5 ms·

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

by 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.

by paulgb 7y ago

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.