15 ms·

FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

351 points by daegloe 7y ago

paulgb 7y ago
Direct link to the news release (PDF): https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-357464A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-357464A1.pdf tl;dr the action would allow carriers to default to blocking calls on the part of their customers. Once SHAKEN/STIR (caller ID authentication) is available, this means carriers can block calls that don't include authenticated caller ID. Presumably they already could do this if the customer opted in. This all seems like a good idea, but I think Pai is overselling it a bit by calling it "bold."
- microcolonel 7y ago
  Does this authentication rely on devices, or is the authentication at the carrier level?
  - carriers 7y ago
    It's at the carrier level. I believe that at least some part of it is noticing that the calling number is a number that doesn't exist. For example AT&T might be given phone numbers 555-0000 through 555-1000, and they know they've only actually given out 555-0000 through 555-0782, but the caller ID claims the number is 555-0999. They can tell it's not a legitimate call because that number couldn't be making an outgoing call because it's not assigned. I don't think that's all of it by any means, but there are a number of ways that the carriers can tell that some percentage of the calls are bogus without having to ask the receiver if they want to receive it.
- jessriedel 7y ago
  > Today, many voice providers have held off developing and deploying call blocking tools by default because of uncertainty about whether these tools are legal under the FCC’s rules. Is this really true? How absolutely dysfunctional things must be.
  - chapium 7y ago
    Waiting for payout.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    I'm not sure I agree it's dysfunctional. "We're going to block some people off from the phone lines because we don't think they ought to be making calls" is exactly the kind of policy that should be heavily scrutinized.
    - philipov 7y ago
      It could be dysfunctional if the application of that heavy scrutiny is overwhelmingly biased towards a particular interest rather than being applied uniformly. Complaints of dysfunction aren't based on disputes of principle, but anger at their implementation.
    - mathnmusic 7y ago
      That policy wouldn't be about blocking people from making calls. It'd be about allowing TOOLS that let USERS block unwanted calls.
      - arebop 7y ago
        It says it is about tools that "allow phone companies to block unwanted calls" (emphasis mine). So the one wielding the tool is the phone company. It's unclear whether users can opt out of the default. It's also unclear whether "unwanted" is defined with respect to the user or the company.
    - jessriedel 7y ago
      If it takes a decade and you wait until 50% of phone calls are spam, it's dysfunctional. Glacial speed is not the same as careful scrutiny. You either need to update regulations on a fast time scale, or a way to encourage actual competition (so the heavy anti-trust-like regulations aren't required). Otherwise, you've just given up on there ever being meaningful progress/innovation in the industry.
- btown 7y ago
  Pai, overselling something? I'm shocked. That said, this is exactly what a competent FCC should do - in the absence of a larger ruling to require consumer-protecting behavior to be implemented by carriers, it should seek to clarify existing rulings - which is exactly what is happening here. Carriers interpreted an older FCC statement to prohibit them from blocking robocalls by default, and it's likely this was never the intent.
js2 7y ago
I've been getting this call[1] literally every month for about a year now. It goes straight to voicemail because their dialer can't get past my voice captcha. I tried blocking the caller id but they keep using a different last four numbers. I've now configured the call flow so that this entire exchange now has to pass the captcha to even get to voice mail. What I'm saying is, this proposal can't come soon enough. 1. Transcription, for your amusement: Hi this is Carolyn calling from reliable resource communications. Reliable resource communications is a telecommunications service used by other companies to notify consumers on their behalf. I have made numerous attempts to reach you regarding an entry form that was filled out in your name within the last 12 to 18 months to receive a new car. Now this will be my final attempt to notify you that your name was pulled and you are going to receive one of our top three major prizes. It will be in your best interest to give me a call back at soon as possible. My number is 984-292-1515 at extension 3:21. We are not a telemarketing agency nor timeshare and this is not a cold call please do not ignore this message. I'm very aware of the do not call list but wouldn't be calling unless someone actually answered. This is a time sensitive matter and I do look forward to hearing from you. Once again congratulations my name is Carolyn.
- dgdas9 7y ago
  Wasn't her name Carolyn?
- hangonhn 7y ago
  What's this voice captcha you use?
  - js2 7y ago
    Anveo Call Flow. Numbers not on a whitelist get a recording "press 1 to be connected" which repeats three times a couple seconds apart. If they don't press 1 they get sent to voice mail. I also have a blacklist that gets a captcha which says "press 1 to leave a voice mail" and hangs up if they don't.
    - mabbo 7y ago
      On the one hand, that's so smart I can't believe it's not widely used by everyone. On the other hand, if it was that common, there would be a market for systems that defeat it for the spammers.
jedberg 7y ago
If this actually happens I will be thankful that at least he did something good during his tenure. I suppose this will get through since it doesn’t hurt the profits of the telcos. In fact it will give them a new profit center! Because I’m sure that they won’t offer “block by default” for free.
- josefresco 7y ago
  > In fact it will give them a new profit center! And that is why I'll give him 0.0 credit.
  - zanny 7y ago
    Its easier for an FCC chair in the future working in citizens interests to mandate an already existing, optional extension than to mandate the adoption of call blocking from nothing.
- raverbashing 7y ago
  Funny, because if they charged all those calls by the price they sell consumer services they would make a lot of money. But no It's the same thing with "USPS going bankrupt", charge commercial mail its actual cost (x10 what costs now) and see the money come in. You get subsidized cost if you actually buy a physical stamp and glue it to your letter
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    You think the letter carrying monopoly is reducing prices by 10x? Or are there subsidies I don't understand that you think are doing that?
    - raverbashing 7y ago
      https://www.usps.com/business/prices.htm https://www.usps.com/business/prices.htm See how much a stamp cost vs. "Commercial"/"Direct Mail" options (though maybe 10x is an exaggeration)
chapium 7y ago
I disagree with having the service providers block the calls. Shouldn't that be up to the consumer? Having your carrier block a call seems like an overreach. I feel this erodes trust in the phone system even more.
- jawns 7y ago
  Presumably they would be blocking it on the consumer's behalf, with the consumer's consent, through an opt-in program.
  - unsignedchar 7y ago
    And wouldn’t they, presumably, expect to be compensated for providing this convenience?
    - nordsieck 7y ago
      > And wouldn’t they, presumably, expect to be compensated for providing this convenience? Maybe. I think, though, that there is growing understanding that consumers may just opt out of the phone system altogether if something isn't done.
  - chapium 7y ago
    Thats not how any phone company I've ever seen works :)
- JohnFen 7y ago
  > Shouldn't that be up to the consumer? The telephone provider is the only one who has the technical ability to block these calls. But I agree that it should only do so with the consent of the subscriber.
- dymk 7y ago
  How is a consumer supposed to reliably block robocall without help from the provider? The provider is the only entity in this system that has the information needed to curb robocalling.
inetknght 7y ago
tl;dr: Upload your contact lists to your service provider so that your service provider can block calls from people not in your contact list. If the blocking doesn't work completely from within my own device then it's going to be a no from me.
- chrisfinazzo 7y ago
  How would this account for (legitimate) blocked numbers or those that originate behind a switch? I get calls from recruiters from time to time that do this as a matter of course. Although I have no expectation the GOP would actually do this, I would add an asterisk to the policy... * If you use these lists for marketing to existing customers, we reserve the right to sue you out of existence. Kindly GFY.
  - chadash 7y ago
    > * I get calls from recruiters from time to time that do this as a matter of course.* If this gets widespread adoption, then recruiters and legitimate robocalls will come up with solutions. The problem I have is that if I block all unknown numbers, I'll also be blocking my bank/credit card/pharmacy or other legitimate robocalls. So I can't do this myself. But if everyone blocks unknown calls, these entities will be forced to come up with a solution (e.g. sending out emails instead). The particular example you give of recruiters with blocked numbers rubs me the wrong way. Like you can call me out of the blue and interrupt my work day, and you're not even exposing your phone number? Good riddance.
    - chrisfinazzo 7y ago
      They likely do it so they don't have people calling back a direct line on a whim. Usually will ask me to call a different number if I'm actually interested.
  - inetknght 7y ago
    How do you define "legitimate"? Because however you define it, there will undoubtedly be a more legitimate way of contacting the person.
bcheung 7y ago
How will this be implemented from a technology and policy perspective? The idea is one I am definitely supportive of. My phone rarely comes out of DnD now because of the robocallers. But the devil is in the details. Forcing people to add someone to their contact list before being able to receive calls from them will probably be a bit draconian. Another possible solution would be that someone can request access to call you and there is some service that verifies their identity and presents that information to you. "[NAME] is requesting permission to contact you through [VOICE CALLS, EMAIL, TEXT]. Allow/Deny?" Another good solution might be to add something equivalent to HTTPS / SSL certs, where only secure and verified identities can contact you.
- wavefunction 7y ago
  I'd settle for non-spoofable CallerID
  - bcheung 7y ago
    Yes, that would probably be a good thing. They seriously need to fix the problem of being able to listen to other people's voicemail by merely setting the caller id to the target's cell number and calling them.
    - mehrdadn 7y ago
      Wait is that a thing right now?!
      - hanniabu 7y ago
        You bet it is, I think the first time I tried this was around 2007 or something like that.
    - frosted-flakes 7y ago
      Is that why I need to enter a passcode? I always thought that was stupid.
adamch 7y ago
I'm curious why robocalls aren't protected by freedom of speech. This is the government censoring small businesses from doing direct marketing. I don't actually believe this argument, but I'm curious what self-described free speech absolutists think.
- bduerst 7y ago
  The government isn't censoring anything, they're allowing private organizations to block spam calls by default.
  - thfuran 7y ago
    When all channels of communication are owned and operated by private companies, it's not quite so clear cut as that. The only means of long-distance communication not operated by a private company is the USPS and that's simply not comparable to email/IM/telephony.
    - bduerst 7y ago
      Not at all. When all channels are owned and operated by private companies, then it is _clearly_ not government censorship.
      - thfuran 7y ago
        It's clearly not a free speech issue in much the same way that when military actions are conducted by private contractors instead of soldiers, violations of the rules of engagement are purely a private commercial issue and not the fault of the government.
- airstrike 7y ago
  Freedom of speech isn't absolute. No right is absolute, as a matter of fact.
- jerf 7y ago
  Freedom of speech includes the ability to be free from speech. You have the right to say things; you do not have the right to force people to listen. There are some obvious nuances around different media, especially around physical audio in the real world, where just because you're saying something that is reaching people's ears does not within reason mean you're "forcing" them to "hear" it, but in the case of a robocall it's definitely an attempt to force itself on you, especially in light of the Do Not Call list providing positive in-advance affirmation of a lack of desire to hear this particular speech. I think is one of those cases where a "reasonable person" standard works pretty well and trying to get nitpicky on "but what if...?" is mostly a way to get yourself turned around in circles, not a path to enlightenment. (If nothing else, you can't have a generalized right to force other people to listen to you out of sheer scale; the many hundreds of thousands of people who would jump on that "right" to do something would consume well in excess of 100% of your time if such a right generally existed, in our current socio-technological landscape in which broadcast is so easy and readily available to everyone. Robocalls are an example of that problem squeezing through even despite our layers of protection; it would be far worse if our society determined there was a right to such things.)
duxup 7y ago
According to Ars they want to leave it up to the carriers if they want to charge for it, if that is accurate and the robocall problems escalate then you could end up paying for it by default ... or just get robocalls all day. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/ajit-pais-robocall-plan-lets-carriers-charge-for-new-call-blocking-tools/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/ajit-pais-roboca... "It will cost $X a month for service, and $Y more if you want to be able to use it..." And as a revenue stream I worry this could create a perverse disincentive for carriers, why deal with a problem that makes people give us more money?
- hedvig 7y ago
  The more I look at things as I age, the more I see market based solutions as only benefiting the supplier and always hurting the consumer.
  - dd36 7y ago
    It’s not really even a market-based solution unless there are blockers competing for your business.
  - duxup 7y ago
    I really wish there w as a party interested in free markets and fostering competition. Rather the GoP whose rhetoric talks about free markets, is really just all about picking winners themselves and legislating profits for their allies.
    - joshAg 7y ago
      It's the same thing. In order to create any free market and foster competition, an entity has to decide and then enforce the rules for the market, which allows that entity to pick a winner by the rules it choose to write and then enforce. Plus, in mature markets, fostering competition is antithetical to maintaining the "freeness" of the market, because it requires punishing the "winners" in order to ensure competitors, by things like breaking up competitors that are able to leverage winning in one area to compete and then win in another area (ie antitrust/antimonopoly), invalidating patents/trade secrets/intellectual property/etc. when ever something is so dominant that without access to it no one can compete, and limiting how competitors can compete (eg preventing them from limiting how purchasers can use their products). And of course, every decision made for how to implement the kinds of issues outlined in the above paragraph is an opportunity to pick who wins, too.
paul7986 7y ago
I have my iPhone on Do not Disturb allow only contacts to ring my phone. Also, for each contact I want to be notified about their texts Ive edited each contact > text tone —> Emergency Bypass on and no text tone. My phone is now back to what I feel belongs to me and not scum using MY phone to bother me for their benefit.
j-c-hewitt 7y ago
Robocalls are a constant annoyance for me (I get maybe 1 per day on average) and almost all of them are criminally fraudulent solicitations of some kind including calls impersonating the Social Security Administration etc. It's like being forced to read my spam folder with an audible alert. I have to field calls from a lot of clients that I have never spoken to before or have only called them a couple times, so only answering phone calls from recognized numbers isn't really an option.
- dpcan 7y ago
  One!!?!? I am keeping track, and my biggest day was 29 robocalls about 2 weeks ago (all between 7am and 6pm). I don't always use privacy protection when registering domain names, so my number is out there, and after I get a new domain I get crushed over the next few days with robocalls. I am in the same boat where I have to answer all the calls or I lose business, so it's a nightmare. Also, I can't even do anything productive on my phone because the calls interrupt everything.
  - j-c-hewitt 7y ago
    I cursed out a robot trying to sell me solar panels yesterday, but the robot just called me back again the same day, trying to sell me solar panels again. It really is unpleasant. I used to get cruise ship scam calls that always started with the sound of a fog horn. I think people who run these robocall companies should be burned at the stake.
  - justinmchase 7y ago
    I had someone make a robocall to everyone in my area code using my number... and then everyone called _me_ back all day long asking me "whats up?" and things like that. It was incredible and when I called my provider they told me there was nothing they can do to stop it because robo-callers can spoof the numbers they appear to be calling from and they have no audit trail for it. I feel like this is a completely solvable technical problem, I can't accept that it has to be this way.
- paulie_a 7y ago
  I get about ten a day and you are dead on. They are all criminally fraudulent. This shouldn't be handled by the FCC but the fbi. Every single person at the robocalling company should be arrested, even the secretary. This isn't a civil matter, this is criminal and should be treated as such.
hedora 7y ago
Why don’t we just fine the telco $10 each time they connect an obviously fraudulent call? The fact that they’re still using signaling system 7 is not a defense for their negligence.
- justinmchase 7y ago
  Because the people appointed are essentially placed there by companies that profit more by having the system the way it is right now.
koboll 7y ago
How about this: No one is allowed to call me unless they are on my contacts list, or perhaps another whitelist of not-quite-contacts-but-allowed-to-call-me. Any calls off those lists silently fail. Phone providers must upgrade their infrastructure to include origin-number verification. No business is allowed to expect I be available to answer phone calls, or to require me to conduct business over the phone, for any reason, ever. Each time I am charged or penalized by a business in any way for missing their call, or not doing something that can only be done over the phone, they are required to eat the charge and then fined $10,000. Let's throw business over the phone where it belongs: in the fucking garbage. The death of robocalls will be a nice side bonus.
- politician 7y ago
  Great start! For all of the legacy web forms and apps that require a phone number field be populated, carriers must provide routing for a standardized blackhole number. No business is allowed to reject the blackhole number as an invalid phone number.
- bduerst 7y ago
  They need this whitelist with Android's screen call function, which is currently manually triggered. Basically an assistant-based voice captcha that screens and forwards your calls.
- RHSeeger 7y ago
  I get plenty of calls from people outside my contacts list that I want to hear from. My doctor calls me to discuss test results. My daughter's school calls if there's an issue. I want to get rid of robocalling, too, but I don't want my phone neutered to do it.
- paul7986 7y ago
  This can be done (1st request of ur post) easily on iPhone ... Do Not Disturb --> Allow only contacts. Also, only allow text messages from contacts via edit a contact --> text tone --> emergency bypass on and no text tone if you don't want to hear a sound. Works great for me... my phone is now all mine again! Scum are ignored & go directly to voicemail.
mydpy 7y ago
Does anyone have statistics on the impact of robocallers? They're ubiquitous and universally obnoxious. I haven't seen any reporting on their effectiveness for the services they're advertising for. I wonder why do they even bother. I understand these calls mostly take advantage of unsuspecting people, but I still can't imagine the impact these calls are making financially.
jdenning 7y ago
It seems pointless to implement any new rules when the bad actors already know that they can just spoof caller ID to use a fake number and avoid any consequences. I'm already on every opt-out list in existence - it does nothing. I've filed complaints with the FCC about people breaking the rules - nothing. What needs to change: 1) Fix Caller-ID so that it can't be spoofed for fraudlulent purposes 2) Make it easy to report violations of the rules to the FCC 3) Actually enforce the rules Then the Do Not Call Registry and bans on robocallers might actually work.
nartz 7y ago
1. Why can we not ban spoofed numbers? 2. It would be great if instead they introduced legislation that made it dead simple to sue robocallers, i.e. - request your call records from carrier - submit said call records through online portal proving excessive calls
- post_break 7y ago
  It's hard to verify caller ID with current tech is why. Well hard, more like costs money to verify.
teknopaul 7y ago
Is there any legitimate use case for robocalls at all? Can we not make it illegal punishable with the death sentence? Would any law abidng citizen be affected? Presuming post and sms messages are still allowed. Hypothetically, natch.
- burntoutcase 7y ago
  > Can we not make it illegal punishable with the death sentence? I think all spammers should be dealt with in the manner Vlad Tepes used to deal with Turks, criminals, and people who talk at the theater. However, we're going to need a lot of thick, sturdy bamboo stakes if we're going to impale every spammer we find.
  - nullc 7y ago
    > However, we're going to need a lot of thick, sturdy bamboo stakes if we're going to impale every spammer we find. Sharpen the femurs of their predecessors. Because most spammers yield two femurs, you only need one starter stake and then your supply of weapons is self sustaining.
- ghaff 7y ago
  Certainly less than there used to be. But there are people who still use phones who don't/won't use SMS and/or may not have good cell reception at home. So reminders about pickups, appointments, flight changes, etc. can't necessarily just assume everyone has SMS on a cell phone.
  - teknopaul 7y ago
    Ok good pount. I've been living in EU with 100% mobile coverage for so long I forgot. Someone needs to invent sms over landline.
burntoutcase 7y ago
We could just get rid of our telephones. Let's be honest here: when was the last time you were actually happy to make or receive a phone call? It's time to KonMari this tech into the nearest dumpster.
sxates 7y ago
If I can plug an app I found helpful in reducing robocalls: Try RoboKiller (iPhone, not sure about android). I tried Mr. Number and a couple other free options which didn't seem to block much. I paid $30/yr for RoboKiller and unwanted calls have been reduced substantially - to maybe 1 per week slipping through. It's not just doing caller ID analysis, you actually forward your calls to them and they screen them before they even get to your phone. Seems to work well.
- paul7986 7y ago
  RoboKiller hosed my voicemail after uninstalling it and they didn't hose it via my device but actual voicemail line got hosed and AT&T has tried to fix it with no avail. Best solution I've found on iPhone --> Do NoT Disturb --> only allow calls from contacts. Receive texts notifications only from contacts too.
korethr 7y ago
I will welcome a workable solution to the robocall problems. In the interim, they provide a source of entertainment. The most common ones I get are from The Credit Card Company to tell me that because of my excellent credit history, I have qualified to get my credit card directly through them at a lower interst rate, instead of having it resold to me through Visa or Mastercard. For these calls, I'll generate a fake card number, SSN, name, address, etc, and start answering their questions. Inevitably, when the number comes back as bogus, they get angry, and yell at me to tell me how much of a cocksucking faggot I am and that they're going to come rape my daughter. I laugh at their attempts to form insults being less coherent than their English in general and move on with my day. Of course, as soon as I tried to start recording these calls, they became much less frequent. I can't help but wonder if my number hasn't become blacklisted by these scam centers in India and the Philippines as a known unprofitable time waster or something. Why waste your time calling someone you know you can't get anything out of when there's lower-effort marks out there which will be more profitable? All the same, I'd prefer not to have deal with these guys, so any actually workable solution would be welcome. Edit: Hah! While reviewing this post, I got yet another call from these guys. And I got the most persistent one of 'em I've had yet. They're getting good with semi-plausible responses to the most common deflections. But, their geography skills aren't much better than mine. Apparently Lebanon is in Canada.
- nullc 7y ago
  > Inevitably, when the number comes back as bogus, they get angry, and yell at me I was really surprised the first time I got a got a bunch of obscenities out of one of these scammers-- I figured they'd consider being screwed with just a cost of doing business. Weird. Aside: I went from a couple a day to none in the last three days after saying "DO NOT HANG UP. You have reached the US department of illicit telephone communication"<click>. Perhaps a coincidence.
onepremise 7y ago
This should be a no brainer. Robocalls should be illegal and blocked by your phone provider. Must the chairmen really make an exploit a profit margin for corporations? We need somebody in the FCC that can at least understand technology and consumers.
hetoh 7y ago
All thanks to John Oliver : https://youtu.be/FO0iG_P0P6M https://youtu.be/FO0iG_P0P6M
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
olliej 7y ago
I feel the correct solution (given the current admin, and U politics in general) is just to stop allowing telcos to charge for receiving calls. Fundamentally for everything they say about robocalls, it's still profitable for a telco if you ever pick up.
DrWumbo 7y ago
This is awful. There's no chance of their system having a 0% false positive rate (positive in this case meaning spam). Even a low FPR means that potentially important calls will get blocked by default.
mitch3x3 7y ago
This will probably get buried, but I’ll give my personal solution to reducing the number of robocalls over the past few months. Be a robot. Either answer the phone with absolute silence or have a very loud dial tone playing. It might be a coincidence, but I’m fairly certain this has put me on robocall blacklists. Bonus points if they give you a callback number to a call center... just keep spam calling them with a loud dial tone. I only get a couple of calls per week now.
fulldecent2 7y ago
There is only one actual solution to this problem. 1. Get the list of phone numbers of everybody working at AT&T (Sony style) 2. Set up robocalls randomly from each of these numbers to each of the other numbers 3. Share this list and your specific howto instructions with three other people Every other solution fails.

351 points by daegloe 7y ago

Direct link to the news release (PDF): https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-357464A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-357464A1.pdf tl;dr the action would allow carriers to default to blocking calls on the part of their customers. Once SHAKEN/STIR (caller ID authentication) is available, this means carriers can block calls that don't include authenticated caller ID. Presumably they already could do this if the customer opted in. This all seems like a good idea, but I think Pai is overselling it a bit by calling it "bold."

microcolonel 7y ago
Does this authentication rely on devices, or is the authentication at the carrier level?
- carriers 7y ago
  It's at the carrier level. I believe that at least some part of it is noticing that the calling number is a number that doesn't exist. For example AT&T might be given phone numbers 555-0000 through 555-1000, and they know they've only actually given out 555-0000 through 555-0782, but the caller ID claims the number is 555-0999. They can tell it's not a legitimate call because that number couldn't be making an outgoing call because it's not assigned. I don't think that's all of it by any means, but there are a number of ways that the carriers can tell that some percentage of the calls are bogus without having to ask the receiver if they want to receive it.
jessriedel 7y ago
> Today, many voice providers have held off developing and deploying call blocking tools by default because of uncertainty about whether these tools are legal under the FCC’s rules. Is this really true? How absolutely dysfunctional things must be.
- chapium 7y ago
  Waiting for payout.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  I'm not sure I agree it's dysfunctional. "We're going to block some people off from the phone lines because we don't think they ought to be making calls" is exactly the kind of policy that should be heavily scrutinized.
  - philipov 7y ago
    It could be dysfunctional if the application of that heavy scrutiny is overwhelmingly biased towards a particular interest rather than being applied uniformly. Complaints of dysfunction aren't based on disputes of principle, but anger at their implementation.
  - mathnmusic 7y ago
    That policy wouldn't be about blocking people from making calls. It'd be about allowing TOOLS that let USERS block unwanted calls.
    - arebop 7y ago
      It says it is about tools that "allow phone companies to block unwanted calls" (emphasis mine). So the one wielding the tool is the phone company. It's unclear whether users can opt out of the default. It's also unclear whether "unwanted" is defined with respect to the user or the company.
  - jessriedel 7y ago
    If it takes a decade and you wait until 50% of phone calls are spam, it's dysfunctional. Glacial speed is not the same as careful scrutiny. You either need to update regulations on a fast time scale, or a way to encourage actual competition (so the heavy anti-trust-like regulations aren't required). Otherwise, you've just given up on there ever being meaningful progress/innovation in the industry.
btown 7y ago
Pai, overselling something? I'm shocked. That said, this is exactly what a competent FCC should do - in the absence of a larger ruling to require consumer-protecting behavior to be implemented by carriers, it should seek to clarify existing rulings - which is exactly what is happening here. Carriers interpreted an older FCC statement to prohibit them from blocking robocalls by default, and it's likely this was never the intent.

js2 7y ago

I've been getting this call[1] literally every month for about a year now. It goes straight to voicemail because their dialer can't get past my voice captcha. I tried blocking the caller id but they keep using a different last four numbers. I've now configured the call flow so that this entire exchange now has to pass the captcha to even get to voice mail. What I'm saying is, this proposal can't come soon enough. 1. Transcription, for your amusement: Hi this is Carolyn calling from reliable resource communications. Reliable resource communications is a telecommunications service used by other companies to notify consumers on their behalf. I have made numerous attempts to reach you regarding an entry form that was filled out in your name within the last 12 to 18 months to receive a new car. Now this will be my final attempt to notify you that your name was pulled and you are going to receive one of our top three major prizes. It will be in your best interest to give me a call back at soon as possible. My number is 984-292-1515 at extension 3:21. We are not a telemarketing agency nor timeshare and this is not a cold call please do not ignore this message. I'm very aware of the do not call list but wouldn't be calling unless someone actually answered. This is a time sensitive matter and I do look forward to hearing from you. Once again congratulations my name is Carolyn.

dgdas9 7y ago
Wasn't her name Carolyn?
hangonhn 7y ago
What's this voice captcha you use?
- js2 7y ago
  Anveo Call Flow. Numbers not on a whitelist get a recording "press 1 to be connected" which repeats three times a couple seconds apart. If they don't press 1 they get sent to voice mail. I also have a blacklist that gets a captcha which says "press 1 to leave a voice mail" and hangs up if they don't.
  - mabbo 7y ago
    On the one hand, that's so smart I can't believe it's not widely used by everyone. On the other hand, if it was that common, there would be a market for systems that defeat it for the spammers.

jedberg 7y ago

If this actually happens I will be thankful that at least he did something good during his tenure. I suppose this will get through since it doesn’t hurt the profits of the telcos. In fact it will give them a new profit center! Because I’m sure that they won’t offer “block by default” for free.

josefresco 7y ago
> In fact it will give them a new profit center! And that is why I'll give him 0.0 credit.
- zanny 7y ago
  Its easier for an FCC chair in the future working in citizens interests to mandate an already existing, optional extension than to mandate the adoption of call blocking from nothing.
raverbashing 7y ago
Funny, because if they charged all those calls by the price they sell consumer services they would make a lot of money. But no It's the same thing with "USPS going bankrupt", charge commercial mail its actual cost (x10 what costs now) and see the money come in. You get subsidized cost if you actually buy a physical stamp and glue it to your letter
- maxerickson 7y ago
  You think the letter carrying monopoly is reducing prices by 10x? Or are there subsidies I don't understand that you think are doing that?
  - raverbashing 7y ago
    https://www.usps.com/business/prices.htm https://www.usps.com/business/prices.htm See how much a stamp cost vs. "Commercial"/"Direct Mail" options (though maybe 10x is an exaggeration)

chapium 7y ago

I disagree with having the service providers block the calls. Shouldn't that be up to the consumer? Having your carrier block a call seems like an overreach. I feel this erodes trust in the phone system even more.

jawns 7y ago
Presumably they would be blocking it on the consumer's behalf, with the consumer's consent, through an opt-in program.
- unsignedchar 7y ago
  And wouldn’t they, presumably, expect to be compensated for providing this convenience?
  - nordsieck 7y ago
    > And wouldn’t they, presumably, expect to be compensated for providing this convenience? Maybe. I think, though, that there is growing understanding that consumers may just opt out of the phone system altogether if something isn't done.
- chapium 7y ago
  Thats not how any phone company I've ever seen works :)
JohnFen 7y ago
> Shouldn't that be up to the consumer? The telephone provider is the only one who has the technical ability to block these calls. But I agree that it should only do so with the consent of the subscriber.
dymk 7y ago
How is a consumer supposed to reliably block robocall without help from the provider? The provider is the only entity in this system that has the information needed to curb robocalling.

inetknght 7y ago

tl;dr: Upload your contact lists to your service provider so that your service provider can block calls from people not in your contact list. If the blocking doesn't work completely from within my own device then it's going to be a no from me.

chrisfinazzo 7y ago
How would this account for (legitimate) blocked numbers or those that originate behind a switch? I get calls from recruiters from time to time that do this as a matter of course. Although I have no expectation the GOP would actually do this, I would add an asterisk to the policy... * If you use these lists for marketing to existing customers, we reserve the right to sue you out of existence. Kindly GFY.
- chadash 7y ago
  > * I get calls from recruiters from time to time that do this as a matter of course.* If this gets widespread adoption, then recruiters and legitimate robocalls will come up with solutions. The problem I have is that if I block all unknown numbers, I'll also be blocking my bank/credit card/pharmacy or other legitimate robocalls. So I can't do this myself. But if everyone blocks unknown calls, these entities will be forced to come up with a solution (e.g. sending out emails instead). The particular example you give of recruiters with blocked numbers rubs me the wrong way. Like you can call me out of the blue and interrupt my work day, and you're not even exposing your phone number? Good riddance.
  - chrisfinazzo 7y ago
    They likely do it so they don't have people calling back a direct line on a whim. Usually will ask me to call a different number if I'm actually interested.
- inetknght 7y ago
  How do you define "legitimate"? Because however you define it, there will undoubtedly be a more legitimate way of contacting the person.

bcheung 7y ago

How will this be implemented from a technology and policy perspective? The idea is one I am definitely supportive of. My phone rarely comes out of DnD now because of the robocallers. But the devil is in the details. Forcing people to add someone to their contact list before being able to receive calls from them will probably be a bit draconian. Another possible solution would be that someone can request access to call you and there is some service that verifies their identity and presents that information to you. "[NAME] is requesting permission to contact you through [VOICE CALLS, EMAIL, TEXT]. Allow/Deny?" Another good solution might be to add something equivalent to HTTPS / SSL certs, where only secure and verified identities can contact you.

wavefunction 7y ago
I'd settle for non-spoofable CallerID
- bcheung 7y ago
  Yes, that would probably be a good thing. They seriously need to fix the problem of being able to listen to other people's voicemail by merely setting the caller id to the target's cell number and calling them.
  - mehrdadn 7y ago
    Wait is that a thing right now?!
    - hanniabu 7y ago
      You bet it is, I think the first time I tried this was around 2007 or something like that.
  - frosted-flakes 7y ago
    Is that why I need to enter a passcode? I always thought that was stupid.

adamch 7y ago

I'm curious why robocalls aren't protected by freedom of speech. This is the government censoring small businesses from doing direct marketing. I don't actually believe this argument, but I'm curious what self-described free speech absolutists think.

bduerst 7y ago
The government isn't censoring anything, they're allowing private organizations to block spam calls by default.
- thfuran 7y ago
  When all channels of communication are owned and operated by private companies, it's not quite so clear cut as that. The only means of long-distance communication not operated by a private company is the USPS and that's simply not comparable to email/IM/telephony.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    Not at all. When all channels are owned and operated by private companies, then it is _clearly_ not government censorship.
    - thfuran 7y ago
      It's clearly not a free speech issue in much the same way that when military actions are conducted by private contractors instead of soldiers, violations of the rules of engagement are purely a private commercial issue and not the fault of the government.
airstrike 7y ago
Freedom of speech isn't absolute. No right is absolute, as a matter of fact.
jerf 7y ago
Freedom of speech includes the ability to be free from speech. You have the right to say things; you do not have the right to force people to listen. There are some obvious nuances around different media, especially around physical audio in the real world, where just because you're saying something that is reaching people's ears does not within reason mean you're "forcing" them to "hear" it, but in the case of a robocall it's definitely an attempt to force itself on you, especially in light of the Do Not Call list providing positive in-advance affirmation of a lack of desire to hear this particular speech. I think is one of those cases where a "reasonable person" standard works pretty well and trying to get nitpicky on "but what if...?" is mostly a way to get yourself turned around in circles, not a path to enlightenment. (If nothing else, you can't have a generalized right to force other people to listen to you out of sheer scale; the many hundreds of thousands of people who would jump on that "right" to do something would consume well in excess of 100% of your time if such a right generally existed, in our current socio-technological landscape in which broadcast is so easy and readily available to everyone. Robocalls are an example of that problem squeezing through even despite our layers of protection; it would be far worse if our society determined there was a right to such things.)

duxup 7y ago

According to Ars they want to leave it up to the carriers if they want to charge for it, if that is accurate and the robocall problems escalate then you could end up paying for it by default ... or just get robocalls all day. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/ajit-pais-robocall-plan-lets-carriers-charge-for-new-call-blocking-tools/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/ajit-pais-roboca... "It will cost $X a month for service, and $Y more if you want to be able to use it..." And as a revenue stream I worry this could create a perverse disincentive for carriers, why deal with a problem that makes people give us more money?

hedvig 7y ago
The more I look at things as I age, the more I see market based solutions as only benefiting the supplier and always hurting the consumer.
- dd36 7y ago
  It’s not really even a market-based solution unless there are blockers competing for your business.
- duxup 7y ago
  I really wish there w as a party interested in free markets and fostering competition. Rather the GoP whose rhetoric talks about free markets, is really just all about picking winners themselves and legislating profits for their allies.
  - joshAg 7y ago
    It's the same thing. In order to create any free market and foster competition, an entity has to decide and then enforce the rules for the market, which allows that entity to pick a winner by the rules it choose to write and then enforce. Plus, in mature markets, fostering competition is antithetical to maintaining the "freeness" of the market, because it requires punishing the "winners" in order to ensure competitors, by things like breaking up competitors that are able to leverage winning in one area to compete and then win in another area (ie antitrust/antimonopoly), invalidating patents/trade secrets/intellectual property/etc. when ever something is so dominant that without access to it no one can compete, and limiting how competitors can compete (eg preventing them from limiting how purchasers can use their products). And of course, every decision made for how to implement the kinds of issues outlined in the above paragraph is an opportunity to pick who wins, too.

paul7986 7y ago

I have my iPhone on Do not Disturb allow only contacts to ring my phone. Also, for each contact I want to be notified about their texts Ive edited each contact > text tone —> Emergency Bypass on and no text tone. My phone is now back to what I feel belongs to me and not scum using MY phone to bother me for their benefit.

j-c-hewitt 7y ago

Robocalls are a constant annoyance for me (I get maybe 1 per day on average) and almost all of them are criminally fraudulent solicitations of some kind including calls impersonating the Social Security Administration etc. It's like being forced to read my spam folder with an audible alert. I have to field calls from a lot of clients that I have never spoken to before or have only called them a couple times, so only answering phone calls from recognized numbers isn't really an option.

dpcan 7y ago
One!!?!? I am keeping track, and my biggest day was 29 robocalls about 2 weeks ago (all between 7am and 6pm). I don't always use privacy protection when registering domain names, so my number is out there, and after I get a new domain I get crushed over the next few days with robocalls. I am in the same boat where I have to answer all the calls or I lose business, so it's a nightmare. Also, I can't even do anything productive on my phone because the calls interrupt everything.
- j-c-hewitt 7y ago
  I cursed out a robot trying to sell me solar panels yesterday, but the robot just called me back again the same day, trying to sell me solar panels again. It really is unpleasant. I used to get cruise ship scam calls that always started with the sound of a fog horn. I think people who run these robocall companies should be burned at the stake.
- justinmchase 7y ago
  I had someone make a robocall to everyone in my area code using my number... and then everyone called _me_ back all day long asking me "whats up?" and things like that. It was incredible and when I called my provider they told me there was nothing they can do to stop it because robo-callers can spoof the numbers they appear to be calling from and they have no audit trail for it. I feel like this is a completely solvable technical problem, I can't accept that it has to be this way.
paulie_a 7y ago
I get about ten a day and you are dead on. They are all criminally fraudulent. This shouldn't be handled by the FCC but the fbi. Every single person at the robocalling company should be arrested, even the secretary. This isn't a civil matter, this is criminal and should be treated as such.

hedora 7y ago

Why don’t we just fine the telco $10 each time they connect an obviously fraudulent call? The fact that they’re still using signaling system 7 is not a defense for their negligence.

justinmchase 7y ago
Because the people appointed are essentially placed there by companies that profit more by having the system the way it is right now.

koboll 7y ago

How about this: No one is allowed to call me unless they are on my contacts list, or perhaps another whitelist of not-quite-contacts-but-allowed-to-call-me. Any calls off those lists silently fail. Phone providers must upgrade their infrastructure to include origin-number verification. No business is allowed to expect I be available to answer phone calls, or to require me to conduct business over the phone, for any reason, ever. Each time I am charged or penalized by a business in any way for missing their call, or not doing something that can only be done over the phone, they are required to eat the charge and then fined $10,000. Let's throw business over the phone where it belongs: in the fucking garbage. The death of robocalls will be a nice side bonus.

politician 7y ago
Great start! For all of the legacy web forms and apps that require a phone number field be populated, carriers must provide routing for a standardized blackhole number. No business is allowed to reject the blackhole number as an invalid phone number.
bduerst 7y ago
They need this whitelist with Android's screen call function, which is currently manually triggered. Basically an assistant-based voice captcha that screens and forwards your calls.
RHSeeger 7y ago
I get plenty of calls from people outside my contacts list that I want to hear from. My doctor calls me to discuss test results. My daughter's school calls if there's an issue. I want to get rid of robocalling, too, but I don't want my phone neutered to do it.
paul7986 7y ago
This can be done (1st request of ur post) easily on iPhone ... Do Not Disturb --> Allow only contacts. Also, only allow text messages from contacts via edit a contact --> text tone --> emergency bypass on and no text tone if you don't want to hear a sound. Works great for me... my phone is now all mine again! Scum are ignored & go directly to voicemail.

mydpy 7y ago

Does anyone have statistics on the impact of robocallers? They're ubiquitous and universally obnoxious. I haven't seen any reporting on their effectiveness for the services they're advertising for. I wonder why do they even bother. I understand these calls mostly take advantage of unsuspecting people, but I still can't imagine the impact these calls are making financially.

jdenning 7y ago

It seems pointless to implement any new rules when the bad actors already know that they can just spoof caller ID to use a fake number and avoid any consequences. I'm already on every opt-out list in existence - it does nothing. I've filed complaints with the FCC about people breaking the rules - nothing. What needs to change: 1) Fix Caller-ID so that it can't be spoofed for fraudlulent purposes 2) Make it easy to report violations of the rules to the FCC 3) Actually enforce the rules Then the Do Not Call Registry and bans on robocallers might actually work.

nartz 7y ago

1. Why can we not ban spoofed numbers? 2. It would be great if instead they introduced legislation that made it dead simple to sue robocallers, i.e. - request your call records from carrier - submit said call records through online portal proving excessive calls

post_break 7y ago
It's hard to verify caller ID with current tech is why. Well hard, more like costs money to verify.

teknopaul 7y ago

Is there any legitimate use case for robocalls at all? Can we not make it illegal punishable with the death sentence? Would any law abidng citizen be affected? Presuming post and sms messages are still allowed. Hypothetically, natch.

burntoutcase 7y ago
> Can we not make it illegal punishable with the death sentence? I think all spammers should be dealt with in the manner Vlad Tepes used to deal with Turks, criminals, and people who talk at the theater. However, we're going to need a lot of thick, sturdy bamboo stakes if we're going to impale every spammer we find.
- nullc 7y ago
  > However, we're going to need a lot of thick, sturdy bamboo stakes if we're going to impale every spammer we find. Sharpen the femurs of their predecessors. Because most spammers yield two femurs, you only need one starter stake and then your supply of weapons is self sustaining.
ghaff 7y ago
Certainly less than there used to be. But there are people who still use phones who don't/won't use SMS and/or may not have good cell reception at home. So reminders about pickups, appointments, flight changes, etc. can't necessarily just assume everyone has SMS on a cell phone.
- teknopaul 7y ago
  Ok good pount. I've been living in EU with 100% mobile coverage for so long I forgot. Someone needs to invent sms over landline.

burntoutcase 7y ago

We could just get rid of our telephones. Let's be honest here: when was the last time you were actually happy to make or receive a phone call? It's time to KonMari this tech into the nearest dumpster.

sxates 7y ago

If I can plug an app I found helpful in reducing robocalls: Try RoboKiller (iPhone, not sure about android). I tried Mr. Number and a couple other free options which didn't seem to block much. I paid $30/yr for RoboKiller and unwanted calls have been reduced substantially - to maybe 1 per week slipping through. It's not just doing caller ID analysis, you actually forward your calls to them and they screen them before they even get to your phone. Seems to work well.

paul7986 7y ago
RoboKiller hosed my voicemail after uninstalling it and they didn't hose it via my device but actual voicemail line got hosed and AT&T has tried to fix it with no avail. Best solution I've found on iPhone --> Do NoT Disturb --> only allow calls from contacts. Receive texts notifications only from contacts too.

korethr 7y ago

I will welcome a workable solution to the robocall problems. In the interim, they provide a source of entertainment. The most common ones I get are from The Credit Card Company to tell me that because of my excellent credit history, I have qualified to get my credit card directly through them at a lower interst rate, instead of having it resold to me through Visa or Mastercard. For these calls, I'll generate a fake card number, SSN, name, address, etc, and start answering their questions. Inevitably, when the number comes back as bogus, they get angry, and yell at me to tell me how much of a cocksucking faggot I am and that they're going to come rape my daughter. I laugh at their attempts to form insults being less coherent than their English in general and move on with my day. Of course, as soon as I tried to start recording these calls, they became much less frequent. I can't help but wonder if my number hasn't become blacklisted by these scam centers in India and the Philippines as a known unprofitable time waster or something. Why waste your time calling someone you know you can't get anything out of when there's lower-effort marks out there which will be more profitable? All the same, I'd prefer not to have deal with these guys, so any actually workable solution would be welcome. Edit: Hah! While reviewing this post, I got yet another call from these guys. And I got the most persistent one of 'em I've had yet. They're getting good with semi-plausible responses to the most common deflections. But, their geography skills aren't much better than mine. Apparently Lebanon is in Canada.

nullc 7y ago
> Inevitably, when the number comes back as bogus, they get angry, and yell at me I was really surprised the first time I got a got a bunch of obscenities out of one of these scammers-- I figured they'd consider being screwed with just a cost of doing business. Weird. Aside: I went from a couple a day to none in the last three days after saying "DO NOT HANG UP. You have reached the US department of illicit telephone communication"<click>. Perhaps a coincidence.

onepremise 7y ago

This should be a no brainer. Robocalls should be illegal and blocked by your phone provider. Must the chairmen really make an exploit a profit margin for corporations? We need somebody in the FCC that can at least understand technology and consumers.

hetoh 7y ago

All thanks to John Oliver : https://youtu.be/FO0iG_P0P6M https://youtu.be/FO0iG_P0P6M

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

olliej 7y ago

I feel the correct solution (given the current admin, and U politics in general) is just to stop allowing telcos to charge for receiving calls. Fundamentally for everything they say about robocalls, it's still profitable for a telco if you ever pick up.

DrWumbo 7y ago

This is awful. There's no chance of their system having a 0% false positive rate (positive in this case meaning spam). Even a low FPR means that potentially important calls will get blocked by default.

mitch3x3 7y ago

This will probably get buried, but I’ll give my personal solution to reducing the number of robocalls over the past few months. Be a robot. Either answer the phone with absolute silence or have a very loud dial tone playing. It might be a coincidence, but I’m fairly certain this has put me on robocall blacklists. Bonus points if they give you a callback number to a call center... just keep spam calling them with a loud dial tone. I only get a couple of calls per week now.

fulldecent2 7y ago

There is only one actual solution to this problem. 1. Get the list of phone numbers of everybody working at AT&T (Sony style) 2. Set up robocalls randomly from each of these numbers to each of the other numbers 3. Share this list and your specific howto instructions with three other people Every other solution fails.