I have received a scam text message every day for the last few months. I haven’t received one yet today. Next time someone says something snide about the government remind them of this enforcement.
FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
141–150 of 281 posts
Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
#142Maybe I'm just old, but I remember the tv advertisements for the dubious 900 numbers (remember Miss Cleo?) that you could call, but you had to pay for the time. Is there any law that says that I can't just get one of those for use as my personal number and then give that # out as my contact info?
The phone carriers stopped supporting them: https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/25/business/t-s-decision-wit...
Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
#143At this point I'm firmly of the opinion that "leak this 10 digit code and anyone on the planet can call me relentlessly" is just a broken model. Maybe that worked better when the calls carried a significant cost, but clearly the scammers are able to do this sort of thing at scale. In practice of course, my phone is 100% permanently in "do not disturb" mode and does not ring at all unless I've added you to my contact…
> In practice of course, my phone is 100% permanently in "do not disturb" mode and does not ring at all unless I've added you to my contact list.
I go even further, unless there is a good reason for someone to have the ability disturb me, they're not whitelisted. I have no phones that ring unless it's for a specific and temporary purpose.
A ringing phone is an anachronism, it's incredible to me that people let anyone bother them in this way these days. Its an invasion of ones personal space.
Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
#144I get relentless text and phone spam calls - both robotic and with humans - from just a few voice over Internet platforms. Bandwidth.com, Neutral Tandem, and ALL the brands associated with Sinch ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinch_AB ) like Inteliquent. Many of these companies got cease and desist orders in the past from the FTC. It didn’t help anything. We need to see them fined, shut down, and executives jailed.
Shut one down, another pops up in its place.
Death to good, long live perfection!
Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
#145At this point I'm firmly of the opinion that "leak this 10 digit code and anyone on the planet can call me relentlessly" is just a broken model. Maybe that worked better when the calls carried a significant cost, but clearly the scammers are able to do this sort of thing at scale. In practice of course, my phone is 100% permanently in "do not disturb" mode and does not ring at all unless I've added you to my contact…
As others have alluded, there are unknown third parties who must call you (and you would want their call). For example, the hospital: something has happened with a loved one. We can probably solve this problem with certification. Show me your medical license (or hospital scale equivalent) and you get to make unsolicited calls. Then we allow people to select certified unsolicited calls by category: medical, financial,…
Even in this case, I'd rather get a text message. A mere call doesn't provide any context and is not informative. Maybe your loved one showed up in their ER or maybe it's a billing issue.
The text message should explain the nature of the call and which number to call in reply.
Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
#146I get relentless text and phone spam calls - both robotic and with humans - from just a few voice over Internet platforms. Bandwidth.com, Neutral Tandem, and ALL the brands associated with Sinch ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinch_AB ) like Inteliquent. Many of these companies got cease and desist orders in the past from the FTC. It didn’t help anything. We need to see them fined, shut down, and executives jailed.
> We need to see them fined, shut down, and executives jailed.
Is that what European countries do? Is that why there are no robocalls there?
Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
#147Before I got my phone number, a woman by the name of "Sade" has the number. Recently I've been getting at least one call per day from the same company regarding an extended auto warranty. I've told them politely that this is the wrong number, they keep calling. I've asked them to take my number off their list and they happily agree to, but they keep calling. I've threatened to contact the FCC is they keep calling yet…
I never answer any calls from non-contacts because I assume answering automatically flags the number as "a live one" meaning "potential target who picks up their phone" in any number of nefarious databases. If an outside/unknown number needs me they can leave a message and I'll call them back if the message reveals them to be legit.
I used to get ~6-10 spam calls per day and I would do what you describe: ignore the call. Then I started picking up, immediately muting myself, and waiting. The auto-dialer gives up after exactly 10 seconds of silence and hangs up. This has reduced my spam calls to 1-3 per WEEK.
The downside is sometimes real people call (like a contractor your landlord hired), hear silence, and don't say anything themselves because they're waiting for a "hello?". Whereas ignoring the call would let them actually leave a voicemail which would be useful. As I learned recently: sometimes real people don't call back a 2nd time.
Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
#148At this point I'm firmly of the opinion that "leak this 10 digit code and anyone on the planet can call me relentlessly" is just a broken model. Maybe that worked better when the calls carried a significant cost, but clearly the scammers are able to do this sort of thing at scale. In practice of course, my phone is 100% permanently in "do not disturb" mode and does not ring at all unless I've added you to my contact…
I don't have this problem at all thanks to Pixel Phone. That spam screen feature alone is keeping me on the Android ecosystem. I don't recall one spam call in the last year. And legitimate new caller (not on my contact list) can still reach me after like 5 seconds with the bot.
Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
#149Good start. Next, put the people running these scam phone providers in jail.
Is that what European countries do? Is that why there are no robocalls there?
Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
#150I have been using Pixel phones since they came out and currently have a Pixel 9. They have EXCELLENT spam call blocking. There are a couple other comments below that reference this but I wanted to highlight it at the top. There are other reasons I like Google's phones, but this tops the list.
The assistant integration is great for this reason too. I occasionally get calls come through that are likely SPAM but I've learned to let the assistant answer for me. If it's a spammer, then I waste just a small amount of their time.
It's especially helpful that Google's Assistant has gotten good enough, AND that people making legit but unsolicited calls (like doctor's offices), that people calling don't hang up right away and actually answer the assistant. So I can see what they say and then answer when it's a legit call.
The ratio of SPAM calls to legit calls from unrecognized numbers is still higher for SPAM. But, the frequency is low enough (maybe a few a week), and dealing with them is so easy, that the distraction/annoyance factor is very low to the point that I'm not personally bothered by it anymore.
I've tried to get my grandma to switch to a Pixel phone for her main phone number at home, just for SPAM blocking, but she won't. I don't know how she stands getting multiple calls per hour, it's crazy to put up with when we are there.