17 ms·

FCC allows blocking traffic from robocall-friendly provider One Owl

285 points by kimi 3y ago

irl_chad 3y ago
How often does the FCC allow blocking traffic?
- lesuorac 3y ago
  Apparently a few times a year starting from 2021. https://www.fcc.gov/robocall-facilitators-must-cease-and-desist https://www.fcc.gov/robocall-facilitators-must-cease-and-des...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
stock_toaster 3y ago
Not just robocall friendly apparently, but a serial offender, with new company names but the same behavior. ref: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-395670A1.txt https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-395670A1.txt
jjoonathan 3y ago
Years ago I heard that SHAKEN/STIR were being implemented and would allow robocall blocking. I still get tons of robocalls. I've had this explained as "SHAKEN/STIR were the crypto that will eventually allow blocking, but the blocking will happen later." Is it later? Is this the start of the actual blocking?
- i_am_jl 3y ago
  It has started. SHAKEN/STIR are what gives the FCC the ability to trace the source of these calls backwards and hold responsible the gateways acting in bad faith.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    I stopped getting spam phone calls months ago. Something definitely changed in the last year, or maybe 2 years. It was ridiculously often in 2020/2021/sometime in 2022 maybe?
    - mustacheemperor 3y ago
      Hasn’t changed for me. I am constantly pestered by spoofed-local-number spam calls at both my personal number and my work number, in two different area codes. My job requires me to be available on the phone so it’s particularly frustrating because of how often I have to pick them up just to hear about a warranty on yet another car I’ve never owned.
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        That’s a bummer. I am using ATT’s mobile service, on an iPhone. Maybe different carriers/phones have different implementations?
        mustacheemperor 3y ago
        Also ATT/iPhone. I think Google Voice (my work line) routes through a different network and I do think I get more spam calls there.
    - sq_ 3y ago
      Similar experience here. I got absolutely ridiculous numbers of spam calls up until maybe early 2022? Now I get almost none in comparison. Like 2-3 a month as opposed to tons every week before.
    - squeaky-clean 3y ago
      I've gotten 6 spam calls so far today.
  - costco 3y ago
    The traceback rules are really what did that but I think those were in the same bill that mandated STIR/SHAKEN. STIR/SHAKEN just makes spoofing caller ID more difficult.
- shrubble 3y ago
  This method basically has not yet been used much, but it is in place. The dangerous issue is that if a spam operator has 33% legit traffic, do you kill the spam operator and the good traffic with it, or what? Kill the traffic... innocent people harmed, or leave the traffic, spam continues.
  - barney54 3y ago
    Kill the traffic. The operator has to do a better job to stay in business.
    - proto_lambda 3y ago
      The operator's business is not the concern here.
      - genmud 3y ago
        If a bank is comprised of 66% of their customers being narcos, the bank gets shut down. You don’t get to facilitate in illegal shit and hide behind your legitimate customers. Likewise, if you are a customer of theirs and know they heavily transact with illegal services, it’s on you for getting blocked.
        virtue3 3y ago
        Naw they just get a slap on the wrists from the Feds and move on. No jail time even. Now if you and I laundered money to the Mexican drug cartels... "too big to jail because they are too big to fail" https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2013/investing-news-for-jan-29-hsbcs-money-laundering-scandal-hbc-scbff-ing-cs-rbs0129.aspx https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2013/investing-n...
      - jfengel 3y ago
        Their legitimate customers are. If that means getting the operator to clean up their act, so much the better. If they won't, then at some point their legitimate customers will suffer. And will probably have to jump to a more expensive provider who isn't subsidizing them with spammer revenue.
- gorkish 3y ago
  SHAKEN/STIR are implemented but the providers have given no tools to the end users to actually do anything actionable with it. Heck, they haven't even exposed it unless you are a megacorp. The telcos might be a common carrier, but as the end user I sure as shit should be able to block calls originating from providers I see abuse from constantly. I'm looking RIGHT AT YOU, TxtNow.
  - tjohns 3y ago
    > Heck, they haven't even exposed it unless you are a megacorp. Cell phones surface the SHAKEN/STIR attestation status to the user via a checkmark in the telephone UI. If you want to programmatically act on that data to filter calls... Android provides access to the attestation level via the android.telecom.CallScreeningService API. (I can't speak to what iOS provides.) For VoIP, many providers will also either pass along the attestation level in the SIP headers or by appending some text to the Caller ID string.
    - AdrianEGraphene 3y ago
      Neat. Sounds like I gotta explore what's available there now. The parent comment's issue sounds like a pretty good feature to add to an app... thx.
    - gorkish 3y ago
      IMO the attestation level isn't really actionable data though. A legitimate call may come through missing attestation for reasons that are not malicious. Similarly for things like B2B, the calls themselves may be attested and legal, but I'd still want to block them. We really need to be able to get the entire payload. If end users could directly and simply block carriers that waste their time by delivering shit calls, this entire issue would have worked itself out years ago. I just don't think that the current strategy of having the FCC yell big numbers at foreigners is really doing all that much...
- m463 3y ago
  I get calls nowadays with caller id telemarketer or suspected spam or similar, is this what it does?
  - chaorace 3y ago
    A little yes, a little no. Your phone knows when it's receiving a call from an unauthenticated number, but it would be very unreliable to use this metric alone to decide when a call is untrustworthy. My understanding is that carrier telemetry is what drives the final yes/no verdict.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- supertrope 3y ago
  We're still very early in the process. 1) Deploy caller ID signing. <--We are here. 2) Deploy policies to make inter-telco tracebacks easier and increase liability for carrying too much spam. 3) Drop unsigned traffic and shutdown spam friendly portions of the PSTN (analogous to open email relays). 4) Use the tracebacks and KYC to deter robocalling operations from getting onboarded and ban current customers who are robocalling. And keep them banned when they open new sockpuppet accounts. It'll never be completely eliminated. 5) See 4. Two-thirds of PSTN traffic is unsigned. https://transnexus.com/blog/2023/shaken-statistics-july/ https://transnexus.com/blog/2023/shaken-statistics-july/
  - costco 3y ago
    You can get local phone numbers for a trivial amount of money - no caller ID spoofing required! Robocall operators have realized this which is why a substantial amount of robocalls are attested: https://commsrisk.com/calls-with-stir-shaken-c-attestation-now-5-times-more-likely-to-be-robocalls-than-unsigned-calls/ https://commsrisk.com/calls-with-stir-shaken-c-attestation-n... Even if there is thorough, mandatory KYC for VOIP services, we will just have robocalls being routed through simboxes filled with prepaid SIM cards. The whack-a-mole game will move there and the carriers will lose just like they do in Africa and the Middle East where people use them on a giant scale to arbitrage termination rates.
    - hinata08 3y ago
      >we will just have robocalls being routed through simboxes filled with prepaid SIM cards. it would cost a lot of money, especially if carriers limit the number of numbers you can call each month before an additional charge (100-200 numbers / month then extra fee ?) > You can get local phone numbers for a trivial amount of money and companies that provides phone numbers them can also monitor suspicious traffic. I remember that when I first opened an account at Callcentric, they froze it until their support could reach me to ask a few questions. Now, I've had it for a few year, did just a few calls, and I no longer have to go through that to subscribe to more services. On a slightly different topic, cloud providers have learned to keep their IPs clean, even if you can get some for cheap. They just check what you're doing. So it can be done !
- pkaye 3y ago
  Personally I've seen very few robocalls these day. I think all the IP based providers in the US have implemented SHAKEN/STIR. There is still a small amount of non IP based systems which FCC is looking for solutions. And international calls will take some time as other countries look into implementing similar methods.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
>In response to the FCC’s enforcement action against Illum in October 2021, the CEO and Director of Illum, Prince Anand (Anand), who sometimes uses the alias “Frank Murphy,” Prince Anand Skype Chat, June 10, 2021 at 8:18:53 AM (“Frank Murphy” introduces himself as Prince Anand) (on file at EB-TCD-20-00030805) (Anand Skype Chat). created One Eye. Id. at October 24, 2021 at 8:16:14 AM and 8:16:21 AM (Anand telling Great Choice Telecom to expect a new sign up under the name “One Eye” that day). > To deflect the FCC’s scrutiny, Anand intended to keep his name off One Eye’s corporate documents. Id. at 7:40:25 AM, 8:11:13 AM, 8:13:20 AM, 8:14:48 AM, 8:14:55 AM, 8:15:04 AM, 8:16:14 AM, 8:55:50 AM, 9:01:49 AM, 9:02:21 AM, and 9:02:26 AM (Anand explains that due to the Commission’s cease-and-desist letter he will “not be included in any companies” but will work “on the backend [sic]”). > Kaushal Bhavsar, a director of Illum, became One Eye’s CEO. One Eye LLC Listing, Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, Robocall Mitigation Database (Oct. 26, 2021), https://fccprod.servicenowservices.com/rmd?id=rmd_form&table=x_g_fmc_rmd_robocall_mitigation_database&sys_id=9e1373b31b53b0107ccf20ecac4bcb3b&view=sp https://fccprod.servicenowservices.com/rmd?id=rmd_form&table... (showing Bhavsar as CEO of One Eye); Illum Telecommunication, https://www.illumtelecommunication.com/ https://www.illumtelecommunication.com/ (last visited July 14, 2023). > Aashay Khandelwal, the Human Resource Representative for Illum, subsequently formed One Owl and became the CEO. See Illum Telecommunication, https://www.illumtelecommunication.com/ https://www.illumtelecommunication.com/ (last visited July 14, 2023); see also One Owl Telecom Inc. Listing, Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, Robocall Mitigation Database (Apr. 25, 2022), https://fccprod.servicenowservices.com/rmd?id=rmd_form&table=x_g_fmc_rmd_robocall_mitigation_database&sys_id=b1ab8b061bcb4110823a419ae54bcb64&view=sp https://fccprod.servicenowservices.com/rmd?id=rmd_form&table... (showing Khandelwal as the CEO of One Owl). > Julya Barros, a seemingly close acquaintance of Anand, Compare @illum_telecom, Twitter, https://twitter.com/illum_telecom?lang=hi https://twitter.com/illum_telecom?lang=hi (as archived by Google and last visited May 16, 2023) (screenshots on file at EB-TCD-20-00030805), with Julya Barros (@julyabarross), Instagram, http://www.instagram.com/julyabarross http://www.instagram.com/julyabarross (last visited July 14, 2023).became Vice President of Sales and Marketing at One Owl. See Julya Barros, LinkedIn, https://ae.linkedin.com/in/julya-barros-928008245 https://ae.linkedin.com/in/julya-barros-928008245 (last visited July 14, 2023) (screenshots on file at EB-TCD-20-00030805). >One Owl and One Eye used the same IP address to conduct their business. March ITG Subpoena Response, supra note 4. > One Owl and One Eye communicated under the same email domain, @oneeyetelecom.com. Compare Incorp Services Interrogatories Response at para. 15 (on file at EB-TCD-20-00030805) (Incorp Services Interrog.) (showing One Eye used the @oneeyetelecom.com domain), with id. at para. 3 and Ex. A (on file at EB-TCD-20-00030805) (showing One Owl used the @oneeyetelecom.com domain). >The personnel connections between One Owl, One Eye, and Illum are summarized in the table below. The FCC is just playing whack-a-mole as soon as it begins enforcement on a company, the people involved just get together with their buddies and form a new company. This will never work to curb robocalls. Instead, the US Government needs to do the following 1. Require a $10 million dollar 5 year bond to start one of these companies. If the company engages in facilitating robocalling, the bond is forfeit 2. Criminal charges and enforcement against the agents of these companies 3. Immigration action against the agents and associates of these companies including deportation and permanent visa bans. Only then can the US government begin to combat this. Otherwise, doing more of the same is going to be completely ineffective and a waste of time and resources.
codetrotter 3y ago
Robocalls, you say? https://youtu.be/YVrX767IkdI https://youtu.be/YVrX767IkdI https://youtu.be/uIecyRCIFkI https://youtu.be/uIecyRCIFkI
kazz 3y ago
Now if only they'd take some sort of action against all the spam text messages I get. I swear I get a dozen texts a week from stringofnumbers@fakeemail.com telling me my amazon account has been suspended or a USPS package is on hold.
- happytiger 3y ago
  I get 5-10 a day honestly. I have to ban every one of them or they become accumulative with repeat calls because they keep calling and calling. They frequently then just move to another number and we do it again… It’s obviously a handful of companies behaving very badly. Let’s me share some examples… They say the same things from the same companies: - “Hi this is Jamie with the RTC helpdesk I'm calling to let you know that substantial business tax incentives that are still available through the employee retention tax credit _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ can provide business funding up to $26,000 for each W-2 employee you had on staff during 2020 and 2021 if you qualify we do all of the work and submit your application … - “Hi this is James calling from coastal debt resolved we help small business owners lower the payments or restructure any merchant cash advances that they've taken out and are having a difficult time getting them back we thought it was possible you might have one or more of these I want to see if we can offer our help my direct line is 877-412-0535 please give me a call at your earliest convenience so we can discuss your current situation thanks and have a great day…” - “888-310-9170 I'm contacting you regarding a potential refund opportunity for your business related to the year 2020 and 2021 please be aware that this refund does not involve any taxes or loans and there is no need for repayment to proceed with the refund process we simply need to verify some details regarding your businesses employee account during those years if you believe this call was not meant for you or if you wish to opt out of any future communication please press nine when calling back thank you for your time and I'm eagerly awaiting the opportunity to speak with you best regards Eva…” - “Hey this is Mark reaching back out again please give me a call back at 205-460-5936 so I did receive a notification today at your business is done and Bradstreet score was recently upgraded up to a 76 now this is a big deal because I put you in the top 10% of businesses in your industry and revenue range now because it is great score we're happy to see that your business has been preapproved for a business credit line up to $500,000 and the interest rate on these lines start his lowest 4.8% so they really don't cost very much at one of the best things about this offer is how fast we can get the money over to you if you were to say yes to this credit line we can have the funds over to you within just 24 hours please remember these offers don't last forever so please call me back directly at 205-460-5936 to make sure there's no confusion that's 205-460-5936 hope you have a really good day I have a blessed day and thank you…” - “Hey it's Tiffany with capital group I'm just touching base regarding your business plans of corner am I still have immediate funding options up to $250,000 with limited to no documentation necessary so am I can be reached at 949-4645479 I'll give you that number again it's … The capital group hits me up many times a week from many different sources. I don’t even bother to answer calls. I just ask people to leave a message. It’s made my phone basically unusable.
throw9away6 3y ago
Just force them to buy phone numbers like we sell ips. Each number could be $1 and you burn them when an operator gets caught
- iforgotpassword 3y ago
  And soon we will have 20-digit numbers :-)
- callalex 3y ago
  That’s almost exactly how the system currently works. The spam is still profitable despite that.
  - Rygian 3y ago
    Then the price is not right. Make it expensive from the start, and then gradually give back most of the price when the user has had a good standing for long enough.
    - kstrauser 3y ago
      Sort of like charging a deposit on them? Don't screw it up for a year and we'll apply it to your next bill?
- kabdib 3y ago
  They'll just buy numbers with more stolen money.
- supertrope 3y ago
  https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt
- jcrawfordor 3y ago
  These people aren't "using" numbers that they own. The phone system largely does not track or care about the actual source of a phone call, and the caller ID value is only voluntary metadata that is not expected to correspond to the source of the call (it often doesn't in legitimate situations). The telephone system simply doesn't have a sense of "from" in the way that even protocols like email do; most telephone equipment neither knows or cares who the call is from. You don't need control of a single telephone number to introduce calls into the system. STIR/SHAKEN was created essentially to address this problem by introducing a strict sense of the origin of a call for the first time. STIR/SHAKEN is still early in its process but it does already make it easier for the industry tracing group to determine the actual source of these calls. STIR/SHAKEN compliance is also relatively expensive so it has sort of created a pay-to-play situation, both raising prices a bit and introducing a sort of KYC to the telecom industry where getting VoIP termination service now often involves sending the provider a passport, business registration documents, etc. And for what it's worth, getting a phone number for inbound calls already involves a fee and $1/month is actually pretty close on for an average. It goes as low as around $0.20 a month from low-cost bulk providers and as high as $8/mo from some more consumer-oriented services (that nonetheless offer DIDs). It's just that control of a phone number (prior to STIR/SHAKEN) only matters for inbound, not outbound.
RajT88 3y ago
Awesome. Now go after the timeshare companies.
jjtheblunt 3y ago
Wow: the FCC publicly shames the perpetrator including LinkedIn URL of the person. That's new behavior and might actually be a decent deterrent. ( https://www.linkedin.com/in/aashay-khandelwal-ab6179238 https://www.linkedin.com/in/aashay-khandelwal-ab6179238 )
- WirelessGigabit 3y ago
  As they should. Companies are run by people. People should be accountable. The CEO is accountable.
- mrandish 3y ago
  I've looked into the history of some of these perps before and I'm always shocked at how many chances they've been given to stop being shady-as-fuck scammers and it's almost like they're addicted to it. So yeah, they deserve whatever the FCC, FTC or whoever is dishing out (and probably much more). Looking through this docket, these assholes have playing stalling games for years and they STILL aren't blocked yet. They get at least 14 days to respond, then the FCC has to decide they're still doing it, then it'll take another 30 days for the block to be mandatory. > One Owl will have at least 14 days to respond to the Initial Determination Order. Id. § 64.1200(n)(5)(ii)-(iii). > If One Owl’s response to that order is insufficient or One Owl continues to allow substantially similar traffic onto the U.S. network, then the Bureau will publish a Final Determination Order in EB Docket No. 22-174 finding that One Owl is not in compliance with section 64.1200(n)(5). Id. § 64.1200(n)(5)(iii). > In the event that the Bureau issues a Final Determination Order in this matter, pursuant to section 64.1200(n)(6) of the Commission’s Rules, all U.S.-based voice service providers shall be required to block One Owl’s traffic. Id. § 64.1200(n)(6). Providers must monitor EB Docket No. 22-174 and initiate blocking beginning 30 days from the release date of the Final Determination Order.
- dmvdoug 3y ago
  They had the Instagram for one of his accomplices. Awkward.
Nifty3929 3y ago
There could be an unfortunate consequence of this: picking and choosing who's traffic to accept. Telcos generally operate as common carriers, meaning they have to accept traffic from anybody. Obviously, that doesn't seem right when we don't like that traffic. But imagine if telcos could start deciding on their own which businesses they were willing to work with or deliver calls to. What if they could just cut off your business because they don't like what you're selling. I'm not saying we're on the way there - this doesn't have to be a slippery slope. But it's something to keep in mind.
- jimbob45 3y ago
  It’s high time we start prosecuting cold robocalls as harassment. We don’t need to fundamentally change the rules of the system to keep around pests that don’t provide a useful or necessary service.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  How is this even relevant? This is specifically the FCC making the determination that One Owl sucks, not other telecoms.
- cirrus3 3y ago
  That's why the FCC is there isn't it? I don't see how this leads to telcos making that choice on their own
- babypuncher 3y ago
  You're right, which is why they needed the FCC to step in and explicitly allow Telcos to block this specific bad actor. The FCC exists to ensure all the Telcos play fairly, so it's up to them when actions like this are allowed to be taken.
downWidOutaFite 3y ago
Biden's fcc is actually doing its job compared with Trump's anti consumer Ajit Pai.
- tomschlick 3y ago
  To be fair, Trump's FCC was pushing STIR/SHAKEN hard but it takes years for the major telcos to implement and push it downstream to all of the various SIP providers that buy numbers from them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIR/SHAKEN#Implementation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIR/SHAKEN#Implementation Biden's FCC is able to take action because those were finally finished and now can enforce with the call source traceability they didn't have a few years ago.
- happytiger 3y ago
  Here here. It was amazing how much of a regulatory capture case study that man was…
binkHN 3y ago
I hate to push products, but happiness is the Call Screen built into Pixel phones. If it feels the call might not be spam, I still have the option to screen it and watch the party converse with the Google Assistant in real time—kind of like the answering machines of old, but you can read instead of listen.
- thanhhaimai 3y ago
  This so much. I don't remember that spam calls exist anymore until I read a post someone complaining about getting spam calls. It works so well. I haven't had a false negative in the 3 years of using it. All the people who truly wanted to contact me would say something into the assistant, and the phone rang, and I'd pick it up.
  - onedognight 3y ago
    Apple does this as well, but this is a Band-Aid. Think of the old people who get scammed by these calls. This is a system issue and should be fixed as such. It’s frankly embarrassing how the phone companies have effectively killed the “phone call” through their neglect.
    - luma 3y ago
      Nope, not quite public yet. Google has had this for years but Apple is just now about to get it with the release of iOS 17 and "live voicemail". Still have a month or so before that's out of beta.
    - p_j_w 3y ago
      I’ve recently gotten an iPhone (coming from a Pixel 7), and it’s honestly not in the same league for dealing with Spam calls. It’s much more of an annoyance since I switched.
    - Nextgrid 3y ago
      > phone companies have effectively killed the “phone call” through their neglect. They haven't - they're still making bank on the spam traffic, which is also why they're reluctant to implement solutions despite it technically being trivial. If phone spam was actually making a dent in revenue (aka legitimate call revenue was going down and the revenue from spam wasn't making up for it) they would've got their act together very quickly.
rrauenza 3y ago
I really like it when someone in the middle has changed the caller id to say "FRAUDULENT". Someone I know believes strongly that the telco's don't care to police and would rather push people onto cheaper to maintain mobile technology. (We get orders of magnitude more scammer calls on our landline than our mobiles.) But there's a lot of assumptions in that belief... Is there any truth to those economics? Is there a bad incentive here for the telcos?
- AdrianEGraphene 3y ago
  The product isn't necessarily true (mobile -> landline push), but the profit-seeking is certainly expected, as it is for all businesses. While the amount of minutes & attentions that are generated from spam calls helps the telcos, because they get paid either way... that doesn't mean they're negligent. They just don't have the right tools to police this since they're common carriers. Things are changing little by little and with upcoming changes in telco infrastructure, I expect Q4 this year to show a strong signal of what the future holds.
  - rrauenza 3y ago
    Can they not just monitor the statistics from an incoming <insert phone system collective noun here> and notice that they're randomly calling millions of numbers per small unit of time and swapping their caller id for every one of them... and then just block them? Is there a legal reason they can't? Is it a liability reason? What's really getting my goat the last year is the scam center pretending to be Comcast / XFinity / AT&T / Spectrum offering to lower my bills. They constantly rotate through the four companies and often also have my name, stolen from one of those provider's databases. I've stopped calling them scammers on the phone and call them thieves, or "chor" in Hindi. Often they hangup immediately, but 1 in 10 or so get sheepish and embarrassed.
mikeyouse 3y ago
We've become so desensitized to spam and robocalls due to the scale of the problem - but these should absolutely be treated as attempted theft. If there were a gang going door to door trying to con elderly or otherwise gullible people into giving them thousands of dollars, there would be task forces formed and police patrols on every block. Instead, since it happens over the internet and on the phone, we give it benign names and treat it like a minor hassle and let everyone fend for themselves. How did we become "okay" with having most of the communication that reaches people be malicious? What is Federal law enforcement doing? Why the hell hasn't the FCC nuked these companies' ability to operate? Who is lobbying for this shit?
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  Politicians use the exact same companies and tactics to solicit votes, so why would they fight against themselves? A politician's job is to stay in power and work towards their reelection, not make your life better. In some cases those goals happen to align but that's merely coincidence and should not be taken for granted. In this case, effective anti-robocall legislation would also work against their own interests.
  - datapolitical 3y ago
    Politicians do not use the same companies. There are very specific firms that primarily handle political communications and text messages and phone calls. And political communications are exempt from CAN-SPAM
  - dragontamer 3y ago
    > Politicians use the exact same companies and tactics to solicit votes, so why would they fight against themselves? Say what you will, the 27th Amendment passed. (IE: makes it constitutionally illegal for Representatives to give themselves payraises immediately. They have to give pay-raises for the _next_ congress, which means it may give a pay-raise to the opponent if they lose the election). Politicians do, and have, been forced by the people to make bad choices for themselves for the good of the country. And its not like its an easy thing to pass a Constitutional Amendment like the 27th. --------------- We also used to have very strong laws with regards to campaign finance. It was actually our judges who took those laws away in the Citizen's United case. But our politicians actually put those laws into place to allow the people to trust them more during campaign finance season. Etc. etc. Plenty of examples. All we need is to convince enough people that a particular law is a good idea, and then that law will happen.
to11mtm 3y ago
OK now do the bigger providers that allow robotexting without consent... I received unsolicited texts from a "Buy your house cash" company last year. Of course, they did not identify the company name in the texts, not even with prompting... I was able to trace the number to a larger provider... [0] The provider was unwilling to tell me who originally called me. Which is strange. If a company wants my business, shouldn't they be willing to say who they are? If a VOIP/TOIP provider doesn't disclose who communicates with you, isn't that a way to shield harassment? But, as always, it's about who pays the most money to the lawmakers via lobbying... [0] - By 'Large', I will say that they are a provider for Microsoft Teams Voice calls/texts in the US.
- supertrope 3y ago
  The US cellular industry is cracking down on SMS spam. Lots of "legitimate" businesses that rely on SMS are complaining about 10DLC.
  - to11mtm 3y ago
    Yeah, I actually worked on the compliance side for a publicly traded company. The amount of work 'legitimate' providers make you put in can sometimes be painful, especially when they don't do what they say they are gonna do. But we did our part to make sure we stayed compliant. Making sure that even our 'semi-automated' messages (i.e. the user selected from a dropdown and the template filled in blanks) were registered, making sure appropriate unsubscribe verbiage was always present, while still fitting meaningful context into 160 characters. Then making sure each of those messages was registered, reviewed, and approved with the provider. Unfortunately there were still times that the provider failed to do their part, and despite being told we were 'good to go' we would discover a large volume of our texts were blocked by our provider or a downstream network, because someone dropped the ball. [0] I guess that's what frustrates me; our company did the right work, and even then our provider sometimes got in the way with their own mistakes... But far less scrupulous companies appear to get away with all sorts of non-compliance and their provider doesn't care for whatever reason. [1] [0] - Worth mentioning, the texts in question were not even solicitations. They were texts related to the 'process' people had already agreed to. Without divulging the actual industry, the best analogy would be things like being told that there was a problem with your vehicle order and to call us, or that your vehicle had been delivered was ready to be picked up tomorrow. [2] [1] - My gut says, the reason those providers don't care, is that they get to collect more money for more texts sent. [2] - No, it wasn't automotive, I'm just trying to give a good analogy here. Less life impacting than surgery but more life impacting than a simple package delivery.
allanrbo 3y ago
A little bit off topic, I know, but I love how the FCC is using a plain text file here. No nonsense!
- sgustard 3y ago
  Change the file extension to pdf, there's a pdf version, same for doc.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Even better! Kudos to the Federal Communications Commission for knowing how to communicate!
takinola 3y ago
After I moved states, I discovered a pretty effective anti-spam call heuristic. If the call is coming from the same area code as my phone number, it is most likely spam. It seems spam callers assume most calls will likely be from a local number and so they initiate calls from the same area code as the target. However, since the area code in my local area is completely different from mine (since I moved), this tactic actually backfires and acts as a pretty good spam signal.
- phlakaton 3y ago
  Worse than that (but way more telling), sometimes it's the same area code AND prefix. C'mon, man.
  - Johnny555 3y ago
    I used to think that was a dumb move on the part of the scammers, and probably would only be effective in a small town where most of the people you know have the same prefix… Then I realized that most of the successfully scammed victims probably live in those small towns.
    - phlakaton 3y ago
      Great point! I hadn't thought about that. It's my cell that gets hits like this, so the prefix is extra-irrelevant.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    I once had a series of spam calls that reported their number as being my own phone number. Made it really easy to spot them, and was very funny.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    This probably had some logic historically with landlines—a neighbor is calling. It’s an anti-pattern for cell phones in the “wrong” area code. Used to get this a lot. Rarely today.
- 3y ago
pdq 3y ago
Looks like their web site is offline now: https://www.oneowltelecom.com/ https://www.oneowltelecom.com/ And the LinkedIn profile is gone: https://www.linkedin.com/company/one-owl-telecom-inc https://www.linkedin.com/company/one-owl-telecom-inc
re 3y ago
The submitted text file is missing some formatting, making it difficult to read. Links to PDFs for this letter, as well as a related press release and a letter sent to One Owl, are available here: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-notifies-carriers-repeated-illegal-robocaller https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-notifies-carriers-repeated-...
withinrafael 3y ago
A PDF is also available for those that have trouble reading that raw text (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-23-652A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-23-652A1.pdf)
washywashy 3y ago
Isn’t perfect but this is why I suddenly like voice mail again. I don’t answer any numbers I don’t recognize. If it’s important they will leave a voicemail.
naikrovek 3y ago
This is good, albeit very late. I already consider the telephone to be an unusable form of communication due to the amount of unwanted and unsolicited calls that I receive. Telephony is completely and totally dead to me, now.
Exoristos 3y ago
As long as political orgs, including the major parties, rely on robocalling of the vilest sort to raise their funds, don't expect Congress to pass any meaningful legislation.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  I don't think that's what disincentivizes them. Congress will just do what they always do with things like this: exempt themselves from the law. That's what they've done with all anti-spam laws so far.
seatac76 3y ago
Good high time penalties were applied to people who facilitate this non sense.
bla573837 3y ago
Could we say it is becoming evident that the US government are fine with ad-blocking? (For at least some ads) I expect this news to be heavily criticized by all highly paid engineers at ad-tech companies like Google and Meta?
SeanLuke 3y ago
Why is the FCC giving other companies the right to block One Owl if they fail to comply, rather than simply terminating One Owl's connection to the network?
- Tepix 3y ago
  This is what i'm wondering as well. In Germany, robo calls are pretty much nonexistant. Same with Spam SMS. So either the FCC is failing the american people or the laws are insufficient, or both. This problem is solvable, many countries have done it.

285 points by kimi 3y ago

irl_chad 3y ago

How often does the FCC allow blocking traffic?

lesuorac 3y ago
Apparently a few times a year starting from 2021. https://www.fcc.gov/robocall-facilitators-must-cease-and-desist https://www.fcc.gov/robocall-facilitators-must-cease-and-des...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

stock_toaster 3y ago

Not just robocall friendly apparently, but a serial offender, with new company names but the same behavior. ref: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-395670A1.txt https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-395670A1.txt

jjoonathan 3y ago

Years ago I heard that SHAKEN/STIR were being implemented and would allow robocall blocking. I still get tons of robocalls. I've had this explained as "SHAKEN/STIR were the crypto that will eventually allow blocking, but the blocking will happen later." Is it later? Is this the start of the actual blocking?

i_am_jl 3y ago
It has started. SHAKEN/STIR are what gives the FCC the ability to trace the source of these calls backwards and hold responsible the gateways acting in bad faith.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  I stopped getting spam phone calls months ago. Something definitely changed in the last year, or maybe 2 years. It was ridiculously often in 2020/2021/sometime in 2022 maybe?
  - mustacheemperor 3y ago
    Hasn’t changed for me. I am constantly pestered by spoofed-local-number spam calls at both my personal number and my work number, in two different area codes. My job requires me to be available on the phone so it’s particularly frustrating because of how often I have to pick them up just to hear about a warranty on yet another car I’ve never owned.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      That’s a bummer. I am using ATT’s mobile service, on an iPhone. Maybe different carriers/phones have different implementations?
      - mustacheemperor 3y ago
        Also ATT/iPhone. I think Google Voice (my work line) routes through a different network and I do think I get more spam calls there.
  - sq_ 3y ago
    Similar experience here. I got absolutely ridiculous numbers of spam calls up until maybe early 2022? Now I get almost none in comparison. Like 2-3 a month as opposed to tons every week before.
  - squeaky-clean 3y ago
    I've gotten 6 spam calls so far today.
- costco 3y ago
  The traceback rules are really what did that but I think those were in the same bill that mandated STIR/SHAKEN. STIR/SHAKEN just makes spoofing caller ID more difficult.
shrubble 3y ago
This method basically has not yet been used much, but it is in place. The dangerous issue is that if a spam operator has 33% legit traffic, do you kill the spam operator and the good traffic with it, or what? Kill the traffic... innocent people harmed, or leave the traffic, spam continues.
- barney54 3y ago
  Kill the traffic. The operator has to do a better job to stay in business.
  - proto_lambda 3y ago
    The operator's business is not the concern here.
    - genmud 3y ago
      If a bank is comprised of 66% of their customers being narcos, the bank gets shut down. You don’t get to facilitate in illegal shit and hide behind your legitimate customers. Likewise, if you are a customer of theirs and know they heavily transact with illegal services, it’s on you for getting blocked.
      - virtue3 3y ago
        Naw they just get a slap on the wrists from the Feds and move on. No jail time even. Now if you and I laundered money to the Mexican drug cartels... "too big to jail because they are too big to fail" https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2013/investing-news-for-jan-29-hsbcs-money-laundering-scandal-hbc-scbff-ing-cs-rbs0129.aspx https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2013/investing-n...
    - jfengel 3y ago
      Their legitimate customers are. If that means getting the operator to clean up their act, so much the better. If they won't, then at some point their legitimate customers will suffer. And will probably have to jump to a more expensive provider who isn't subsidizing them with spammer revenue.
gorkish 3y ago
SHAKEN/STIR are implemented but the providers have given no tools to the end users to actually do anything actionable with it. Heck, they haven't even exposed it unless you are a megacorp. The telcos might be a common carrier, but as the end user I sure as shit should be able to block calls originating from providers I see abuse from constantly. I'm looking RIGHT AT YOU, TxtNow.
- tjohns 3y ago
  > Heck, they haven't even exposed it unless you are a megacorp. Cell phones surface the SHAKEN/STIR attestation status to the user via a checkmark in the telephone UI. If you want to programmatically act on that data to filter calls... Android provides access to the attestation level via the android.telecom.CallScreeningService API. (I can't speak to what iOS provides.) For VoIP, many providers will also either pass along the attestation level in the SIP headers or by appending some text to the Caller ID string.
  - AdrianEGraphene 3y ago
    Neat. Sounds like I gotta explore what's available there now. The parent comment's issue sounds like a pretty good feature to add to an app... thx.
  - gorkish 3y ago
    IMO the attestation level isn't really actionable data though. A legitimate call may come through missing attestation for reasons that are not malicious. Similarly for things like B2B, the calls themselves may be attested and legal, but I'd still want to block them. We really need to be able to get the entire payload. If end users could directly and simply block carriers that waste their time by delivering shit calls, this entire issue would have worked itself out years ago. I just don't think that the current strategy of having the FCC yell big numbers at foreigners is really doing all that much...
m463 3y ago
I get calls nowadays with caller id telemarketer or suspected spam or similar, is this what it does?
- chaorace 3y ago
  A little yes, a little no. Your phone knows when it's receiving a call from an unauthenticated number, but it would be very unreliable to use this metric alone to decide when a call is untrustworthy. My understanding is that carrier telemetry is what drives the final yes/no verdict.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
supertrope 3y ago
We're still very early in the process. 1) Deploy caller ID signing. <--We are here. 2) Deploy policies to make inter-telco tracebacks easier and increase liability for carrying too much spam. 3) Drop unsigned traffic and shutdown spam friendly portions of the PSTN (analogous to open email relays). 4) Use the tracebacks and KYC to deter robocalling operations from getting onboarded and ban current customers who are robocalling. And keep them banned when they open new sockpuppet accounts. It'll never be completely eliminated. 5) See 4. Two-thirds of PSTN traffic is unsigned. https://transnexus.com/blog/2023/shaken-statistics-july/ https://transnexus.com/blog/2023/shaken-statistics-july/
- costco 3y ago
  You can get local phone numbers for a trivial amount of money - no caller ID spoofing required! Robocall operators have realized this which is why a substantial amount of robocalls are attested: https://commsrisk.com/calls-with-stir-shaken-c-attestation-now-5-times-more-likely-to-be-robocalls-than-unsigned-calls/ https://commsrisk.com/calls-with-stir-shaken-c-attestation-n... Even if there is thorough, mandatory KYC for VOIP services, we will just have robocalls being routed through simboxes filled with prepaid SIM cards. The whack-a-mole game will move there and the carriers will lose just like they do in Africa and the Middle East where people use them on a giant scale to arbitrage termination rates.
  - hinata08 3y ago
    >we will just have robocalls being routed through simboxes filled with prepaid SIM cards. it would cost a lot of money, especially if carriers limit the number of numbers you can call each month before an additional charge (100-200 numbers / month then extra fee ?) > You can get local phone numbers for a trivial amount of money and companies that provides phone numbers them can also monitor suspicious traffic. I remember that when I first opened an account at Callcentric, they froze it until their support could reach me to ask a few questions. Now, I've had it for a few year, did just a few calls, and I no longer have to go through that to subscribe to more services. On a slightly different topic, cloud providers have learned to keep their IPs clean, even if you can get some for cheap. They just check what you're doing. So it can be done !
pkaye 3y ago
Personally I've seen very few robocalls these day. I think all the IP based providers in the US have implemented SHAKEN/STIR. There is still a small amount of non IP based systems which FCC is looking for solutions. And international calls will take some time as other countries look into implementing similar methods.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago

>In response to the FCC’s enforcement action against Illum in October 2021, the CEO and Director of Illum, Prince Anand (Anand), who sometimes uses the alias “Frank Murphy,” Prince Anand Skype Chat, June 10, 2021 at 8:18:53 AM (“Frank Murphy” introduces himself as Prince Anand) (on file at EB-TCD-20-00030805) (Anand Skype Chat). created One Eye. Id. at October 24, 2021 at 8:16:14 AM and 8:16:21 AM (Anand telling Great Choice Telecom to expect a new sign up under the name “One Eye” that day). > To deflect the FCC’s scrutiny, Anand intended to keep his name off One Eye’s corporate documents. Id. at 7:40:25 AM, 8:11:13 AM, 8:13:20 AM, 8:14:48 AM, 8:14:55 AM, 8:15:04 AM, 8:16:14 AM, 8:55:50 AM, 9:01:49 AM, 9:02:21 AM, and 9:02:26 AM (Anand explains that due to the Commission’s cease-and-desist letter he will “not be included in any companies” but will work “on the backend [sic]”). > Kaushal Bhavsar, a director of Illum, became One Eye’s CEO. One Eye LLC Listing, Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, Robocall Mitigation Database (Oct. 26, 2021), https://fccprod.servicenowservices.com/rmd?id=rmd_form&table=x_g_fmc_rmd_robocall_mitigation_database&sys_id=9e1373b31b53b0107ccf20ecac4bcb3b&view=sp https://fccprod.servicenowservices.com/rmd?id=rmd_form&table... (showing Bhavsar as CEO of One Eye); Illum Telecommunication, https://www.illumtelecommunication.com/ https://www.illumtelecommunication.com/ (last visited July 14, 2023). > Aashay Khandelwal, the Human Resource Representative for Illum, subsequently formed One Owl and became the CEO. See Illum Telecommunication, https://www.illumtelecommunication.com/ https://www.illumtelecommunication.com/ (last visited July 14, 2023); see also One Owl Telecom Inc. Listing, Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, Robocall Mitigation Database (Apr. 25, 2022), https://fccprod.servicenowservices.com/rmd?id=rmd_form&table=x_g_fmc_rmd_robocall_mitigation_database&sys_id=b1ab8b061bcb4110823a419ae54bcb64&view=sp https://fccprod.servicenowservices.com/rmd?id=rmd_form&table... (showing Khandelwal as the CEO of One Owl). > Julya Barros, a seemingly close acquaintance of Anand, Compare @illum_telecom, Twitter, https://twitter.com/illum_telecom?lang=hi https://twitter.com/illum_telecom?lang=hi (as archived by Google and last visited May 16, 2023) (screenshots on file at EB-TCD-20-00030805), with Julya Barros (@julyabarross), Instagram, http://www.instagram.com/julyabarross http://www.instagram.com/julyabarross (last visited July 14, 2023).became Vice President of Sales and Marketing at One Owl. See Julya Barros, LinkedIn, https://ae.linkedin.com/in/julya-barros-928008245 https://ae.linkedin.com/in/julya-barros-928008245 (last visited July 14, 2023) (screenshots on file at EB-TCD-20-00030805). >One Owl and One Eye used the same IP address to conduct their business. March ITG Subpoena Response, supra note 4. > One Owl and One Eye communicated under the same email domain, @oneeyetelecom.com. Compare Incorp Services Interrogatories Response at para. 15 (on file at EB-TCD-20-00030805) (Incorp Services Interrog.) (showing One Eye used the @oneeyetelecom.com domain), with id. at para. 3 and Ex. A (on file at EB-TCD-20-00030805) (showing One Owl used the @oneeyetelecom.com domain). >The personnel connections between One Owl, One Eye, and Illum are summarized in the table below. The FCC is just playing whack-a-mole as soon as it begins enforcement on a company, the people involved just get together with their buddies and form a new company. This will never work to curb robocalls. Instead, the US Government needs to do the following 1. Require a $10 million dollar 5 year bond to start one of these companies. If the company engages in facilitating robocalling, the bond is forfeit 2. Criminal charges and enforcement against the agents of these companies 3. Immigration action against the agents and associates of these companies including deportation and permanent visa bans. Only then can the US government begin to combat this. Otherwise, doing more of the same is going to be completely ineffective and a waste of time and resources.

codetrotter 3y ago

Robocalls, you say? https://youtu.be/YVrX767IkdI https://youtu.be/YVrX767IkdI https://youtu.be/uIecyRCIFkI https://youtu.be/uIecyRCIFkI

kazz 3y ago

Now if only they'd take some sort of action against all the spam text messages I get. I swear I get a dozen texts a week from stringofnumbers@fakeemail.com telling me my amazon account has been suspended or a USPS package is on hold.

happytiger 3y ago
I get 5-10 a day honestly. I have to ban every one of them or they become accumulative with repeat calls because they keep calling and calling. They frequently then just move to another number and we do it again… It’s obviously a handful of companies behaving very badly. Let’s me share some examples… They say the same things from the same companies: - “Hi this is Jamie with the RTC helpdesk I'm calling to let you know that substantial business tax incentives that are still available through the employee retention tax credit _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ can provide business funding up to $26,000 for each W-2 employee you had on staff during 2020 and 2021 if you qualify we do all of the work and submit your application … - “Hi this is James calling from coastal debt resolved we help small business owners lower the payments or restructure any merchant cash advances that they've taken out and are having a difficult time getting them back we thought it was possible you might have one or more of these I want to see if we can offer our help my direct line is 877-412-0535 please give me a call at your earliest convenience so we can discuss your current situation thanks and have a great day…” - “888-310-9170 I'm contacting you regarding a potential refund opportunity for your business related to the year 2020 and 2021 please be aware that this refund does not involve any taxes or loans and there is no need for repayment to proceed with the refund process we simply need to verify some details regarding your businesses employee account during those years if you believe this call was not meant for you or if you wish to opt out of any future communication please press nine when calling back thank you for your time and I'm eagerly awaiting the opportunity to speak with you best regards Eva…” - “Hey this is Mark reaching back out again please give me a call back at 205-460-5936 so I did receive a notification today at your business is done and Bradstreet score was recently upgraded up to a 76 now this is a big deal because I put you in the top 10% of businesses in your industry and revenue range now because it is great score we're happy to see that your business has been preapproved for a business credit line up to $500,000 and the interest rate on these lines start his lowest 4.8% so they really don't cost very much at one of the best things about this offer is how fast we can get the money over to you if you were to say yes to this credit line we can have the funds over to you within just 24 hours please remember these offers don't last forever so please call me back directly at 205-460-5936 to make sure there's no confusion that's 205-460-5936 hope you have a really good day I have a blessed day and thank you…” - “Hey it's Tiffany with capital group I'm just touching base regarding your business plans of corner am I still have immediate funding options up to $250,000 with limited to no documentation necessary so am I can be reached at 949-4645479 I'll give you that number again it's … The capital group hits me up many times a week from many different sources. I don’t even bother to answer calls. I just ask people to leave a message. It’s made my phone basically unusable.

throw9away6 3y ago

Just force them to buy phone numbers like we sell ips. Each number could be $1 and you burn them when an operator gets caught

iforgotpassword 3y ago
And soon we will have 20-digit numbers :-)
callalex 3y ago
That’s almost exactly how the system currently works. The spam is still profitable despite that.
- Rygian 3y ago
  Then the price is not right. Make it expensive from the start, and then gradually give back most of the price when the user has had a good standing for long enough.
  - kstrauser 3y ago
    Sort of like charging a deposit on them? Don't screw it up for a year and we'll apply it to your next bill?
kabdib 3y ago
They'll just buy numbers with more stolen money.
supertrope 3y ago
https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt
jcrawfordor 3y ago
These people aren't "using" numbers that they own. The phone system largely does not track or care about the actual source of a phone call, and the caller ID value is only voluntary metadata that is not expected to correspond to the source of the call (it often doesn't in legitimate situations). The telephone system simply doesn't have a sense of "from" in the way that even protocols like email do; most telephone equipment neither knows or cares who the call is from. You don't need control of a single telephone number to introduce calls into the system. STIR/SHAKEN was created essentially to address this problem by introducing a strict sense of the origin of a call for the first time. STIR/SHAKEN is still early in its process but it does already make it easier for the industry tracing group to determine the actual source of these calls. STIR/SHAKEN compliance is also relatively expensive so it has sort of created a pay-to-play situation, both raising prices a bit and introducing a sort of KYC to the telecom industry where getting VoIP termination service now often involves sending the provider a passport, business registration documents, etc. And for what it's worth, getting a phone number for inbound calls already involves a fee and $1/month is actually pretty close on for an average. It goes as low as around $0.20 a month from low-cost bulk providers and as high as $8/mo from some more consumer-oriented services (that nonetheless offer DIDs). It's just that control of a phone number (prior to STIR/SHAKEN) only matters for inbound, not outbound.

RajT88 3y ago

Awesome. Now go after the timeshare companies.

jjtheblunt 3y ago

Wow: the FCC publicly shames the perpetrator including LinkedIn URL of the person. That's new behavior and might actually be a decent deterrent. ( https://www.linkedin.com/in/aashay-khandelwal-ab6179238 https://www.linkedin.com/in/aashay-khandelwal-ab6179238 )

WirelessGigabit 3y ago
As they should. Companies are run by people. People should be accountable. The CEO is accountable.
mrandish 3y ago
I've looked into the history of some of these perps before and I'm always shocked at how many chances they've been given to stop being shady-as-fuck scammers and it's almost like they're addicted to it. So yeah, they deserve whatever the FCC, FTC or whoever is dishing out (and probably much more). Looking through this docket, these assholes have playing stalling games for years and they STILL aren't blocked yet. They get at least 14 days to respond, then the FCC has to decide they're still doing it, then it'll take another 30 days for the block to be mandatory. > One Owl will have at least 14 days to respond to the Initial Determination Order. Id. § 64.1200(n)(5)(ii)-(iii). > If One Owl’s response to that order is insufficient or One Owl continues to allow substantially similar traffic onto the U.S. network, then the Bureau will publish a Final Determination Order in EB Docket No. 22-174 finding that One Owl is not in compliance with section 64.1200(n)(5). Id. § 64.1200(n)(5)(iii). > In the event that the Bureau issues a Final Determination Order in this matter, pursuant to section 64.1200(n)(6) of the Commission’s Rules, all U.S.-based voice service providers shall be required to block One Owl’s traffic. Id. § 64.1200(n)(6). Providers must monitor EB Docket No. 22-174 and initiate blocking beginning 30 days from the release date of the Final Determination Order.
dmvdoug 3y ago
They had the Instagram for one of his accomplices. Awkward.

Nifty3929 3y ago

There could be an unfortunate consequence of this: picking and choosing who's traffic to accept. Telcos generally operate as common carriers, meaning they have to accept traffic from anybody. Obviously, that doesn't seem right when we don't like that traffic. But imagine if telcos could start deciding on their own which businesses they were willing to work with or deliver calls to. What if they could just cut off your business because they don't like what you're selling. I'm not saying we're on the way there - this doesn't have to be a slippery slope. But it's something to keep in mind.

jimbob45 3y ago
It’s high time we start prosecuting cold robocalls as harassment. We don’t need to fundamentally change the rules of the system to keep around pests that don’t provide a useful or necessary service.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
How is this even relevant? This is specifically the FCC making the determination that One Owl sucks, not other telecoms.
cirrus3 3y ago
That's why the FCC is there isn't it? I don't see how this leads to telcos making that choice on their own
babypuncher 3y ago
You're right, which is why they needed the FCC to step in and explicitly allow Telcos to block this specific bad actor. The FCC exists to ensure all the Telcos play fairly, so it's up to them when actions like this are allowed to be taken.

downWidOutaFite 3y ago

Biden's fcc is actually doing its job compared with Trump's anti consumer Ajit Pai.

tomschlick 3y ago
To be fair, Trump's FCC was pushing STIR/SHAKEN hard but it takes years for the major telcos to implement and push it downstream to all of the various SIP providers that buy numbers from them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIR/SHAKEN#Implementation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIR/SHAKEN#Implementation Biden's FCC is able to take action because those were finally finished and now can enforce with the call source traceability they didn't have a few years ago.
happytiger 3y ago
Here here. It was amazing how much of a regulatory capture case study that man was…

binkHN 3y ago

I hate to push products, but happiness is the Call Screen built into Pixel phones. If it feels the call might not be spam, I still have the option to screen it and watch the party converse with the Google Assistant in real time—kind of like the answering machines of old, but you can read instead of listen.

thanhhaimai 3y ago
This so much. I don't remember that spam calls exist anymore until I read a post someone complaining about getting spam calls. It works so well. I haven't had a false negative in the 3 years of using it. All the people who truly wanted to contact me would say something into the assistant, and the phone rang, and I'd pick it up.
- onedognight 3y ago
  Apple does this as well, but this is a Band-Aid. Think of the old people who get scammed by these calls. This is a system issue and should be fixed as such. It’s frankly embarrassing how the phone companies have effectively killed the “phone call” through their neglect.
  - luma 3y ago
    Nope, not quite public yet. Google has had this for years but Apple is just now about to get it with the release of iOS 17 and "live voicemail". Still have a month or so before that's out of beta.
  - p_j_w 3y ago
    I’ve recently gotten an iPhone (coming from a Pixel 7), and it’s honestly not in the same league for dealing with Spam calls. It’s much more of an annoyance since I switched.
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    > phone companies have effectively killed the “phone call” through their neglect. They haven't - they're still making bank on the spam traffic, which is also why they're reluctant to implement solutions despite it technically being trivial. If phone spam was actually making a dent in revenue (aka legitimate call revenue was going down and the revenue from spam wasn't making up for it) they would've got their act together very quickly.

rrauenza 3y ago

I really like it when someone in the middle has changed the caller id to say "FRAUDULENT". Someone I know believes strongly that the telco's don't care to police and would rather push people onto cheaper to maintain mobile technology. (We get orders of magnitude more scammer calls on our landline than our mobiles.) But there's a lot of assumptions in that belief... Is there any truth to those economics? Is there a bad incentive here for the telcos?

AdrianEGraphene 3y ago
The product isn't necessarily true (mobile -> landline push), but the profit-seeking is certainly expected, as it is for all businesses. While the amount of minutes & attentions that are generated from spam calls helps the telcos, because they get paid either way... that doesn't mean they're negligent. They just don't have the right tools to police this since they're common carriers. Things are changing little by little and with upcoming changes in telco infrastructure, I expect Q4 this year to show a strong signal of what the future holds.
- rrauenza 3y ago
  Can they not just monitor the statistics from an incoming <insert phone system collective noun here> and notice that they're randomly calling millions of numbers per small unit of time and swapping their caller id for every one of them... and then just block them? Is there a legal reason they can't? Is it a liability reason? What's really getting my goat the last year is the scam center pretending to be Comcast / XFinity / AT&T / Spectrum offering to lower my bills. They constantly rotate through the four companies and often also have my name, stolen from one of those provider's databases. I've stopped calling them scammers on the phone and call them thieves, or "chor" in Hindi. Often they hangup immediately, but 1 in 10 or so get sheepish and embarrassed.

mikeyouse 3y ago

We've become so desensitized to spam and robocalls due to the scale of the problem - but these should absolutely be treated as attempted theft. If there were a gang going door to door trying to con elderly or otherwise gullible people into giving them thousands of dollars, there would be task forces formed and police patrols on every block. Instead, since it happens over the internet and on the phone, we give it benign names and treat it like a minor hassle and let everyone fend for themselves. How did we become "okay" with having most of the communication that reaches people be malicious? What is Federal law enforcement doing? Why the hell hasn't the FCC nuked these companies' ability to operate? Who is lobbying for this shit?

Nextgrid 3y ago
Politicians use the exact same companies and tactics to solicit votes, so why would they fight against themselves? A politician's job is to stay in power and work towards their reelection, not make your life better. In some cases those goals happen to align but that's merely coincidence and should not be taken for granted. In this case, effective anti-robocall legislation would also work against their own interests.
- datapolitical 3y ago
  Politicians do not use the same companies. There are very specific firms that primarily handle political communications and text messages and phone calls. And political communications are exempt from CAN-SPAM
- dragontamer 3y ago
  > Politicians use the exact same companies and tactics to solicit votes, so why would they fight against themselves? Say what you will, the 27th Amendment passed. (IE: makes it constitutionally illegal for Representatives to give themselves payraises immediately. They have to give pay-raises for the _next_ congress, which means it may give a pay-raise to the opponent if they lose the election). Politicians do, and have, been forced by the people to make bad choices for themselves for the good of the country. And its not like its an easy thing to pass a Constitutional Amendment like the 27th. --------------- We also used to have very strong laws with regards to campaign finance. It was actually our judges who took those laws away in the Citizen's United case. But our politicians actually put those laws into place to allow the people to trust them more during campaign finance season. Etc. etc. Plenty of examples. All we need is to convince enough people that a particular law is a good idea, and then that law will happen.

to11mtm 3y ago

OK now do the bigger providers that allow robotexting without consent... I received unsolicited texts from a "Buy your house cash" company last year. Of course, they did not identify the company name in the texts, not even with prompting... I was able to trace the number to a larger provider... [0] The provider was unwilling to tell me who originally called me. Which is strange. If a company wants my business, shouldn't they be willing to say who they are? If a VOIP/TOIP provider doesn't disclose who communicates with you, isn't that a way to shield harassment? But, as always, it's about who pays the most money to the lawmakers via lobbying... [0] - By 'Large', I will say that they are a provider for Microsoft Teams Voice calls/texts in the US.

supertrope 3y ago
The US cellular industry is cracking down on SMS spam. Lots of "legitimate" businesses that rely on SMS are complaining about 10DLC.
- to11mtm 3y ago
  Yeah, I actually worked on the compliance side for a publicly traded company. The amount of work 'legitimate' providers make you put in can sometimes be painful, especially when they don't do what they say they are gonna do. But we did our part to make sure we stayed compliant. Making sure that even our 'semi-automated' messages (i.e. the user selected from a dropdown and the template filled in blanks) were registered, making sure appropriate unsubscribe verbiage was always present, while still fitting meaningful context into 160 characters. Then making sure each of those messages was registered, reviewed, and approved with the provider. Unfortunately there were still times that the provider failed to do their part, and despite being told we were 'good to go' we would discover a large volume of our texts were blocked by our provider or a downstream network, because someone dropped the ball. [0] I guess that's what frustrates me; our company did the right work, and even then our provider sometimes got in the way with their own mistakes... But far less scrupulous companies appear to get away with all sorts of non-compliance and their provider doesn't care for whatever reason. [1] [0] - Worth mentioning, the texts in question were not even solicitations. They were texts related to the 'process' people had already agreed to. Without divulging the actual industry, the best analogy would be things like being told that there was a problem with your vehicle order and to call us, or that your vehicle had been delivered was ready to be picked up tomorrow. [2] [1] - My gut says, the reason those providers don't care, is that they get to collect more money for more texts sent. [2] - No, it wasn't automotive, I'm just trying to give a good analogy here. Less life impacting than surgery but more life impacting than a simple package delivery.

allanrbo 3y ago

A little bit off topic, I know, but I love how the FCC is using a plain text file here. No nonsense!

sgustard 3y ago
Change the file extension to pdf, there's a pdf version, same for doc.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Even better! Kudos to the Federal Communications Commission for knowing how to communicate!

takinola 3y ago

After I moved states, I discovered a pretty effective anti-spam call heuristic. If the call is coming from the same area code as my phone number, it is most likely spam. It seems spam callers assume most calls will likely be from a local number and so they initiate calls from the same area code as the target. However, since the area code in my local area is completely different from mine (since I moved), this tactic actually backfires and acts as a pretty good spam signal.

phlakaton 3y ago
Worse than that (but way more telling), sometimes it's the same area code AND prefix. C'mon, man.
- Johnny555 3y ago
  I used to think that was a dumb move on the part of the scammers, and probably would only be effective in a small town where most of the people you know have the same prefix… Then I realized that most of the successfully scammed victims probably live in those small towns.
  - phlakaton 3y ago
    Great point! I hadn't thought about that. It's my cell that gets hits like this, so the prefix is extra-irrelevant.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  I once had a series of spam calls that reported their number as being my own phone number. Made it really easy to spot them, and was very funny.
- ghaff 3y ago
  This probably had some logic historically with landlines—a neighbor is calling. It’s an anti-pattern for cell phones in the “wrong” area code. Used to get this a lot. Rarely today.
3y ago

pdq 3y ago

Looks like their web site is offline now: https://www.oneowltelecom.com/ https://www.oneowltelecom.com/ And the LinkedIn profile is gone: https://www.linkedin.com/company/one-owl-telecom-inc https://www.linkedin.com/company/one-owl-telecom-inc

re 3y ago

The submitted text file is missing some formatting, making it difficult to read. Links to PDFs for this letter, as well as a related press release and a letter sent to One Owl, are available here: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-notifies-carriers-repeated-illegal-robocaller https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-notifies-carriers-repeated-...

withinrafael 3y ago

A PDF is also available for those that have trouble reading that raw text (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-23-652A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-23-652A1.pdf)

washywashy 3y ago

Isn’t perfect but this is why I suddenly like voice mail again. I don’t answer any numbers I don’t recognize. If it’s important they will leave a voicemail.

naikrovek 3y ago

This is good, albeit very late. I already consider the telephone to be an unusable form of communication due to the amount of unwanted and unsolicited calls that I receive. Telephony is completely and totally dead to me, now.

Exoristos 3y ago

As long as political orgs, including the major parties, rely on robocalling of the vilest sort to raise their funds, don't expect Congress to pass any meaningful legislation.

JohnFen 3y ago
I don't think that's what disincentivizes them. Congress will just do what they always do with things like this: exempt themselves from the law. That's what they've done with all anti-spam laws so far.

seatac76 3y ago

Good high time penalties were applied to people who facilitate this non sense.

bla573837 3y ago

Could we say it is becoming evident that the US government are fine with ad-blocking? (For at least some ads) I expect this news to be heavily criticized by all highly paid engineers at ad-tech companies like Google and Meta?

SeanLuke 3y ago

Why is the FCC giving other companies the right to block One Owl if they fail to comply, rather than simply terminating One Owl's connection to the network?

Tepix 3y ago
This is what i'm wondering as well. In Germany, robo calls are pretty much nonexistant. Same with Spam SMS. So either the FCC is failing the american people or the laws are insufficient, or both. This problem is solvable, many countries have done it.