15 ms·
FCC to remove companies from robocall database for non-compliance [pdf]
- tradertef 4y agoThis is great. Everyone hates robocall and these companies that still allow robocall do not deserve to be connected to our data/voice networks.
- mjevans 4y agoI agree, this should have happened years ago. """ What’s New: Today’s Enforcement Bureau orders demanded that Akabis, Cloud4, Global UC, Horizon Technology Group, Morse Communications, Sharon Telephone Company, and SW Arkansas Telecommunications and Technology show cause within 14 days as to why the FCC should not remove them from the database. Removal from the database would require all intermediate providers and terminating voice service providers to cease carrying the companies’ traffic. If that were to occur, all calls from these providers’ customers would be blocked and no traffic originated by the provider would reach the called party. “These and other recent actions reflect the seriousness with which we take providers’ obligations to take concrete and impactful steps to combat robocalls,” said Loyaan A. Egal, acting Chief of the Enforcement Bureau. “STIR/SHAKEN is not optional. And if your network isn’t IP-based so you cannot yet use these standards, we need to see the steps taken to mitigate illegal robocalls. These providers have fallen woefully short and have now put at risk their continued participation in the U.S. communications system. While we’ll review their responses, we will not accept superficial gestures given the gravity of what is at stake.” """ Also, FFS, FCC please have press releases on normal HTML pages, not PDFs, so the pagination is client side and no one has to fix your hard wrapped lines or make things display properly on differently sized devices.
- nobody9999 4y ago>Also, FFS, FCC please have press releases on normal HTML pages, not PDFs, so the pagination is client side and no one has to fix your hard wrapped lines or make things display properly on differently sized devices. That would be nice. In the absence of such niceties, I chose PDF for the submission because it was the least obnoxious format available. The press release (as well as the specific orders for each provider affected) can also be had in docx and txt formats[0]. [0] https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-remove-companies-robocall-database-non-compliance https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-remove-companies-robocall-d...
- xani_ 4y agoAt this point I take the PDF over many "modern" webshits
- jandrese 4y agoAt least a PDF isn't going to try to do some infinite scroll thing that screws up all linking and makes it nearly impossible to find something again.
- b3morales 4y agoSo (still trying to understand exactly what's what)... those companies are the ones providing connectivity to the actual scammy robocallers? Or what is it that they do?
- jffry 4y agoI think these companies are failing to implement STIR/SHAKEN and are running into expiring grace periods. That's not necessarily evidence of guilt - they might claim that as a small business they cannot afford these changes - but it seems like the only option to clean up the mess caused by spammers. The protocols are meant to allow tracing which network originated a call - at their root is an attestation by the network that a call they are originating for one of their customers is allowed to use the number in caller ID. If you're a network who wants your originating calls to be carried across other networks, you can't just set up a promiscuous attestation system that allows your customers to just slap on any random caller ID that they want, or else you'll get blacklisted real quick.
- viraptor 4y ago> The protocols are meant to allow tracing which network originated a call ... to make tracing easier We could always trace the calls - you just had to ask each telco in the path to provide those details. There realistically wasn't any enforcement to do that though.
- jffry 4y agoYeah, I suppose you're right. Ultimately in such a tracing effort I imagine they probably would encounter a bunch of telcos passing the buck until it gets to a dissolved overseas entity who cannot be held responsible for anything.
- viraptor 4y agoI'll keep repeating this one forever, but - that's not an issue. This would end spam calls immediately: "if you can't tell who's the source or if the source is international, you're responsible and will be fined per spam call". Telcos are not clueless or powerless. They can put pressure on international peers to not send spam, but have no incentive currently. No real telco wants to lose partners.
- LiquidSky 4y agoIt's pretty bizarre how, at least in the US, we've allowed robocalls and spam to basically make phone calls useless. Everyone I know gets multiple spam calls a day, most people just don't answer their phones anymore unless it's someone they know. Everyone hates this yet no one in power seems to even care.
- samename 4y ago“no one in power seems to care” Isn’t this an example of the exact opposite? The people in power and in charge of our communications network are preparing to block providers who aren’t following their robocall policy.
- standardUser 4y agoMaybe they care now, but for a good 2 or 3 decades they sure didn't seem to mind.
- Alupis 4y agoIn fairness, this robocall surge has only become a real problem in the past maybe 5ish years. Before that, you did receive robocalls, but they were infrequent. Now, I don't know anyone that doesn't receive at least one per day... I often receive multiple. My phone has become useless because of this...
- wpietri 4y agoThe FCC has been going after robocallers all this time. E.g., here's one from 15 years ago that I happened to remember, Cardholder Services: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-07-977A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-07-977A1.pdf The problem they're solving now is securing the phone network, which is a harder problem. Important barriers included 1) decades of history where it wasn't necessary, 2) entrenched industry players not wanting to change anything, 3) an ill-considered opening up of telephone system interconnection, 4) a quasi-religious deregulatory/free-market credo popular among a segment of politicians, and 5) politicians who are more sensitive to the concerns of rich execs. I think the reason it is happening now is that a lot of the people arguing against this have finally realized that it's dooming the telephone call, so their businesses are feeling it.
- deelowe 4y agoFor those as confused as I was by the title. FCC will remove providers from the "Robocall Mitigation Database." This is a database of providers who are certified as complying with robocall mitigation requirements. Failing to demonstrate compliance results in removal from the DB, which in turn, results in your calls no longer being routed.
- pavon 4y agoYeah, this is basically a death sentence for those companies. AFAIK, this will be the first time the FCC has done this. In the past they have allowed other providers to stop carrying calls from non-conforming providers, but they haven't required other providers to to stop carrying these calls before.
- worthless-trash 4y agoNot sure if it works the same way, but a lot of the robocalls that I get are from spoofed mobile numbers, if you call the number back its usually some random dude who is confused to why he's getting so many angry calls.
- RussianCow 4y agoWait, it's possible to spoof phone numbers?! Does anyone know how this works?
- vkou 4y agoWhen you make a phone call, your phone sends metadata containing your phone number to whomever you are calling. That's what the recipient sees as your caller ID. Of course, since you control your own device, you can make that metadata contain anything you want.
- dahfizz 4y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caller_ID_spoofing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caller_ID_spoofing
- danielrhodes 4y agoFor the benefit of receiving less robocalls, I support this. However, what interested me is the ability of the FCC to govern who can interconnect with whom. Could the FCC say that network providers aren't allowed to carry traffic originating from certain IP addresses or hosts? That would certainly have a profound cooling impact on the internet if they could.
- kube-system 4y agoThe law that facilitates this action is specific to telephone: https://www.fcc.gov/TRACEDAct https://www.fcc.gov/TRACEDAct
- tenebrisalietum 4y agoSince this is the old-school phone system, even though IP is used as a transport, SS7 is the actual protocol being used to interconnect providers. That would be the affected protocol I think.
- spc476 4y agoNot so much anymore. I worked (last day was yesterday) at a company that had services on the call path. The legacy product, supporting CDMA, is on SS7. The newer stuff, supporting LTE, is Internet based (SIP over UDP to us).
- coryfklein 4y agoThank god, at least some sort of enforcement. At least 90% of phone calls I get are robocalls or spam. But, as the head of a large household, I can't disable unknown callers; who knows if that urgent care I took my kid to 6 months ago needs to call because I put my email address in wrong and they couldn't bill me, and I don't want the account to go to collections. Or maybe some random clerk from the city needs to contact me about property taxes? I just do not have a definitive contact list of every number that might call me with critical information, and I'm not confident they would leave a voicemail. Or even if they leave a voicemail, it's often impossible to return a call because the caller is originating from some complex web of VOIP systems and when I call back I get a machine asking for an extension, which the caller forgot to leave in the voicemail!
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- thewebcount 4y agoI mean, a legitimate business will leave a voicemail, especially if they want money from you. I normally have unknown callers disabled and don't have any problems. I had to turn it off this week because we have a few maintenance things going on and need to answer calls about when people are going to be coming and going for repairs. But otherwise, I turn it off and have never had any issues with not getting critical calls. You can always turn it on if you know you'll be getting an unknown call in the next 24 hours.
- coryfklein 4y agoI have indeed tried this turn it on, turn it off, strategy. Every time it has ended because I forgot to turn it off and I ended up missing a critical phone call; some service person called before coming for a home maintenance appointment to make sure we were present so they could enter the premises, and the call goes to voicemail which I only notice an hour later after they've decided to reschedule fixing my AC to 3 days later and now we have to endure the sweltering 98°F weather for 3 more days all to avoid the nuisance of robocallers.
- thewebcount 4y agoI don't know why, but in the last couple of weeks the number of spam calls I get has ramped way up. Perhaps they were trying to get it all in before the cutoff? It used to be 3-4 per day to both landline and cell phone, and in the last few weeks it's gone up to about 10-15 on each per day. And it's almost always the same 2 calls - either "... wants to give you $10,000 in clean energy upgrades ..." or "... This is the social security disability administration on a recorded line..." Yeah, whatever. Fuck off.
- pbhjpbhj 4y agoYou need an automated answer service: "Type 121 to be connected or hold the line for endless cat facts at $5/min ... Did you know cats on average have just under 4 legs ..." With the code being randomised and an actual pay service. Someone in the UK did something like this, apparently, and made money.
- tonypags 4y agoI would like to know more about this exciting income opportunity.
- thedougd 4y agoThe robocalls I get these days ask you to press a button to continue, hearing more about your expiring warranty, etc. If you don't respond in a few seconds it disconnects.
- ComputerGuru 4y agoSo have it press a button. It’s just a DTMF tone. (Is that a redundant acronym phrase?)
- a1369209993 4y ago> a DTMF tone. (Is that a redundant acronym phrase?) Technically not, since "DTMF" is a proper noun referring to the overall encoding system, and is used as a adjective indicating that this particular tone is associated with that system. Compare "That farm raises KFC chickens. (That is, chickens intended for use by the resturant (chain) that calls itself "Kentucky Fried Chicken".)". Or "The left is what a MacOS window looks like, and the right is what a Windows window looks like.".
- thomastjeffery 4y agoTangential side note: I get that it's the original source, but linking directly to a pdf is not ideal, especially on mobile.
- ezfe 4y agoViewing PDF isn't too much of a problem on mobile - just a little more zooming and panning than on desktop.
- thomastjeffery 4y agoYou have to download it and open it in another app. I find that pretty painful.
- IX-103 4y agoWhat browser doesn't have a built-in PDF reader?
- mcast 4y agoAlso especially important that a compromised PDF is usually an easy vector point for exploiting systems. PDF Transcription: "-WASHINGTON, October 3, 2022—The FCC’s Robocall Response Team today announced first-of-their-kind Enforcement Bureau orders to begin removing seven voice service providers from the agency’s Robocall Mitigation Database. Providers must take key robocall mitigation steps – including implementing STIR/SHAKEN throughout their IP networks – and if they fail to demonstrate that they have met these requirements, they can be removed from the database and other networks will no longer take their traffic. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel: “This is a new era. If a provider doesn’t meet its obligations under the law, it now faces expulsion from America’s phone networks. Fines alone aren't enough. Providers that don't follow our rules and make it easy to scam consumers will now face swift consequences.” What’s New: Today’s Enforcement Bureau orders demanded that Akabis, Cloud4, Global UC, Horizon Technology Group, Morse Communications, Sharon Telephone Company, and SW Arkansas Telecommunications and Technology show cause within 14 days as to why the FCC should not remove them from the database. Removal from the database would require all intermediate providers and terminating voice service providers to cease carrying the companies’ traffic. If that were to occur, all calls from these providers’ customers would be blocked and no traffic originated by the provider would reach the called party." Full version: https://pastebin.com/xDLxLxv4 https://pastebin.com/xDLxLxv4
- LinuxBender 4y agoI suppose this was a good start. My heavy handed preference would be they use eminent domain after 3 strikes and liquidate the business to augment pay for the agencies that deal with fraud.
- notRobot 4y agoSome countries in Asia seem to have a simple solution to prevent robocalls: the person who makes the call, pays for the call. They also seem to have functioning DND (do not disturb) registries. Doesn't completely stop robocalls, but does reduce them by a lot.
- lazide 4y agoThat’s the rule here too (except for limited exceptions like toll free), but clearly the cost isn’t stopping them. Phone calls are dirt cheap to make after all. (Tiny fractions of a cent a minute even at retail rates)
- Symbiote 4y agoIt's only very few countries where the receiver pays [part of] the cost of the call: USA, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore. I get about one spam call per year in Denmark, and my work number is listed on the company website. However, I doubt it's only the cost of calls that deters spammers, there are probably other regulations in play.
- theGeatZhopa 4y agoIn Europe it's the mix of all laws. Mainly two made it dangerous to have a robot calling: - you can get fined 220k per unsolicited call and - fined same ranged amount for data leaks or selling without written consent (which often is a part of contracts but can be striked through by you. The other party have to decide then hehe) Also, there are regulations that call centers must use real numbers and what's more important: they aren't allowed to hide them. The mobile/landline Providers can be fined too if they do not cooperative with the local enforcement office and one does not want to have an argument with the office. I get 1 spam call in 10 years. The last one I got, even "helped" helped me filling out the forms for my country's enforcement office. I said like 4 times I'm not interested in getting sold something -> DIE IN PRISON!!!!
- tmpz22 4y agoThe biggest loop hole is for political-adjacent communications which get a complete pass on all restrictions and can send as much spam as they please. Expect a huge increase around midterms, as even non-political communications draft in the wake of the loophole traffic.
- ceejayoz 4y agoThat used to be at least manageable, as most of them were via 5-6 digit short codes, and those additionally respected the STOP keyword. Lately, I've been getting SMS spam from individual peoples' numbers, because politicians have realized they can say "hey go send this text to these numbers" to individual volunteers (SMS version of the old phone banking technique) to get around even that. STOP keyword doesn't do anything on a regular person's cell phone number.
- tmpz22 4y ago> "hey go send this text to these numbers" to individual volunteers I have direct knowledge that a lot of this is automated via services like Twilio which allow you to programmatically pick local numbers (relative to the receiver) as well as message templates that make the message more human. Im sure its still being done manually, but a lot of this is fully automated at scale (going back to ~2015). Short-code numbers are also quite expensive relatively, or were back when I was working in adjacent technology.
- ceejayoz 4y agoSometimes, but text banking is definitely a big thing. https://www.demandthevote.com/text-banking https://www.demandthevote.com/text-banking https://act.betoorourke.com/signup/bft-volunteer/ https://act.betoorourke.com/signup/bft-volunteer/ I can usually tell based on how long the response to the STOP keyword comes back. Some are a day later from a human; “Sorry, will update the list” sort of stuff. Others are instantaneous and clearly canned.
- boringg 4y agoAlso if you send STOP it confirms that someone is reading the text message and its a live number.
- ljw1001 4y agoI cannot understand why my iPhone, which can both id spam likely calls, and mute calls from unknown numbers cannot mute spam likely calls. This is exactly what I need
- spc476 4y agoWell, it's not the cell phone (iPhone or Android) that is doing the spam ID, it's a service being queried as the phone call is being placed. Something like, Alice (the originator) calls Bob (the terminator). Just before the phone network causes Bob's phone to ring, it requests (via the network) a service that says "classify the originating number" and that service might return both a name "Alice" and some form of reputation (like "normal" or "potential spam") which then gets sent to the phone that causes it to start ringing (I know, because I worked at a company providing such information). What I found works for me is to assign "silence" as the default ring tone, and give each of my contacts a non-default ring tone. If someone not in my contact list calls me, they can leave a voice mail message. Yes, it means I might miss a critical "deal with me now" call, but that's a chance I'm taking.
- codemac 4y agoThis is what the pixel phone screen feature does for me. The difference between my partner and I's phone frustration is obvious. My unknown calls that are questionable get sent to voicemail nicely with a bot asking them what their name is and allowing me to pick up in the middle if I notice something I need to pay attention to, her iphone just rings with a pop up as "SPAM RISK" and she has to mute it, or she blocks unknown numbers and misses calls.
- sprokolopolis 4y agoI love this feature on my pixel, but I always have to turn it off when I'm expecting important calls from places like medical offices and such.
- sprokolopolis 4y agoIn my experience, it seems like most spam calls that I receive are using a spoofed number over VOIP. Reporting the number as spam, basically reports the number they are spoofing, rather than the people making the call. Is that correct? Will this new action have any effect on these spoofed VOIP calls? It seems like there is no way for people receiving these calls to report these callers without having the carriers recording the source IP addresses of these calls. I don't know all of the inner-workings of the phone network, so maybe I am making incorrect assumptions.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- pavon 4y agoYes that is exactly what this is about. A few years ago the FCC mandated[1] that all voice providers implement a set of standards called STIR/SHAKEN that are essentially cryptographic signatures that a call originated with them and that the Caller ID information is valid. They have since been gradually increasing penalties for providers that are not in compliance with those standards. This move is the strictest yet - completely disconnecting some providers that are not in compliance. The companies in question aren't an exhaustive list of providers that still allow spoofed Caller ID, so it won't end the problem. I'm still curious as to how far they will be able to go with foreign services. At the least they should eventually be able to prevent spoofing of domestic numbers. [1] https://www.fcc.gov/call-authentication https://www.fcc.gov/call-authentication
- sprokolopolis 4y agoThank you for the clarification. Yeah, most of the down that I get stems to originate from other countries. Hopefully they can crack down on those.
- carom 4y agoI have done CNAM lookups on the numbers and contacted the originating VOIP companies, and they just say "we won't let that number contact you again". It's infuriating. Don't let that customer contact me again, they can change their number at will. Scumbags.
- permo-w 4y agoare robocalls illegal in the UK? I’ve never got one
- gwd 4y agoAbout once a year I get a "I heard you were in an accident" robocall. But the main reason they're not a problem in the UK or Europe is that the caller pays for the mobile airtime; which is standardized at something like $0.20p/minute. Robocalling 1 million people would cost you £200k -- not generally cost-effective. In the US, the callee pays for airtime; so the cost to the robocaller is fractions of a cent, and the 1-million-person robocall thing is a lot cheaper, and thus more cost-effective. Literally all the US has to do to make the problem go away is to charge people who call mobile phones $0.30 per minute. For legitimate callers, this will be nothing; generally included in their monthly plan; but it would cripple the entire robocalling industry.
- permo-w 4y ago>In the US, the callee pays for airtime that is literally shocking. so not only are robocallers irritating, they’re also costing you money? America needs to get its shit together
- jandrese 4y agoThis is rarely true 2022. Most phone plans have unlimited (unmetered) minutes. Back when people had to pay for their minutes there was a LOT more pressure to keep spammers off of cell numbers.
- UncleEntity 4y agoMy first spam call on a cellphone circa 1998 had the poor girl on the other end literally crying after I started going off about how much money that call was costing me. I didn’t mean to make her cry but it was costing me money after all…
- terinjokes 4y ago
- bl_valance 4y agoI don't know if I'm just lucky, but I've rarely gotten unsolicited (bot)calls in the 10+ years that I've had a google voice + tmobile number. Anything online related I use gv#, for immediate family I use tmobile#. GV, from what I've seen, usually filters out spam calls by default so maybe that's why I haven't noticed.
- Schnitz 4y agoIt’s Google (Voice), not luck. The anti spam is what I miss the most. While using Voice and later Fi and was always wondering if “robocalls” are really as big of a problem as they are made out to be. Now on T-Mobile way more crap gets through so I ended up silencing unknown callers…
- tomphoolery 4y agoif you're not texting me or emailing me i am ignoring you...most of the calls i get are from recruiters talking about a stupid java job or something that i don't want
- enobrev 4y agoWhat I really want is an advanced caller id system that encompasses the whole process, in which the "caller" or "sender" never actually has my phone number (or email or mailing address). I can generate contact-ids on the fly, which I can give out to anyone - public or private. I can generate them for each person I give them to, or for posting on a billboard if I'd like. When a person adds that id to their contact list, the "system" would notice that I've never set that up the caller to contact me, so I get a notification that "[Caller] would like to contact you". I can set the method and schedule they can contact me: * Text / Email - Weekdays between 9 and 6pm (work) * Phone / Text / Email - Any time, Always, Until Disabled (family, friends, etc) * Phone / Text / Email - Any time until Summer (my kid's school) * Text-Only - For the next 3 days (maintenence, etc) * Snail Mail Only - 3 Weeks before election (local politicians) * Snail Mail Only - Once per month (local grocery) The caller gets a notification that they can contact me, how, and when, and from then on, they look me up on their devices / apps and hit the "Contact" button. They are then presented with the options I've given them "Sorry, You can only call or text during work hours". "This person only allows text messages at this time". Some interesting bits about this: * No contact info for spamming * No possibility of harassment * No distractions outside of what I've personally defined as available. * Commercial / Political entities aren't cut out from people who want to hear from them * Mail can be forwarded to me anywhere in the world, since the sender would just be sending a package / letter to my id, and not to my actual address. The PO would then send it to whatever address I've most recently set. (no more forwarding address or crap for the people who used to live where I do).
- FrasiertheLion 4y agoRequires massive centralization of data and complicated logic for access control enforcement, which now has to happen for every call.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- namrog84 4y agoWhat about these edge case scenario. My family member gets lost/confused/hurt whatever, and needs to borrow a strangers phone to call me to help them. I don't know that number and perhaps the family number has memorized my phone number since it hasn't changed in 20 years. Maybe they are a small child 5 years old. How do they get thru this system? The only thing I could think of is if they have an extra 'password code' (4-6+ digits) that they'd need to memorize in addition to the phone number? Alternatively in this system, someone compromises your contactid. And a place that says they are calling your 'auto insurance contact' isnt actually your legit auto insurance contact but a scam auto insurance company? You'd need to be able to easily "reset" these values which could be a big burden on small businesses.
- didgetmaster 4y agoMy personal phone is also my business phone which means a potential customer could be calling me from anywhere. My project is software that is in open beta, so the calls could originate from anywhere in the world. If I simply ignore any calls that are not in my contact list, I risk alienating a customer. Some might leave a voicemail, but I certainly can't count on it.
- xwdv 4y agoUnfortunately whats more annoying these days is getting spam texts claiming to be Amazon saying I’ve won something or have some package that can’t be delivered or whatever, the message includes a shady link I have to click to resolve the issue. I feel like investigating these links and seeing if I can hack the scammers in retaliation.
- ntropic_thundr 4y agoI have a couple thoughts/assumptions, and love feedback on from someone who's more knowledgable than me; 1. Twilio is used for most/many robocalls. 2. If #1 is True, why isn't Twilio on this list of companies?
- alright2565 4y agoYou can read the documents being sent to these companies, which explain exactly what's going on: - https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-1032A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-1032A1.pdf - https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-1033A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-1033A1.pdf - https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-1034A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-1034A1.pdf - https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-1035A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-1035A1.pdf - https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-1036A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-1036A1.pdf - https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-1037A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-1037A1.pdf - https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-1038A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-1038A1.pdf Tldr: If you navigate to https://fccprod.servicenowservices.com/rmd?id=rmd_listings https://fccprod.servicenowservices.com/rmd?id=rmd_listings and look these companies up, they've submitted nonsense as their explanation of how they're mitigating robocalls. Oh, and re. Twilio: https://fccprod.servicenowservices.com/rmd?id=rmd_form&table=x_g_fmc_rmd_robocall_mitigation_database&sys_id=258250791b3c381064c4426de54bcbd5&view=sp https://fccprod.servicenowservices.com/rmd?id=rmd_form&table... Option 1 is checked, so every call that their service originates can be traced back to them, so they are more than compliant with regulations here.
- andirk 4y agoThese steps work like a charm to stop SPAM calls and junk postal mail: - Stop unwanted postal mail https://www.usa.gov/telemarketing#item-35222 https://www.usa.gov/telemarketing#item-35222 - Stop credit and insurance offers https://www.optoutprescreen.com/selection https://www.optoutprescreen.com/selection - Stop "direct mail" for $4 https://www.dmachoice.org/ https://www.dmachoice.org/ - For everything else, collect your junk mail and occasionally go through each piece individually and enter it into https://www.catalogchoice.org/ https://www.catalogchoice.org/
- valleyer 4y agoThis doesn't ring true to me at all. The majority of junk calls I get are not from legitimate businesses that would have anything to do with the links you provided.
- andirk 4y agoThe above is for orgs that play by the rules. Here is a tale of one org who didn't: They called me 8x w/ some awful requests of SSN and shit like that. Knowing California law labels >2 (I think) unsolicited calls without consent = harassment, and _each_ violation stands alone, I did not press 2 to opt out, because I'm a gambler. A year later, I got a class action lawsuit parcel which I signed and returned. I got $1,065.
- Brusco_RF 4y agoYour second link is broken
- error54 4y agohttps://www.optoutprescreen.com/ https://www.optoutprescreen.com/
- willcipriano 4y ago> Consumers can register at DMA's consumer website: www.DMAchoice.org for a processing fee of $4 for a period of ten years. Registering online is the fastest way to see results. DMAchoice offers consumers a simple, step-by-step process that enables them to decide what mail they do and do not want. I'm going to start a business that delivers several one ton concrete blocks directly in front of the front doors of the offices of firms associated with the DMA. They can opt out for 40 thousand dollars or simply spend a few dozen hours with a pickaxe and wheelbarrow to dispose of the blocks when they arrive unasked for.
- robomartin 4y agoAt some point I had this idea that this could be stopped by simply charging for phone calls. This concept isn't fully worked out in my mind; in rough strokes, it goes something like this: Everyone charges $1 to receive a call. You can setup a system whereby anyone in your address book isn't charged or receives a credit immediately. For those not in your address book, receiving a call-back balances out the transaction. In other words, if your plumber leaves you a message and you call them back, nobody incurs a cost. It is my guess that, on average, for legitimate players, this per-call charge would be minimal. For others it might end-up being a reasonable cost of doing business. Another method: On a smart phone it would be very easy to display a screen once you hang up with the question "Charge for this call?" and two buttons "Yes" and "No". Simple. The idea is that garbage calls from marketing operations or scammers who today can make millions of calls for virtually nothing, would now incur real and significant costs. Like I said, not fully hashed-out. I just think that without a non-trivial cost associated with making millions of calls, they will continue to happen.
- sn_master 4y agoThere's a guy who did exactly that by making his number a paid one. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-23869462 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-23869462
- wnevets 4y agois it just me or has the FCC actually been doing useful things for regular people the last ~2 years?
- asdfqwertzxcv 4y agoGetting there. Would love to see more!
- dcist 4y agoI've muted all phone calls for anyone not on my contact list because of robocalls. It's absurd that this is a problem in 2022.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- RoadieRoller 4y agoI've a free Google Voice number I use as proxy. If I've to use a phone number for one time use (maintenance person, Online waiver forms etc) I give the google voice number. For friends, families, banks, office, I give my ATT number. So far it has kept me away from spams. My Google Voice number gets all the spam and I care less.
- solvitor 4y agoMinor, but I'd rather click to a web page than have a PDF auto download. Consider this link https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-remove-companies-robocall-database-non-compliance https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-remove-companies-robocall-d... instead of the PDF.
- jijji 4y agoReading the announcement, the threats sound like a stretch of the FCC's mandate. Do they really have the authority to remove carriers from the phone network? I'm sure that would be challenged up to the supreme court.
- RobLach 4y agoVery light response but it's something.
- nobody9999 4y ago>Very light response but it's something. The FCC is going to block all access to other telecoms from these companies unless they implement STIR/SHAKEN, essentially putting them out of business unless they comply with the FCC's order. Granted, it's not a firing squad for the C-suite or a cruise missile on their offices, but it's essentially a corporate death penalty for the non-compliant telecoms. I wouldn't call that a "light" response. Or am I missing something?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- RobLach 4y agoI misread. That seems reasonable.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Animats 4y agoThe list: * Akabis - VoIP for call centers, apparently. * Cloud4 - some general SaaS provider. Bank as a service, etc. Voice seems to be a minor part of their business. * Global UC - seems to be an anonymous phone service. Pay US$15 a month and make calls from any IP device. So they don't know where you are or who you are. * Horizon - "HTG origination services provide your business with access to numbers in the United States and other countries. Experience flexibility and unlimited potential in international markets." * Morse Communications - Another VoIP service for businesses. * Sharon Telephone Company - small rural telco in Wisconsin. Web site is so out of date it tells you to sign up for long distance with MCI or Sprint. "Credit card payments are now available!" * Southwest Arkansas Telephone Cooperative - another small rural telco, but they offer gigabit fiber, so they're keeping up.
- civilized 4y agoAwesome, the FCC has finally decided to stop helping scammers to call me. I did not know they were helping scammers to call me in the first place.
- stjohnswarts 4y agoI have noticed that my robocalls have fallen off a cliff the past couple of years, I'm not sure exactly has happened. I have even gotten a new number last year.
- mrtweetyhack 4y ago
- jayzalowitz 4y agoJust throwing this out there, that when I get spam calls, I answer it and tell them im answering it to waste their time. I am not getting a lot of spam calls compared to past years. Texts however.
- zxcvbn4038 4y agoI’ve gone a completely different route and only allow whitelisted calls to my phone - and just to make sure there is no confusion if I received a call or not I’ve disabled voice mail on my line as well. Anyone who wants to contact me and is not on the whitelist sends postal mail, which is significantly more expensive then a phone call, and that has proven to be a huge deterrent. Debt collectors chasing down long dormant charge-offs will happily ring my phone off the hook if given a chance but they won’t spring for first class postage or proof of delivery.