal about how seriously they are tackling the 'newly discovered' issue as an attempt to undercut a push for actual governmental oversight and regulation.
- r_smart 8y ago
  I mean, if they fix the problem, why would you be upset the government wasn't involved? If the problem persists, we can always have the conversation again. Barring anything else, government solutions tend to be inflexible (which is a feature, but should be much more selectively used).
  - nitrogen 8y ago
    Because the moment people aren't focused on the issue, it will return.
    - r_smart 8y ago
      I doubt it. It may mutate, but regulation has never stopped that sort of thing. If anything, it gains legitimacy by finding a loophole (technical compliance), and it's unlikely anyone will build the political capital to amend the law. And even if they did, it will just mutate yet again.
      - idDriven 8y ago
        Look at net neutrality, the official corporate statement is of course they support and free and open internet. However "According to lobbying disclosures filed with the U.S. Senate and reviewed by Sludge, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and their largest trade groups, the Internet and Television Association (NCTA) and CTIA, have spent $190.3 million on lobbying the FCC and other government bodies, much of it to reverse net neutrality, since the 2015 rules were passed." Source: https://readsludge.com/2018/06/11/today-net-neutrality-officially-dies/ https://readsludge.com/2018/06/11/today-net-neutrality-offic...
        r_smart 8y ago
        And the net result of that is what? Why would any business want to have regulations passed dictating what they can do? You can support a free, open internet and still not want regulations dictating your behavior. They aren't mutually exclusive.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jessaustin 8y ago
  ATT own FCC; they're not scared of "oversight and regulation" because their lawyers write all of that stuff. ISTM this is more likely to be starting a campaign against NN or even the sort of interconnection we see from VOIP providers or other services like Twilio. "Can you imagine?! Our CEO got a call that appeared to be from his golf buddy, so he interrupted some interview. Only, and here's the amazing part, it wasn't actually from his golf buddy! It turns out that some evil hackers have subverted the strong security of SS7 to place calls that appear to be from phone numbers assigned to other parties! We can fix this if we get a $1 payment from the VOIP provider every time we terminate a VOIP call."
- souterrain 8y ago
  Or the wireless and traditional wireline players will make a case to the FCC that the bad actors are the VoIP-over-public-Internet providers and such providers alone require special oversight and regulation.
mtmail 8y ago
> So in this ONE case, someone was calling and he had to take out his phone? Watch the 19 second video. He didn't take out his phone, it was a notification on his smartwatch.
- orev 8y ago
  All of my comment equally applies to people wearing Apple Watches on air. I have never seen anyone receive a call on one, or look at one and take some action. It’s still staged.
  - rhacker 8y ago
    I doubt it is staged. I'm not popular and I get 25 to 30 of these per day. All my calls are permanently forwarded to google voice. I check Google Voice every few days for important things. I've made peace with the notion that if a family member dies I will find out a few days later, but I refuse to get calls from these people that honestly should have their eyes plucked out. And what would be the benefit to ATT to stage this?
    - OldFatCactus 8y ago
      this seems a little extreme
      - philwelch 8y ago
        Plucking their eyes out or forwarding all your calls to GVoice?
        mikestew 8y ago
        Not OP, but I'm just not willing to sell out my privacy just to deal with robocalls. The eye-plucking, though, that I'm totally okay with.
        OldFatCactus 8y ago
        GVoice
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 8y ago
> OK, so this was on CSPAN, not an actual TV interview CSPAN is actual TV.
- sixstringtheory 8y ago
  It’s actual _reality_ TV. We’ve been trained very well not to know the difference any more.
  - code_duck 8y ago
    The difference is that every second of ‘reality TV’ seems very fake.
tialaramex 8y ago
>I have never seen anyone in any interview receive a call That's nice, but so what? For comparison, actual famous people have been interrupted by telephone calls during the taped (before an audience) panel news/comedy show "Have I Got News For You?" all the time. Real people. Real telephone calls. It happens because a certain type of person when you say "Make sure your phone is off" does not in fact make sure their phone is off, why should they, it's fine, right? And then it rings. Embarrassing. I assume in most cases they just edit it out of the show but if the reaction is especially amusing or they refer back to it in later parts of the show it's easier to leave it in. Because it's a show with actual famous people rather than "real" people there's not really an option to e.g. take their phone away. Who would agree to that if they're famous? "Are you claiming I'm too stupid to turn it off?" Oops. And no, what happens isn't that people like CEOs are constantly in phone calls. They have someone in the middle, a Personal Assistant, paid to take those calls without wasting their time on frivolities. "Hello, Mr Person's office? No I'm afraid he's busy right now, what did you want to talk to him about?". He may or may not be busy, it's just easier to always say that. Every person they give their number to is another person who might waste their time, so most people get the PA's number.
drugme 8y ago
I have never seen X happen. I doesn't happen very often -- but it does happen.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dfgert 8y ago
I feel like this for most sensational news stories that I hear on news. Too much agenda in every news pisses me off. I wish there was a way to filter out such agenda.

by orev 8y ago

idDriven 8y ago

My guess is this is leading up to a PR campaign where the industry will make a big deal about how seriously they are tackling the 'newly discovered' issue as an attempt to undercut a push for actual governmental oversight and regulation.

r_smart 8y ago
I mean, if they fix the problem, why would you be upset the government wasn't involved? If the problem persists, we can always have the conversation again. Barring anything else, government solutions tend to be inflexible (which is a feature, but should be much more selectively used).
- nitrogen 8y ago
  Because the moment people aren't focused on the issue, it will return.
  - r_smart 8y ago
    I doubt it. It may mutate, but regulation has never stopped that sort of thing. If anything, it gains legitimacy by finding a loophole (technical compliance), and it's unlikely anyone will build the political capital to amend the law. And even if they did, it will just mutate yet again.
    - idDriven 8y ago
      Look at net neutrality, the official corporate statement is of course they support and free and open internet. However "According to lobbying disclosures filed with the U.S. Senate and reviewed by Sludge, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and their largest trade groups, the Internet and Television Association (NCTA) and CTIA, have spent $190.3 million on lobbying the FCC and other government bodies, much of it to reverse net neutrality, since the 2015 rules were passed." Source: https://readsludge.com/2018/06/11/today-net-neutrality-officially-dies/ https://readsludge.com/2018/06/11/today-net-neutrality-offic...
      - r_smart 8y ago
        And the net result of that is what? Why would any business want to have regulations passed dictating what they can do? You can support a free, open internet and still not want regulations dictating your behavior. They aren't mutually exclusive.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jessaustin 8y ago
ATT own FCC; they're not scared of "oversight and regulation" because their lawyers write all of that stuff. ISTM this is more likely to be starting a campaign against NN or even the sort of interconnection we see from VOIP providers or other services like Twilio. "Can you imagine?! Our CEO got a call that appeared to be from his golf buddy, so he interrupted some interview. Only, and here's the amazing part, it wasn't actually from his golf buddy! It turns out that some evil hackers have subverted the strong security of SS7 to place calls that appear to be from phone numbers assigned to other parties! We can fix this if we get a $1 payment from the VOIP provider every time we terminate a VOIP call."
souterrain 8y ago
Or the wireless and traditional wireline players will make a case to the FCC that the bad actors are the VoIP-over-public-Internet providers and such providers alone require special oversight and regulation.

mtmail 8y ago

> So in this ONE case, someone was calling and he had to take out his phone? Watch the 19 second video. He didn't take out his phone, it was a notification on his smartwatch.

orev 8y ago
All of my comment equally applies to people wearing Apple Watches on air. I have never seen anyone receive a call on one, or look at one and take some action. It’s still staged.
- rhacker 8y ago
  I doubt it is staged. I'm not popular and I get 25 to 30 of these per day. All my calls are permanently forwarded to google voice. I check Google Voice every few days for important things. I've made peace with the notion that if a family member dies I will find out a few days later, but I refuse to get calls from these people that honestly should have their eyes plucked out. And what would be the benefit to ATT to stage this?
  - OldFatCactus 8y ago
    this seems a little extreme
    - philwelch 8y ago
      Plucking their eyes out or forwarding all your calls to GVoice?
      - mikestew 8y ago
        Not OP, but I'm just not willing to sell out my privacy just to deal with robocalls. The eye-plucking, though, that I'm totally okay with.
      - OldFatCactus 8y ago
        GVoice

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 8y ago

> OK, so this was on CSPAN, not an actual TV interview CSPAN is actual TV.

sixstringtheory 8y ago
It’s actual _reality_ TV. We’ve been trained very well not to know the difference any more.
- code_duck 8y ago
  The difference is that every second of ‘reality TV’ seems very fake.

tialaramex 8y ago

>I have never seen anyone in any interview receive a call That's nice, but so what? For comparison, actual famous people have been interrupted by telephone calls during the taped (before an audience) panel news/comedy show "Have I Got News For You?" all the time. Real people. Real telephone calls. It happens because a certain type of person when you say "Make sure your phone is off" does not in fact make sure their phone is off, why should they, it's fine, right? And then it rings. Embarrassing. I assume in most cases they just edit it out of the show but if the reaction is especially amusing or they refer back to it in later parts of the show it's easier to leave it in. Because it's a show with actual famous people rather than "real" people there's not really an option to e.g. take their phone away. Who would agree to that if they're famous? "Are you claiming I'm too stupid to turn it off?" Oops. And no, what happens isn't that people like CEOs are constantly in phone calls. They have someone in the middle, a Personal Assistant, paid to take those calls without wasting their time on frivolities. "Hello, Mr Person's office? No I'm afraid he's busy right now, what did you want to talk to him about?". He may or may not be busy, it's just easier to always say that. Every person they give their number to is another person who might waste their time, so most people get the PA's number.

drugme 8y ago

I have never seen X happen. I doesn't happen very often -- but it does happen.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

dfgert 8y ago

I feel like this for most sensational news stories that I hear on news. Too much agenda in every news pisses me off. I wish there was a way to filter out such agenda.