Live data from Hacker News

FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

fcc.gov

41–50 of 184 posts

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#41

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.

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.

> * 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.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#42
post #4

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.

> In fact it will give them a new profit center! And that is why I'll give him 0.0 credit.

Its easier for an FCC chair in the future working in citizens interests to mandate an already existing, optional extension than to mandate the adoption of call blocking from nothing.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#43
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd settle for non-spoofable CallerID

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.

Wait is that a thing right now?!

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#44
post #24

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 cal…

I'd settle for non-spoofable CallerID

Yes, agree.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#45
post #32

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.

I tend towards freedom of speech more than most. I can understand an argument that says calling someone is freedom of speech. I don't think this violates that though. Of course, it will all depend on the actual implementation.

A good analogy would be stopping someone on the street and trying to talk to them. In most cases, you have that right. But the other person also has the right to ignore you.

It sounds like the phone companies won't block without your permission, they will give you (the consumer) the tools to block based on your own criteria.

Social media platforms have different levels of interruption from direct messages depending on whether someone is already your friend. They categorize direct messages from strangers and suspected spammers differently but they usually still provide a section you can check to see them. Gmail does the same with the spam folder.

I could see something like that where you have a separate spam section where you can see a history of who tried to call you but don't get notifications from it.

A system like that would be hard to argue that they are blocking freedom of speech.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#46
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.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#47
post #4

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.

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

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?

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#48

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.

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.

How do you define "legitimate"?

Because however you define it, there will undoubtedly be a more legitimate way of contacting the person.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#49
post #3

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.…

Are there any other, maybe more consumer-friendly, anti-robocall tools?

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#50
post #4

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.

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

How can you expect businesses to survive if you don't offer them everything at a subsidy? That's downright anti-capitalist.
Post reply on HN