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

111–120 of 184 posts

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#111

Post by TallGuyShort »

bogomipz wrote: post #103
TallGuyShort wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>"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." What would be an example of giving the public sector much decision making power "relatively free from consequence?" Would this be the FCC in this context? I ask because I'm genuinely interested in the point your making…

I had actually entirely forgotten I was still on the FCC thread after reading the comment I replied to, but sure, the FCC is also a good example of this. Take net neutrality for instance. That whole debate was centered on what the FCC would do - very little talk about legislative action. It is de-facto up to one agency that answers to an executive with all-time-low levels of public confidence, that also has an abnormally strong reputation for being in bed with industry. The current chairman has joked about it and been investigated for corruption, the prior chairman was formerly a major lobbyist for telco. There's other examples, like the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto's board (I'm like 90% sure I'm correctly remembering the agency and the company - I'd double-check myself but I need to get back to a work issue and wanted to answer you soon-ish).

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#113

Post by burntoutcase »

teknopaul wrote: post #108

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.

> 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.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#114

Post by thfuran »

bduerst wrote: post #77
thfuran wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#115

Post by rubatuga »

vonmoltke wrote: post #106
DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. How is that clear?

Think NSA

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#116

Post by zanmat0 »

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #102
paulie_a wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

>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.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#117

Post by jessriedel »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #14
jessriedel wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

If it takes a decade and you wait until 50% of phone calls are spam, it's dysfunctional. Glacial speed is not the same as careful scrutiny.

You either need to update regulations on a fast time scale, or a way to encourage actual competition (so the heavy anti-trust-like regulations aren't required). Otherwise, you've just given up on there ever being meaningful progress/innovation in the industry.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#118

Post by coding123 »

paulie_a wrote: post #74
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.

here here. though I would have to say I've been a tough critic of the FCC, but my robocall volume has dropped from 25 a day to about 4. A few big busts are probably the reason it's dropping off. Second to that is probably fear from getting busted at this point.

I still agree with you though, the robocall companies that you can find from google should be arrested. Maybe even slice off a finger?

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#119

Post by 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.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#120

Post by jorblumesea »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #81
wpietri wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

I think the issue is political. Completely socializing it is still a hot potato for many, but healthcare as an industry needs to have stringent regulations in general. For example, strong rules around patient rights and patient privacy. But "socialized medicine" is a really dirty world in many parts of the country.

So you have a highly regulated free market that is neither a free market nor does it have the advantages of complete regulation similar to Europe. It just ends up being a really inefficient system.

It's a very US problem where we somehow managed to get the worst of both worlds.

Post reply on HN