37 ms·

> The enforcement in this case is put on the carriers, so in case of non-compliance that's who's blamed. See the actual bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116t

> The enforcement in this case is put on the carriers, so in case of non-compliance that's who's blamed. See the actual bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/151.. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/151.... Okay, so that's a kind of a long bill, so I can't verify but you make it sound a bit like the carriers will be fined. They historically directly pass-through all compliance costs to customers, so ultimately customers pay to receive the robocalls?

dwnvoted2hell 7y ago
But fortunately, the carriers have the resources to track and determine who is making robocalls. Just take call duration - if you have a thousand calls with similar duration, that's enough to spot robocalls most of the time. It can get more complicated, of course, but nothing that general machine learning can't track with a little bit of positive reinforcement.
viraptor 7y ago
The most interesting parts of the bill are pretty much "FCC will decide how it works", but some bits are better defined. For example the call authentication framework can add no line item to the consumer bill. Sure... they could raise the price across the board, but that's a cynical realist view :-)
- generalpass 7y ago
  > The most interesting parts of the bill are pretty much "FCC will decide how it works", but some bits are better defined. For example the call authentication framework can add no line item to the consumer bill. Sure... they could raise the price across the board, but that's a cynical realist view :-) To be fully cynical would be to predict that in five years Congress will be calling the wireless providers to testify as to why prices are increasing at such a high rate.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    What's the reason to expect that? Adding reasonable security doesn't need to add a large and increasing amount to prices, and it doesn't make sense that they need an excuse if they are able to raise prices.
    - Fjolsvith 7y ago
      And, the first carrier to effectively enforce no robocalls will receive a massive influx of subscribers, so much so it will force everyone else to get on board.
      - generalpass 7y ago
        > And, the first carrier to effectively enforce no robocalls will receive a massive influx of subscribers, so much so it will force everyone else to get on board. Why didn't they do that already?
        viraptor 7y ago
        1. You need cooperation to ensure valid callerid (mobile telcos can't do much call authentication on their own). It will take a long time for this be fixed. 2. There was supposedly a confusion around whether they were allowed to block anything. That's gone now.
        generalpass 7y ago
        > 1. You need cooperation to ensure valid callerid (mobile telcos can't do much call authentication on their own). It will take a long time for this be fixed. > 2. There was supposedly a confusion around whether they were allowed to block anything. That's gone now. Under the current system, it seems 100% of spam gets through that could so easily be filtered. At an old small business I worked at, we received ~10 calls per day from an identical caller ID number robocaller and ~20 calls per day from a robocaller always using a slightly different very long string of characters. Due to the nature of the company, the main line had to be manned by a human being, so even just the time to look at the caller ID, ignore the caller, and then re-focus back on task was at least 15 minutes of lost productivity every day, yet this is about the easiest type of spammy activity to filter. No need to cooperate with anyone but your customers. The second could be interpreted as: regulations caused the proliferation of robocalling, as we can see in the unregulated email space that far more spam is sent yet far less ever makes it through the filters. What problems will the new regulations cause?
- amluto 7y ago
  I prefer this model. Carriers should not be permitted to have line items like this. If I buy a $40 plan, the carrier should charge $40, not $40 plus compliance costs.
peter_l_downs 7y ago
Read "SEC. 4. CALL AUTHENTICATION", particularly "(C) ROBOCALL MITIGATION PROGRAM" for most of the details – IANAL but I believe the comment you're replying to is correct that the providers will be held responsible for violations that occur on their network.
eftychis 7y ago
I am afraid that if this is true, yes, you are right and this is ill-thought. But this is the truth with all fines. I think we have reached the point that more fangs are necessary (breaking the monopolies would be a nice start -- that way fines are effective).
- generalpass 7y ago
  > I am afraid that if this is true, yes, you are right and this is ill-thought. But this is the truth with all fines. I think we have reached the point that more fangs are necessary (breaking the monopolies would be a nice start -- that way fines are effective). I don't think this is possible in the telecom space without some sort of complete rethinking of spectrum licensing.
inerte 7y ago
Yes, and to remain competitive in pricing they are incentivized to fix the problem, receiving fewer fines. Of course the tools and people attempting to stop robocall costs money, but as many things in life, there’s no free lunch. Maybe we could find another less expensive solution? Maybe that is specifically one of the cheapest ones, and that which put the onus on those who have more capacity to fix them? Maybe that will be the incentive to revamp our current calling system that basically allows anyone to call anyone at any time? Either way someone always pays.
- panny 7y ago
  >Yes, and to remain competitive in pricing they are incentivized to fix the problem Good, maybe they'll fix the problem by offering data only plans at lower rates than data + phone + sms. All I need is data.

dwnvoted2hell 7y ago

But fortunately, the carriers have the resources to track and determine who is making robocalls. Just take call duration - if you have a thousand calls with similar duration, that's enough to spot robocalls most of the time. It can get more complicated, of course, but nothing that general machine learning can't track with a little bit of positive reinforcement.

viraptor 7y ago

The most interesting parts of the bill are pretty much "FCC will decide how it works", but some bits are better defined. For example the call authentication framework can add no line item to the consumer bill. Sure... they could raise the price across the board, but that's a cynical realist view :-)

generalpass 7y ago
> The most interesting parts of the bill are pretty much "FCC will decide how it works", but some bits are better defined. For example the call authentication framework can add no line item to the consumer bill. Sure... they could raise the price across the board, but that's a cynical realist view :-) To be fully cynical would be to predict that in five years Congress will be calling the wireless providers to testify as to why prices are increasing at such a high rate.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  What's the reason to expect that? Adding reasonable security doesn't need to add a large and increasing amount to prices, and it doesn't make sense that they need an excuse if they are able to raise prices.
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    And, the first carrier to effectively enforce no robocalls will receive a massive influx of subscribers, so much so it will force everyone else to get on board.
    - generalpass 7y ago
      > And, the first carrier to effectively enforce no robocalls will receive a massive influx of subscribers, so much so it will force everyone else to get on board. Why didn't they do that already?
      - viraptor 7y ago
        1. You need cooperation to ensure valid callerid (mobile telcos can't do much call authentication on their own). It will take a long time for this be fixed. 2. There was supposedly a confusion around whether they were allowed to block anything. That's gone now.
        generalpass 7y ago
        > 1. You need cooperation to ensure valid callerid (mobile telcos can't do much call authentication on their own). It will take a long time for this be fixed. > 2. There was supposedly a confusion around whether they were allowed to block anything. That's gone now. Under the current system, it seems 100% of spam gets through that could so easily be filtered. At an old small business I worked at, we received ~10 calls per day from an identical caller ID number robocaller and ~20 calls per day from a robocaller always using a slightly different very long string of characters. Due to the nature of the company, the main line had to be manned by a human being, so even just the time to look at the caller ID, ignore the caller, and then re-focus back on task was at least 15 minutes of lost productivity every day, yet this is about the easiest type of spammy activity to filter. No need to cooperate with anyone but your customers. The second could be interpreted as: regulations caused the proliferation of robocalling, as we can see in the unregulated email space that far more spam is sent yet far less ever makes it through the filters. What problems will the new regulations cause?
amluto 7y ago
I prefer this model. Carriers should not be permitted to have line items like this. If I buy a $40 plan, the carrier should charge $40, not $40 plus compliance costs.

peter_l_downs 7y ago

Read "SEC. 4. CALL AUTHENTICATION", particularly "(C) ROBOCALL MITIGATION PROGRAM" for most of the details – IANAL but I believe the comment you're replying to is correct that the providers will be held responsible for violations that occur on their network.

eftychis 7y ago

I am afraid that if this is true, yes, you are right and this is ill-thought. But this is the truth with all fines. I think we have reached the point that more fangs are necessary (breaking the monopolies would be a nice start -- that way fines are effective).

generalpass 7y ago
> I am afraid that if this is true, yes, you are right and this is ill-thought. But this is the truth with all fines. I think we have reached the point that more fangs are necessary (breaking the monopolies would be a nice start -- that way fines are effective). I don't think this is possible in the telecom space without some sort of complete rethinking of spectrum licensing.

inerte 7y ago

Yes, and to remain competitive in pricing they are incentivized to fix the problem, receiving fewer fines. Of course the tools and people attempting to stop robocall costs money, but as many things in life, there’s no free lunch. Maybe we could find another less expensive solution? Maybe that is specifically one of the cheapest ones, and that which put the onus on those who have more capacity to fix them? Maybe that will be the incentive to revamp our current calling system that basically allows anyone to call anyone at any time? Either way someone always pays.

panny 7y ago
>Yes, and to remain competitive in pricing they are incentivized to fix the problem Good, maybe they'll fix the problem by offering data only plans at lower rates than data + phone + sms. All I need is data.