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

The FCC Has Fined Robocallers $208M, Collected $6,790

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 432 posts

Re: The FCC Has Fined Robocallers $208M, Collected $6,790

#331

Post by viraptor »

jlarocco wrote: post #296
lukebuehler wrote: post #274

A lot of people point out that telecom companies should do something but aren't because it's lucrative for them or too expensive to fix. Are telecom companies not realizing how much they are hurting themselves with this in the long term? People will stop using phone numbers altogether. Using the phone has become such a pain, at least in the US, that whenever I can, I used different ways of communicating. WhatsApp, iM…

Is there a reason the FCC can't fine the telecoms for allowing the illegal calls? My guess is they'd fix the problem pretty quick.

Define "illegal call" and how you'd classify that before the call happens. You'll see why it's not done.

Re: The FCC Has Fined Robocallers $208M, Collected $6,790

#332

Post by adrr »

galangalalgol wrote: post #304
adrr wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could easily fine the carrier that is interconnecting the robo callers. The telecom lobby doesn’t want to fix the issues since they make money from robo callers and also selling services to block the robo callers.

The souce may very well be outdide the US, with no sure way to spot spam. I'm all against imperial hegemony and all, but i doubt the UN eould care if they sent some stealth bombers after the spamers.

International carriers still interconnect with a us carrier to deliver the calls. Spam is really easy to detect. Short call durations and lots of different call to numbers.

Re: The FCC Has Fined Robocallers $208M, Collected $6,790

#333

Post by deelowe »

iamthirsty wrote: post #301
jlarocco wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a reason the FCC can't fine the telecoms for allowing the illegal calls? My guess is they'd fix the problem pretty quick.

Telecoms aren't responsible for who uses their service, or what they do on it—thats why they are classified as a utility.

Can we get that same logic applied to data transmissions occurring on the same circuits then?

Re: The FCC Has Fined Robocallers $208M, Collected $6,790

#335

Post by droithomme »

sj4nz wrote: post #325
lukebuehler wrote: post #274

A lot of people point out that telecom companies should do something but aren't because it's lucrative for them or too expensive to fix. Are telecom companies not realizing how much they are hurting themselves with this in the long term? People will stop using phone numbers altogether. Using the phone has become such a pain, at least in the US, that whenever I can, I used different ways of communicating. WhatsApp, iM…

I'm already there wanting to stop using phone numbers. So. Much. There. I haven't had a "land line" in multiple-decades. My short list of "the next thing" requires: - Ability to install on a mobile device without any connection to a "phone number." Phone numbers in my mind are dead. - Skip the synchronous social convention of calling. Everything should be async by default. You don't ever cause someone's device to int…

> I haven't had a "land line" in multiple-decades.

I'd love to have a land line but it completely stopped working decades ago. After deregulation, no one was responsible.

Countless attempts to get anyone to fix it were in vain.

This year I saw a thick line completely knocked down by a fallen tree. I called the power company. They said it was a telephone line not a power line. And that there wasn't anyone left for them to contact to get it fixed. Asking around I found it actually didn't matter. No one was actually using it. No one has land lines any more. The technology is obsolete, irrelevant, and should be removed.

Re: The FCC Has Fined Robocallers $208M, Collected $6,790

#336

Post by makapuf »

solstice wrote: post #262
atoav wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got two unwanted robocalls in the last twenty years (central europe). This seems like a profoundly american issue.

Unwanted calls are an issue in France as well afaik. Not necessarily robocalls but the fact that there isn't a way to opt out from advertising calls (in contrast to Germany's Robinson-Liste) is very annoying.

There is a do not call list (i don't know how it compares to Robinson). It's called Bloctel. But it's not really effective.

Re: The FCC Has Fined Robocallers $208M, Collected $6,790

#337

Post by droithomme »

lukebuehler wrote: post #320
cortesoft wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it make you more or less likely to stay loyal? Phone numbers are already portable, so you don't need to stay loyal currently.

Yes, there is already quite a bit of flexibility to move with your number. Maybe "loyalty" is not the best word. What I meant to say is that, right now, my provider is the one who has substantial control over my main id of communication, i.e. phone number. This adds additional friction to move to a different provider, but also move across borders and so on. As my way of communicating moves onto other services, the te…

> there is already quite a bit of flexibility to move with your number

Oh yeah?

I've been paying for number portability for I guess at least 30 years.

I was just told by my cell provider this week that as of next month the 3G networks are being shut down and I have to buy a new phone from them.

I said sure, I already have an unactivated no-contract phone I got on clearance, let's transfer my number to that one.

They said, sorry, no can do, you can only transfer the number to a phone you bought from us.

I said wait I've been paying for number transferability, something I didn't even want, for literally decades, and you're saying I can't do it?

In the end I bought a $15 flip phone, switched carriers, and now have a stupid new number.

Number portability is a fiction and a scam. I paid that fee for 30 years and it did nothing. Fuck everyone involved in making me pay for that scam. Almost but not quite as bad as insurance, another total scam that never pays and is designed for suckers.

Re: The FCC Has Fined Robocallers $208M, Collected $6,790

#338

Post by syshum »

droithomme wrote: post #335
sj4nz wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm already there wanting to stop using phone numbers. So. Much. There. I haven't had a "land line" in multiple-decades. My short list of "the next thing" requires: - Ability to install on a mobile device without any connection to a "phone number." Phone numbers in my mind are dead. - Skip the synchronous social convention of calling. Everything should be async by default. You don't ever cause someone's device to int…

> I haven't had a "land line" in multiple-decades. I'd love to have a land line but it completely stopped working decades ago. After deregulation, no one was responsible. Countless attempts to get anyone to fix it were in vain. This year I saw a thick line completely knocked down by a fallen tree. I called the power company. They said it was a telephone line not a power line. And that there wasn't anyone left for the…

The technology is also more reliable than modern wireless

I remember many times where everything else was out of service except the good old POTS line...

Re: The FCC Has Fined Robocallers $208M, Collected $6,790

#339

Post by droithomme »

syshum wrote: post #338
droithomme wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I haven't had a "land line" in multiple-decades. I'd love to have a land line but it completely stopped working decades ago. After deregulation, no one was responsible. Countless attempts to get anyone to fix it were in vain. This year I saw a thick line completely knocked down by a fallen tree. I called the power company. They said it was a telephone line not a power line. And that there wasn't anyone left for the…

The technology is also more reliable than modern wireless I remember many times where everything else was out of service except the good old POTS line...

That's great for you in whatever treeless desert area you live in. It's not the case for many others of us and it's kinda pretentious that you know oh so much better.

Re: The FCC Has Fined Robocallers $208M, Collected $6,790

#340

Post by syshum »

droithomme wrote: post #337
lukebuehler wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there is already quite a bit of flexibility to move with your number. Maybe "loyalty" is not the best word. What I meant to say is that, right now, my provider is the one who has substantial control over my main id of communication, i.e. phone number. This adds additional friction to move to a different provider, but also move across borders and so on. As my way of communicating moves onto other services, the te…

> there is already quite a bit of flexibility to move with your number Oh yeah? I've been paying for number portability for I guess at least 30 years. I was just told by my cell provider this week that as of next month the 3G networks are being shut down and I have to buy a new phone from them. I said sure, I already have an unactivated no-contract phone I got on clearance, let's transfer my number to that one. They…

Are you in the US? I assume not because I have never heard of a "number transferability" fee, in the US it is required that carriers allow numbers to be ported out by law, for free
Post reply on HN