Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

fcc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 184 posts

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#71

Post by j-c-hewitt »

dpcan wrote: post #62
j-c-hewitt wrote: post #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…

One!!?!? I am keeping track, and my biggest day was 29 robocalls about 2 weeks ago (all between 7am and 6pm). I don't always use privacy protection when registering domain names, so my number is out there, and after I get a new domain I get crushed over the next few days with robocalls. I am in the same boat where I have to answer all the calls or I lose business, so it's a nightmare. Also, I can't even do anything p…

I cursed out a robot trying to sell me solar panels yesterday, but the robot just called me back again the same day, trying to sell me solar panels again. It really is unpleasant. I used to get cruise ship scam calls that always started with the sound of a fog horn.

I think people who run these robocall companies should be burned at the stake.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#72

Post by hedora »

duxup wrote: post #37

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... "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…

This sort of incentive scheme is the main reason credit card companies can charge transaction fees to vendors (for “fraud prevention”).

At this point we all effectively pay an extra few percent sales tax for their “services”, when simply securing the payment network would cost much less than that.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#73

Post by koboll »

hedvig wrote: post #52
duxup wrote: post #37

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... "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…

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.

The house always wins.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#74

Post by paulie_a »

j-c-hewitt wrote: post #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…

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.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#75

Post by 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.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#76

Post by wpietri »

hedvig wrote: post #52
duxup wrote: post #37

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... "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…

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.

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.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#77

Post by bduerst »

thfuran wrote: post #63
bduerst wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#78

Post by bduerst »

duxup wrote: post #37

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... "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…

Spam communication blocking isn't a revenue stream in other markets (e.g. email, snail mail, etc.), and while cell service may seem like an oligopoly, there is enough competition that customers will scoff at switching to a provider that nickel and dimes on spam blocking.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#79

Post by politician »

koboll wrote: post #75

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 r…

Great start!

For all of the legacy web forms and apps that require a phone number field be populated, carriers must provide routing for a standardized blackhole number. No business is allowed to reject the blackhole number as an invalid phone number.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#80

Post by joshAg »

duxup wrote: post #61
hedvig wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I really wish there w as a party interested in free markets and fostering competition. Rather the GoP whose rhetoric talks about free markets, is really just all about picking winners themselves and legislating profits for their allies.

It's the same thing.

In order to create any free market and foster competition, an entity has to decide and then enforce the rules for the market, which allows that entity to pick a winner by the rules it choose to write and then enforce.

Plus, in mature markets, fostering competition is antithetical to maintaining the "freeness" of the market, because it requires punishing the "winners" in order to ensure competitors, by things like breaking up competitors that are able to leverage winning in one area to compete and then win in another area (ie antitrust/antimonopoly), invalidating patents/trade secrets/intellectual property/etc. when ever something is so dominant that without access to it no one can compete, and limiting how competitors can compete (eg preventing them from limiting how purchasers can use their products).

And of course, every decision made for how to implement the kinds of issues outlined in the above paragraph is an opportunity to pick who wins, too.

Post reply on HN