7 ms·

If a carrier delivers a spam text or call, if they can’t definitively prove who sent it, it should be treated as though the carrier themselves sent it (and fine

by teeray 3y ago

If a carrier delivers a spam text or call, if they can’t definitively prove who sent it, it should be treated as though the carrier themselves sent it (and fined accordingly). Watch how fast telcos mandate authentication and other KYC measures after that.

NikkiA 3y ago
This is literally the 'carrier liability exemption' that section 230 is based on, HN gets all up in arms whenever carrier liability is threatened to be taken from internet sites...
webninja 3y ago
Should just apply to Telcos over a certain subscriber size. So, the Big 3 only. Don’t want to squash new competition into the market with new regulations.
hackideiomat 3y ago
I don't want that?
partitioned 3y ago
How is this a better world than getting spam calls
- torstenvl 3y ago
  How is it not? It'll cut down on spam and other antisocial behavior (e.g., unsolicited intimate images).
viraptor 3y ago
I'm not sure why you want to connect that fine to kyc-style behaviour. Just apply the first part and fines. Essentially "you pay the fine unless you can forward it to the entity that originated the call". That would solve the issue just fine. Telcos already know where the connections come from and who to bill for what. Someone just needs to mandate it.
- acdha 3y ago
  I would structure that differently: the telco pays the fine immediately, but can collect with damages from the source. That ensures that consumers are compensated without delay and gives the telco a strong incentive to be serious about collecting and/or blocking anyone without a robust legal presence. Most of the problem goes back to the decision in the VoIP era that checking ID would slow revenue growth so that needs to be robustly corrected.
perlgeek 3y ago
This might work for domestic calls, but what about international ones? Do you really want to force telcos to block all calls from countries that you cannot collect fines from?
- malka 3y ago
  They can collect the fine themselve, by billing it to the other country operator.
- viraptor 3y ago
  The US market is big enough to essentially cause its own "Brussels effect". (It already did in other areas) If the choice for some external telco is "deal with spam or lose access to call the US", any legit company will choose the first one. Or they can follow the same fine collection rules themselves.
- CoastalCoder 3y ago
  > Do you really want to force telcos to block all calls from countries that you cannot collect fines from? I'd suggest it be optional on a per-customer basis, perhaps with a whitelist. E.g., the only international calls I ever want to receive comes from family members' cell phones when they're traveling. I'm 100% okay with blocking all other international calls. If something is that important, they can send me something via mail, FedEx, etc., or send a message courier to my house.
- bluGill 3y ago
  Most countries will not have a problem with it since they want to have the correct data anyway and are not a source of SPAM. The countries that are not fine with it are countries most of the US doesn't want to deal with anyway. Just make it so you can opt-in to an exception and nobody will care. If you live in the EU and want to call me (as if you know my number, and have reason to call me) you won't have a problem. If you live in Russia you might have a problem - but I have no reason to think anyone in Russia will ever call me so I don't care. The few people who do have friends in Russia can add an exceptions and those exceptions are not enough for spammers to bother operating at all anymore.
- 3y ago
dredmorbius 3y ago
This is one of the views I'm coming to. I'd also suggest that there be a rebate per spam call delivered. Say, $10/call to the customer. Telcos could seek 10x that from the upstream who peered the call. That is, there's a protection and credit to both the end-recipient and the telco provider, which might make the politics of such policy or legislation more widely palatable.
- _yb2s 3y ago
  I want emails, phone calls, and texts sent to me to cost the sender some fixed amount of money… which is refunded only if I send a return token confirming it was not spam. For previous contacts or people in my organizations this refund would be automatic.
  - maccard 3y ago
    This is how linkedin cold outreach works.
  - jasode 3y ago
    >I want emails, phone calls, and texts sent to me to cost the sender some fixed amount of money… which is refunded only if I send a return token confirming it was not spam. I've thought about that type of spam refund scheme many times and I like it but the potential problem I see with it is the unintended effect of even more spam that you can't ignore by the companies you already have a business relationship with that bill you monthly. E.g. You get a monthly bill from Comcast to pay for cable tv. With a new hypothetical "spam refund" law, they now abuse it to their advantage by adding a new "Customer Information Updates" fee for $5 to the bill. (They won't call it "marketing fee" or "promotional fee" but something innocuous like "information fee".) The cable company can now can send you more spam by using the "spam refund" law against you. But... the customer can get a "rebate" on that extra $5 fee by responding to spam and "refunding" it back to the cable company. If the customer chooses to ignore the spam and never refund it, the customer ends up paying the $5 extra fee on the monthly bill. The customer is now paying oneself to to receive more spam that they can't ignore. A potential spam refund scheme needs protections to prevent abuse like the above.
pwg 3y ago
> if they can’t definitively prove who sent it, They already can. There's an internal "billing" code for every call so carrier knows who to bill for having carried that call. They don't want to "prove who sent it" because all those billing transactions for carrying those calls add up to significant profit, and they don't want to kill that profit if they don't have to.

by teeray 3y ago

NikkiA 3y ago

This is literally the 'carrier liability exemption' that section 230 is based on, HN gets all up in arms whenever carrier liability is threatened to be taken from internet sites...

webninja 3y ago

Should just apply to Telcos over a certain subscriber size. So, the Big 3 only. Don’t want to squash new competition into the market with new regulations.

hackideiomat 3y ago

I don't want that?

partitioned 3y ago

How is this a better world than getting spam calls

torstenvl 3y ago
How is it not? It'll cut down on spam and other antisocial behavior (e.g., unsolicited intimate images).

viraptor 3y ago

I'm not sure why you want to connect that fine to kyc-style behaviour. Just apply the first part and fines. Essentially "you pay the fine unless you can forward it to the entity that originated the call". That would solve the issue just fine. Telcos already know where the connections come from and who to bill for what. Someone just needs to mandate it.

acdha 3y ago
I would structure that differently: the telco pays the fine immediately, but can collect with damages from the source. That ensures that consumers are compensated without delay and gives the telco a strong incentive to be serious about collecting and/or blocking anyone without a robust legal presence. Most of the problem goes back to the decision in the VoIP era that checking ID would slow revenue growth so that needs to be robustly corrected.

perlgeek 3y ago

This might work for domestic calls, but what about international ones? Do you really want to force telcos to block all calls from countries that you cannot collect fines from?

malka 3y ago
They can collect the fine themselve, by billing it to the other country operator.
viraptor 3y ago
The US market is big enough to essentially cause its own "Brussels effect". (It already did in other areas) If the choice for some external telco is "deal with spam or lose access to call the US", any legit company will choose the first one. Or they can follow the same fine collection rules themselves.
CoastalCoder 3y ago
> Do you really want to force telcos to block all calls from countries that you cannot collect fines from? I'd suggest it be optional on a per-customer basis, perhaps with a whitelist. E.g., the only international calls I ever want to receive comes from family members' cell phones when they're traveling. I'm 100% okay with blocking all other international calls. If something is that important, they can send me something via mail, FedEx, etc., or send a message courier to my house.
bluGill 3y ago
Most countries will not have a problem with it since they want to have the correct data anyway and are not a source of SPAM. The countries that are not fine with it are countries most of the US doesn't want to deal with anyway. Just make it so you can opt-in to an exception and nobody will care. If you live in the EU and want to call me (as if you know my number, and have reason to call me) you won't have a problem. If you live in Russia you might have a problem - but I have no reason to think anyone in Russia will ever call me so I don't care. The few people who do have friends in Russia can add an exceptions and those exceptions are not enough for spammers to bother operating at all anymore.
3y ago

dredmorbius 3y ago

This is one of the views I'm coming to. I'd also suggest that there be a rebate per spam call delivered. Say, $10/call to the customer. Telcos could seek 10x that from the upstream who peered the call. That is, there's a protection and credit to both the end-recipient and the telco provider, which might make the politics of such policy or legislation more widely palatable.

_yb2s 3y ago
I want emails, phone calls, and texts sent to me to cost the sender some fixed amount of money… which is refunded only if I send a return token confirming it was not spam. For previous contacts or people in my organizations this refund would be automatic.
- maccard 3y ago
  This is how linkedin cold outreach works.
- jasode 3y ago
  >I want emails, phone calls, and texts sent to me to cost the sender some fixed amount of money… which is refunded only if I send a return token confirming it was not spam. I've thought about that type of spam refund scheme many times and I like it but the potential problem I see with it is the unintended effect of even more spam that you can't ignore by the companies you already have a business relationship with that bill you monthly. E.g. You get a monthly bill from Comcast to pay for cable tv. With a new hypothetical "spam refund" law, they now abuse it to their advantage by adding a new "Customer Information Updates" fee for $5 to the bill. (They won't call it "marketing fee" or "promotional fee" but something innocuous like "information fee".) The cable company can now can send you more spam by using the "spam refund" law against you. But... the customer can get a "rebate" on that extra $5 fee by responding to spam and "refunding" it back to the cable company. If the customer chooses to ignore the spam and never refund it, the customer ends up paying the $5 extra fee on the monthly bill. The customer is now paying oneself to to receive more spam that they can't ignore. A potential spam refund scheme needs protections to prevent abuse like the above.

pwg 3y ago

> if they can’t definitively prove who sent it, They already can. There's an internal "billing" code for every call so carrier knows who to bill for having carried that call. They don't want to "prove who sent it" because all those billing transactions for carrying those calls add up to significant profit, and they don't want to kill that profit if they don't have to.