
Time Warner Cable owes $229K to woman it would not stop calling - leephillips
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/07/us-twc-robocalls-idUSKCN0PH2H920150707
======
backprojection
I find it odd that there's no universal system for blocking calls from
specific numbers. I'm guessing you could implement a spam filter, so
Harassment/telemarketing wouldn't be a problem.

~~~
byuu
My phone has a call-blocking feature, and I even use a service that routes
private callers through an 800-number to get their unspoofed ANI. Yet one debt
collector calls me from 200 different numbers. They change the number every
2-3 days. (it's for a debt I consider invalid, and beyond the 10 year statute
of limitations anyway, so I won't ever pay it.)

I think what we need is an Adblock for phone numbers that categorizes all
spammers, debt collectors, etc and blocks them instantly on everyone's phones.

~~~
rwallace
Sounds like the practical near-term solution would be a white list: only allow
calls from a list of known callers.

~~~
RogerL
If you mean what I think you mean I think that is unworkable for most of us.
Drop your car off at the shop for some work. Mechanic calls you from his cell
phone because it's handy and the shop line is tied up. You never get it. Or
school nurse calls you about an emergency. Neighbor calls you to tell you your
dog got out from the back yard. That kind of stuff is about the only reason I
have voice service - I don't use the damn thing to talk for the most part.

~~~
rwallace
I do mean what you think I mean, and I understand what you're saying, but if
the sort of volume of spam people are talking about became the norm, for me it
would be either white list or stop owning a phone at all. Between those two
options, white list seems the better one.

------
EGreg
There is a lawyer who makes a nice amount every year (more than an average
Silicon Valley salary) suing the telemarketers that call him.

I was wondering if such a lawyer would partner with others -- but anyway he
released a book on how to be a parasite on parasites and get paid doing a
service to society. Does anyone have a link?

[http://www.amazon.com/How-Sue-Telemarketer-Stephen-
Ostrow/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/How-Sue-Telemarketer-Stephen-
Ostrow/dp/0615338178)

------
michaelrkn
I sued a telemarketer once and got a few thousand dollars:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4023834](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4023834)

~~~
squeaky-clean
That was a great read! And thank you for providing sources on the laws.

I've been getting cell phone calls for years now, several times a week, from
companies asking for someone who isn't me, mostly debt collectors, but also
home security sales. It's always the same name, and I'm pretty sure this
person is using my phone number as a fake number for themselves (or maybe it's
just an area code mistake or something). I've told them many times they have a
wrong number and to stop calling.

Do you know if this still applies when someone else has a relationship with
the business but is providing false information?

I'm not great at reading legal documents, but it seems like the definition of
telemarketer only applies to sales and charitable donations (so it won't apply
to the creditors)?

------
anotherevan
I have an old analogue modem hooked to our phone line, so when we receive an
incoming call the number pops up on my computer screen (and the lounge TV
screen if XMBC is being used at the time.) It is also cross-referenced with my
address book so if it is a known number, it also displays the name of the
caller.

One problem though is here in Australia, a lot of telemarketers, etc., have
the caller ID comes up as private. Also, my mum, mother-in-law, sister-in-law
and one of my clients all have private numbers, so that’s five likely sources
when I see a private number. The problem is there’s only one of those sources
I actually want to talk to (not saying which one, but it aint the
telemaketers.)

Would love a device similar to the one cmdkeen mentioned available in the UK
that will screen unknown numbers and voice prompt them.

I’ve occasionally pondered using Asterisk or similar open-source PBX to create
a system like that. However it is in the queue behind about four other pet
projects…

~~~
incarnate
Telstra are selling the "Call Guardian 301" as well now which sounds like the
same device as cmdkeen mentioned: [https://www.telstra.com.au/home-
phone/handsets](https://www.telstra.com.au/home-phone/handsets)

~~~
anotherevan
Hey thanks for that! I'll check it out.

------
fractallyte
Better yet, _encourage_ nuisance callers! If you're in the UK, it's possible
to set up a 'premium rate' phone number - which means the caller has to pay to
call you.

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23869462](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23869462)

------
tomerico
Is there anything I could do in a similar situation? I receive robocalls from
several sketchy locations multiple times a day. I installed a call blocker on
my phone which sometimes works, but would love to make it stop.

~~~
guessbest
I use Google Voice. It picks up the spam pretty efficiently.

------
kendallpark
It is refreshing to see the common person prevailing against Big Corp.

------
staticelf
$229K for 150+ calls? Please tell TWC to call me! Unfortunately for me though,
there is never such crazy amounts when suing in the country where I reside.

~~~
interpol_p
It seems reasonable. The article states that almost half the calls occurred
_after_ she had sued them and well after she had objected to the calls and
corrected her identity with the company.

~~~
notahacker
A payout of $229k is a terribly large payout for a minor irritation caused by
sheer incompetence on the part of the defendant. Lives and limbs are
frequently valued lower.

I mean, the average British mobile phone owner probably receives 100 or so
irritating automated telemarketing calls a year, all of them worthless spam
and many of them originating from the same party - can we all have $229k too?

~~~
vacri
Part of the reason it's so high is due to contempt-of-court issues

~~~
wodenokoto
I miss clicked. How do I un-down vote you?

~~~
joshuapants
You can't, but I sent an upvote to balance it out.

------
rjempson
She won the lottery.

------
ajmurmann
$229K? Time Warner won't even notice that's gone. Should have been $229
million otherwise they won't learn anything from this.

~~~
Hermel
Why should business units that are part of a large company be punished harder
than those who are part of a small company? Do you also believe that people
with high life expectancy should stay longer in prison?

A fine should be based on the damage done. The 1500$ per phone call in this
case already seem excessive to me. What's the damage of getting distracted by
an unwanted phone call? 2$? 10$? 15$?`Certainly not 1500$.

~~~
wpietri
That is one way to do it, but not the only way. Scandinavia, for example,
bases fines on income:

[http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-...](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-
home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/)

The theory here is that punishment is meant to change behavior, so the impact
has to be proportional.

> What's the damage of getting distracted by an unwanted phone call?

Even on this theory, you have to scale the damages in relation to the odds of
getting away with it. Suppose I run a store and steal a dollar from each
customer. Let's say only 1 in 1000 notices and cares enough to talk to the
police. Should my fine be $1, which is negligible? $1,000, so I break even? Or
greater, so that there's an actual penalty?

~~~
vacri
The public transport system in my hometown of Melbourne has a two-tiered fine
system if you're caught travelling without a ticket. ~$75 if you pay on the
spot (but you forfeit the right to contest in court) or $250 if you don't.
They were actually losing a few court cases, so brought in the two-tiered
system.

I call it the 'fuck the poor' system, because poor people generally don't have
the ability to pay $75 on demand. Paying $75 is a lot more convenient than
having to find time and the know-how to contest things in court. For
comparison, a day's travel costs ~$7.50.

I'd heartily welcome an income-scaled penalty system, even though I am not
poor myself. A fine that is crushing to poor people is a mere momentary
inconvenience for wealthy people, which isn't the point of being penalised.

~~~
maccard
Or you could buy a ticket, like the rest of us do.

~~~
vacri
Frankly, that's a pissweak argument against significantly harsher penalties
for poor people vs wealthy people. The transgression committed is the same, so
the punitive impact should be the same. Instead we get a much reduced penalty
for wealthy folks (both relative and absolute) - and the difference has zero
to do with the nature of the transgression.

This particular penalty is 25% of the full amount if you happen to be decently
monied at the point of being fined - it's almost explicitly a 'poor tax'.
Almost.

