
FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default - daegloe
https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-pai-proposes-robocall-blocking-default
======
duxup
According to Ars they want to leave it up to the carriers if they want to
charge for it, if that is accurate and the robocall problems escalate then you
could end up paying for it by default ... or just get robocalls all day.

[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/ajit-pais-
roboca...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/ajit-pais-robocall-
plan-lets-carriers-charge-for-new-call-blocking-tools/)

"It will cost $X a month for service, and $Y more if you want to be able to
use it..."

And as a revenue stream I worry this could create a perverse disincentive for
carriers, why deal with a problem that makes people give us more money?

~~~
hedvig
The more I look at things as I age, the more I see market based solutions as
only benefiting the supplier and always hurting the consumer.

~~~
wpietri
Honestly, it's not clear to me that most "pro-market" advocates even
understand markets. They work best when purchasers have many options, clear
information, easy switching, and equal power to sellers. But at least in the
US, most of the "pro-market" voices in practice seem to be in favor of
oligopoly and the absolute right of businesses to exploit information, wealth,
and power asymmetries.

It makes me a bit bonkers, because well-designed markets can do an amazing job
solving optimization problems.

~~~
TallGuyShort
In the US, I think one problem is have too much mixing of public and private.
We give the public sector a lot of decision making power relatively free of
consequences, and leave massive profit opportunities for anyone in the private
sector who manages to buy enough influence. Healthcare was far from a free
market already before ObamaCare. But if we're going to regulate it as heavily
as we do, I think we need to just step up and socialize it entirely.

~~~
Wheaties466
Unfortunately completely socializing the healthcare system would tank the
economy thats why no serious person in washington is pro universal healthcare.

~~~
ranie93
"a new study [0] from the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the
University of Massachusetts-Amherst finds that single-payer health care will
save the US $5.1 trillion over a decade while drastically cutting working-
class Americans’ health spending." [1]

"Blahous’s paper[2], titled “The Costs of a National Single-Payer Healthcare
System,” estimates total national health expenditures. Even though his cost-
saving estimates are more conservative than others, he acknowledges that
Sanders’s “Medicare for All” plan would yield a $482 billion reduction in
health care spending, and over $1.5 trillion in administrative savings, for a
total of $2 trillion less in overall health care expenditures between 2022 and
2031, compared to current spending." [3]

[0] [https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1127-economic-
an...](https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1127-economic-analysis-of-
medicare-for-all)

[1] [https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/12/medicare-for-all-study-
pe...](https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/12/medicare-for-all-study-peri-sanders)

[2] [https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-
medicare...](https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-
mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf)

[3] [https://theintercept.com/2018/07/30/medicare-for-all-cost-
he...](https://theintercept.com/2018/07/30/medicare-for-all-cost-health-care-
wages/)

~~~
linuxftw
Studies like these are worse than worthless. Just look at any recent major
public works project for an example of cost overruns.

Here's how we could lower costs for Americans overnight: Allow importation of
prescription medicines.

Medicare for all will lead to doctors for none. It's really hard to get
appointments from places that accept Medicare, it's just not worth the hassle
for many doctors to deal with them.

~~~
notfromhere
"This study is worthless, but here's my unsubstantiated opinion instead" is a
weird argument.

~~~
shstalwart
Not really. It's pretty evident at this point that most publications are
basically worthless.

~~~
notfromhere
You've said the same thing with zero evidence, again.

~~~
linuxftw
[https://sf.curbed.com/2019/5/2/18527196/high-speed-rail-
cali...](https://sf.curbed.com/2019/5/2/18527196/high-speed-rail-california-
cost-estimate-overbudget-sf)

------
js2
I've been getting this call[1] literally every month for about a year now. It
goes straight to voicemail because their dialer can't get past my voice
captcha. I tried blocking the caller id but they keep using a different last
four numbers. I've now configured the call flow so that this entire exchange
now has to pass the captcha to even get to voice mail.

What I'm saying is, this proposal can't come soon enough.

1\. Transcription, for your amusement: _Hi this is Carolyn calling from
reliable resource communications. Reliable resource communications is a
telecommunications service used by other companies to notify consumers on
their behalf. I have made numerous attempts to reach you regarding an entry
form that was filled out in your name within the last 12 to 18 months to
receive a new car. Now this will be my final attempt to notify you that your
name was pulled and you are going to receive one of our top three major
prizes. It will be in your best interest to give me a call back at soon as
possible. My number is 984-292-1515 at extension 3:21. We are not a
telemarketing agency nor timeshare and this is not a cold call please do not
ignore this message. I 'm very aware of the do not call list but wouldn't be
calling unless someone actually answered. This is a time sensitive matter and
I do look forward to hearing from you. Once again congratulations my name is
Carolyn._

~~~
deathanatos
> _this will be my final attempt to notify you_

It's always the final attempt/notice. Every time. I've received dozens of
"final notices" that my 22 year old car's factory warranty (10 yrs, 100k
miles) is "about" to expire.

~~~
nartz
Get this one all the time. I did have a car warranty that expired (a while
ago), so I always wondered if its just a stock message, or if someone actually
sold the data of my car warranty.

~~~
wcunning
I've been getting a bunch of sketchy post cards about extended warranties
using _wrong_ language about my warranty just expiring on a car I purchased
used (9 years old, 50k miles, 3rd owner according to CarFax). I've been filing
postal inspector requests on their bulk mail code every time, but no response
so far. That particular sorta scam is not limited to phone calls.

------
paulgb
Direct link to the news release (PDF):
[https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-357464A1.pdf](https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-357464A1.pdf)

tl;dr the action would allow carriers to default to blocking calls on the part
of their customers. Once SHAKEN/STIR (caller ID authentication) is available,
this means carriers can block calls that don't include authenticated caller
ID. Presumably they already could do this if the customer opted in.

This all seems like a good idea, but I think Pai is overselling it a bit by
calling it "bold."

~~~
jessriedel
> Today, many voice providers have held off developing and deploying call
> blocking tools by default because of uncertainty about whether these tools
> are legal under the FCC’s rules.

Is this really true? How absolutely dysfunctional things must be.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
I'm not sure I agree it's dysfunctional. "We're going to block some people off
from the phone lines because we don't think they ought to be making calls" is
exactly the kind of policy that should be heavily scrutinized.

~~~
mathnmusic
That policy wouldn't be about blocking people from making calls. It'd be about
allowing TOOLS that let USERS block unwanted calls.

~~~
arebop
It says it is about tools that "allow _phone companies_ to block _unwanted_
calls" (emphasis mine). So the one wielding the tool is the phone company.
It's unclear whether users can opt out of the default. It's also unclear
whether "unwanted" is defined with respect to the user or the company.

------
j-c-hewitt
Robocalls are a constant annoyance for me (I get maybe 1 per day on average)
and almost all of them are criminally fraudulent solicitations of some kind
including calls impersonating the Social Security Administration etc.

It's like being forced to read my spam folder with an audible alert. I have to
field calls from a lot of clients that I have never spoken to before or have
only called them a couple times, so only answering phone calls from recognized
numbers isn't really an option.

~~~
paulie_a
I get about ten a day and you are dead on. They are all criminally fraudulent.
This shouldn't be handled by the FCC but the fbi. Every single person at the
robocalling company should be arrested, even the secretary.

This isn't a civil matter, this is criminal and should be treated as such.

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
I agree 100%.

It's clear to me that the U.S. has the technical capability of hunting down
the origins of these calls, and bring the offenders to trial.

This leads me to believe it's a matter of political will, and I don't
understand the inaction.

~~~
zanmat0
>It's clear to me that the U.S. has the technical capability of hunting down
the origins of these calls, and bring the offenders to trial.

Do they? From what I've gathered its mostly small distributed shops in India
and the Philippines. Shut one down, three new ones pop up.

~~~
darkpuma
Duterte pretends to be a hardass, right? Tell him to deal with it by any means
necessary or else the USS Jimmy Carter starts to sever their submarine cables
one by one until the problem is resolved that way.

If anybody thinks that's too severe, explain to them that DDOSing a nation's
telecom system is an act of cyberwar.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Do you really think that having Duterte kill these people is an appropriate
response to robocalls? I mean, sure, I understand the _temptation_ , but...
it's a bit extreme for the actual harm being done.

~~~
chrisfinazzo
Duterte's a crazy man, if anyone deserves to get whacked, it's him. In a
normal administration, we could manage this, but with a septuagenarian and
John "war is fucking awesome" Bolton around, the bastard gets showered with
praise.

Sorry to say it, ditto for Erdogan

/politicsrant

------
jdenning
It seems pointless to implement any new rules when the bad actors already know
that they can just spoof caller ID to use a fake number and avoid any
consequences. I'm already on every opt-out list in existence - it does
nothing. I've filed complaints with the FCC about people breaking the rules -
nothing.

What needs to change:

1) Fix Caller-ID so that it can't be spoofed for fraudlulent purposes

2) Make it easy to report violations of the rules to the FCC

3) Actually enforce the rules

 _Then_ the Do Not Call Registry and bans on robocallers might actually work.

------
jedberg
If this actually happens I will be thankful that at least he did something
good during his tenure.

I suppose this will get through since it doesn’t hurt the profits of the
telcos. In fact it will give them a new profit center! Because I’m sure that
they won’t offer “block by default” for free.

~~~
raverbashing
Funny, because if they charged all those calls by the price they sell consumer
services they would make a lot of money. But no

It's the same thing with "USPS going bankrupt", charge commercial mail its
actual cost (x10 what costs now) and see the money come in. You get subsidized
cost if you actually buy a physical stamp and glue it to your letter

~~~
maxerickson
You think the letter carrying monopoly is reducing prices by 10x?

Or are there subsidies I don't understand that you think are doing that?

~~~
raverbashing
[https://www.usps.com/business/prices.htm](https://www.usps.com/business/prices.htm)

See how much a stamp cost vs. "Commercial"/"Direct Mail" options

(though maybe 10x is an exaggeration)

~~~
maxerickson
Oh, I misunderstood what you were saying. But they are getting a volume
discount and have to meet stricter requirements and aren't getting quite the
same level of service and so on.

------
hedora
Why don’t we just fine the telco $10 each time they connect an obviously
fraudulent call?

The fact that they’re still using signaling system 7 is not a defense for
their negligence.

~~~
justinmchase
Because the people appointed are essentially placed there by companies that
profit more by having the system the way it is right now.

------
paul7986
I have my iPhone on Do not Disturb allow only contacts to ring my phone.

Also, for each contact I want to be notified about their texts Ive edited each
contact > text tone —> Emergency Bypass on and no text tone.

My phone is now back to what I feel belongs to me and not scum using MY phone
to bother me for their benefit.

------
sxates
If I can plug an app I found helpful in reducing robocalls: Try RoboKiller
(iPhone, not sure about android).

I tried Mr. Number and a couple other free options which didn't seem to block
much. I paid $30/yr for RoboKiller and unwanted calls have been reduced
substantially - to maybe 1 per week slipping through. It's not just doing
caller ID analysis, you actually forward your calls to them and they screen
them before they even get to your phone. Seems to work well.

~~~
paul7986
RoboKiller hosed my voicemail after uninstalling it and they didn't hose it
via my device but actual voicemail line got hosed and AT&T has tried to fix it
with no avail.

Best solution I've found on iPhone --> Do NoT Disturb --> only allow calls
from contacts. Receive texts notifications only from contacts too.

------
korethr
I will welcome a workable solution to the robocall problems. In the interim,
they provide a source of entertainment.

The most common ones I get are from The Credit Card Company to tell me that
because of my excellent credit history, I have qualified to get my credit card
directly through them at a lower interst rate, instead of having it resold to
me through Visa or Mastercard. For these calls, I'll generate a fake card
number, SSN, name, address, etc, and start answering their questions.
Inevitably, when the number comes back as bogus, they get angry, and yell at
me to tell me how much of a cocksucking faggot I am and that they're going to
come rape my daughter. I laugh at their attempts to form insults being less
coherent than their English in general and move on with my day.

Of course, as soon as I tried to start recording these calls, they became much
less frequent. I can't help but wonder if my number hasn't become blacklisted
by these scam centers in India and the Philippines as a known unprofitable
time waster or something. Why waste your time calling someone you know you
can't get anything out of when there's lower-effort marks out there which will
be more profitable?

All the same, I'd prefer not to have deal with these guys, so any actually
workable solution would be welcome.

Edit: Hah! While reviewing this post, I got yet another call from these guys.
And I got the most persistent one of 'em I've had yet. They're getting good
with semi-plausible responses to the most common deflections. But, their
geography skills aren't much better than mine. Apparently Lebanon is in
Canada.

~~~
nullc
> Inevitably, when the number comes back as bogus, they get angry, and yell at
> me

I was really surprised the first time I got a got a bunch of obscenities out
of one of these scammers-- I figured they'd consider being screwed with just a
cost of doing business.

Weird.

Aside: I went from a couple a day to none in the last three days after saying
"DO NOT HANG UP. You have reached the US department of illicit telephone
communication"<click>. Perhaps a coincidence.

------
bcheung
How will this be implemented from a technology and policy perspective?

The idea is one I am definitely supportive of. My phone rarely comes out of
DnD now because of the robocallers.

But the devil is in the details. Forcing people to add someone to their
contact list before being able to receive calls from them will probably be a
bit draconian.

Another possible solution would be that someone can request access to call you
and there is some service that verifies their identity and presents that
information to you.

"[NAME] is requesting permission to contact you through [VOICE CALLS, EMAIL,
TEXT]. Allow/Deny?"

Another good solution might be to add something equivalent to HTTPS / SSL
certs, where only secure and verified identities can contact you.

~~~
wavefunction
I'd settle for non-spoofable CallerID

~~~
bcheung
Yes, that would probably be a good thing. They seriously need to fix the
problem of being able to listen to other people's voicemail by merely setting
the caller id to the target's cell number and calling them.

~~~
mehrdadn
Wait is that a thing right now?!

~~~
hanniabu
You bet it is, I think the first time I tried this was around 2007 or
something like that.

------
nartz
1\. Why can we not ban _spoofed_ numbers?

2\. It would be great if instead they introduced legislation that made it dead
simple to sue robocallers, i.e. \- request your call records from carrier \-
submit said call records through online portal proving excessive calls

~~~
post_break
It's hard to verify caller ID with current tech is why. Well hard, more like
costs money to verify.

------
mitch3x3
This will probably get buried, but I’ll give my personal solution to reducing
the number of robocalls over the past few months. Be a robot. Either answer
the phone with absolute silence or have a very loud dial tone playing. It
might be a coincidence, but I’m fairly certain this has put me on robocall
blacklists. Bonus points if they give you a callback number to a call
center... just keep spam calling them with a loud dial tone. I only get a
couple of calls per week now.

------
mydpy
Does anyone have statistics on the impact of robocallers? They're ubiquitous
and universally obnoxious. I haven't seen any reporting on their effectiveness
for the services they're advertising for. I wonder why do they even bother.

I understand these calls mostly take advantage of unsuspecting people, but I
still can't imagine the impact these calls are making financially.

------
fulldecent2
There is only one actual solution to this problem.

1\. Get the list of phone numbers of everybody working at AT&T (Sony style)
2\. Set up robocalls randomly from each of these numbers to each of the other
numbers 3\. Share this list and your specific howto instructions with three
other people

Every other solution fails.

------
olliej
I feel the correct solution (given the current admin, and U politics in
general) is just to stop allowing telcos to charge for receiving calls.
Fundamentally for everything they say about robocalls, it's still profitable
for a telco if you ever pick up.

------
onepremise
This should be a no brainer. Robocalls should be illegal and blocked by your
phone provider. Must the chairmen really make an exploit a profit margin for
corporations? We need somebody in the FCC that can at least understand
technology and consumers.

------
chapium
I disagree with having the service providers block the calls. Shouldn't that
be up to the consumer? Having your carrier block a call seems like an
overreach. I feel this erodes trust in the phone system even more.

~~~
jawns
Presumably they would be blocking it on the consumer's behalf, with the
consumer's consent, through an opt-in program.

~~~
unsignedchar
And wouldn’t they, presumably, expect to be compensated for providing this
convenience?

~~~
nordsieck
> And wouldn’t they, presumably, expect to be compensated for providing this
> convenience?

Maybe. I think, though, that there is growing understanding that consumers may
just opt out of the phone system altogether if something isn't done.

------
teknopaul
Is there any legitimate use case for robocalls at all? Can we not make it
illegal punishable with the death sentence? Would any law abidng citizen be
affected? Presuming post and sms messages are still allowed.

Hypothetically, natch.

~~~
burntoutcase
> Can we not make it illegal punishable with the death sentence?

I think all spammers should be dealt with in the manner Vlad Tepes used to
deal with Turks, criminals, and people who talk at the theater. However, we're
going to need a lot of thick, sturdy bamboo stakes if we're going to impale
every spammer we find.

~~~
nullc
> However, we're going to need a lot of thick, sturdy bamboo stakes if we're
> going to impale every spammer we find.

Sharpen the femurs of their predecessors. Because most spammers yield two
femurs, you only need one starter stake and then your supply of weapons is
self sustaining.

------
DrWumbo
This is awful. There's no chance of their system having a 0% false positive
rate (positive in this case meaning spam). Even a low FPR means that
potentially important calls will get blocked by default.

------
koboll
How about this:

No one is allowed to call me unless they are on my contacts list, or perhaps
another whitelist of not-quite-contacts-but-allowed-to-call-me. Any calls off
those lists silently fail. Phone providers must upgrade their infrastructure
to include origin-number verification.

No business is allowed to expect I be available to answer phone calls, or to
require me to conduct business over the phone, for any reason, ever. Each time
I am charged or penalized by a business in any way for missing their call, or
not doing something that can only be done over the phone, they are required to
eat the charge and then fined $10,000.

Let's throw business over the phone where it belongs: in the fucking garbage.
The death of robocalls will be a nice side bonus.

~~~
RHSeeger
I get plenty of calls from people outside my contacts list that I want to hear
from. My doctor calls me to discuss test results. My daughter's school calls
if there's an issue.

I want to get rid of robocalling, too, but I don't want my phone neutered to
do it.

------
burntoutcase
We _could_ just get rid of our telephones. Let's be honest here: when was the
last time you were actually _happy_ to make or receive a phone call? It's time
to KonMari this tech into the nearest dumpster.

------
inetknght
tl;dr: Upload your contact lists to your service provider so that your service
provider can block calls from people not in your contact list.

If the blocking doesn't work completely from within my own device then it's
going to be a no from me.

~~~
chrisfinazzo
How would this account for (legitimate) blocked numbers or those that
originate behind a switch? I get calls from recruiters from time to time that
do this as a matter of course.

Although I have no expectation the GOP would actually do this, I would add an
asterisk to the policy...

* If you use these lists for marketing to existing customers, we reserve the right to sue you out of existence. Kindly GFY.

~~~
chadash
> * I get calls from recruiters from time to time that do this as a matter of
> course.*

If this gets widespread adoption, then recruiters and legitimate robocalls
will come up with solutions. The problem I have is that if I block all unknown
numbers, I'll also be blocking my bank/credit card/pharmacy or other
legitimate robocalls. So I can't do this myself. But if _everyone_ blocks
unknown calls, these entities will be forced to come up with a solution (e.g.
sending out emails instead).

The particular example you give of recruiters with blocked numbers rubs me the
wrong way. Like you can call me out of the blue and interrupt my work day, and
you're not even exposing your phone number? Good riddance.

~~~
chrisfinazzo
They likely do it so they don't have people calling back a direct line on a
whim. Usually will ask me to call a different number if I'm actually
interested.

------
hetoh
All thanks to John Oliver :
[https://youtu.be/FO0iG_P0P6M](https://youtu.be/FO0iG_P0P6M)

------
adamch
I'm curious why robocalls aren't protected by freedom of speech. This is the
government censoring small businesses from doing direct marketing.

I don't actually believe this argument, but I'm curious what self-described
free speech absolutists think.

~~~
bduerst
The government isn't censoring anything, they're allowing private
organizations to block spam calls by default.

~~~
thfuran
When all channels of communication are owned and operated by private
companies, it's not quite so clear cut as that. The only means of long-
distance communication not operated by a private company is the USPS and
that's simply not comparable to email/IM/telephony.

~~~
bduerst
Not at all. When all channels are owned and operated by private companies,
then it is _clearly_ not government censorship.

~~~
thfuran
It's clearly not a free speech issue in much the same way that when military
actions are conducted by private contractors instead of soldiers, violations
of the rules of engagement are purely a private commercial issue and not the
fault of the government.

