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

151–160 of 184 posts

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#151

Post by hirundo »

deathanatos wrote: post #92
js2 wrote: 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.…

> this will be my final attempt to notify you It's always the final attempt/notice. Every time. I've received dozens of "final notices" that my 22 year old car's factory warranty (10 yrs, 100k miles) is "about" to expire.

This call is about 3 out of 4 of all phone calls I get.

Years ago the majority of my emails and phone calls became spam. Now it's the great majority.

The majority of people who knock on my door aren't yet religious proselytizers, but it's getting close.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#152

Post by wcunning »

nartz wrote: post #97
deathanatos wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this will be my final attempt to notify you It's always the final attempt/notice. Every time. I've received dozens of "final notices" that my 22 year old car's factory warranty (10 yrs, 100k miles) is "about" to expire.

Get this one all the time. I did have a car warranty that expired (a while ago), so I always wondered if its just a stock message, or if someone actually sold the data of my car warranty.

I've been getting a bunch of sketchy post cards about extended warranties using wrong language about my warranty just expiring on a car I purchased used (9 years old, 50k miles, 3rd owner according to CarFax). I've been filing postal inspector requests on their bulk mail code every time, but no response so far. That particular sorta scam is not limited to phone calls.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#153

Post by paul7986 »

sxates wrote: post #119

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…

RoboKiller hosed my voicemail after uninstalling it and they didn't hose it via my device but actual voicemail line got hosed and AT&T has tried to fix it with no avail.

Best solution I've found on iPhone --> Do NoT Disturb --> only allow calls from contacts. Receive texts notifications only from contacts too.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#154

Post by paul7986 »

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…

This can be done (1st request of ur post) easily on iPhone ... Do Not Disturb --> Allow only contacts.

Also, only allow text messages from contacts via edit a contact --> text tone --> emergency bypass on and no text tone if you don't want to hear a sound.

Works great for me... my phone is now all mine again! Scum are ignored & go directly to voicemail.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#155

Post by joshAg »

duxup wrote: post #132
joshAg wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every decision about what to enforce and when has a set of competitors that benefit from that decision and a set of competitors that are disadvantaged from that decision. And over time even a single, small benefit can be enough to guarantee a specific rational actor will win out over its competitors. Certainly not in all cases, but if the issue you have is that individual decisions aren't enough to pick a winner, no…

It's possible, but I'm still not sure I buy into the idea that a given decision that might result in someone failing is picking winners exactly. I can say in a given industry they can't pull some bait and switch... a company that relies on that tacit could go out of business, is that picking winners or regulating poor behavior? Like anything working to maintain some level of competitiveness would be like hitting a mo…

In the extreme form of a free market (some would call that 'in a truly free market'), there is no such thing as regulating out bad behavior because, that is a limitation on actors' freedom within that market. As the view goes, even if everyone in the market agreed on what was bad and how to enforce the regulation, it would be wholely unnecessary to actually regulate such bad action, because all participants are rational actors who will naturally punish that bad behavior themselves by preferring a competitor over the bad actor.

And yes, regulating poor behavior is absolutely picking winners/picking losers/picking specific companies to disadvantage/advantage, and not just because of issues with uneven enforcement. Determining which behaviors are disallowed and which behaviors will be policed by "natural market forces", especially when talking about modifying rules for a preexisting market, means picking winners/losers/who gets advantaged/disadvantaged. This is why encouraging/fostering competition is antithetical to making/maintaining a free market.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#156

Post by wpietri »

RNCTech wrote: post #93
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…

You are one of the few people I have ever seen articulate the problem online. Free marketeers are always conflating a free market with an efficient market. We are aiming for efficient not necessarily free. The two only overlap as you described--basically when all participants have no power and good information. Those circumstances are rarely present. Another analogy I like to give blind conservatives has to do with r…

Not sure why you're getting downvoted; I agree. One can't have all the freedoms, as they conflict. E.g., my freedom to burn things for fun may clash with other people's freedom to own a house. Free markets are very free on certain dimensions, while very constrained on others.

As an example, I used to work for financial traders. The exchanges were in key ways extremely free markets; anybody with the dough could buy the commodities they wanted quickly, cheaply, and easily. But the exchanges self-regulated very strongly. It was very clear to everybody at the company that making an exchange mad was Very Bad; rules had to be followed. And even getting allowed to trade on the exchange was a difficult and complicated process.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#158

Post by neltnerb »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #131
jimhefferon wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would not call Bernie Sanders's plan socializing the healthcare system? (Serious question.)

As far as I know, people are only talking about socializing the health insurance system, not the actual health care providers.

I think the two are pretty closely coupled, if you have a giant insurance provider then they can dictate prices -- if the pharmaceutical companies haven't purchased the agency that does it, of course. It seems to work well enough elsewhere anyway.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#159

Post by bduerst »

cannonedhamster wrote: post #105
bduerst wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Really? What competition is there in the U.S. cellular market? MVNOs are beholden to whomever they buy from. T-Mobile, Sprint, AT&T, Verizon. That's 4 carriers total. Definition of oligopoly: Oligopoly is a market structure with a small number of firms, none of which can keep the others from having significant influence. I can literally buy a SIM card in Europe for my phone that gives me 5 times my monthly usage for…

Verizon, ATT, TMobile, and Sprint compete pretty heavily to get people to switch. If they didn't you wouldn't see as many advertisements or commercials.

Attacking each other on hidden fees to prevent robot spam would be a major selling point, especially since it's so front of mind for so many people.

Re: FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

#160

Post by the_pwner224 »

gnicholas wrote: post #124
anthonybsd wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget coverage issues. IPhones have been worldphones (i.e. works on every carrier) for the past 6+ years. Contracts and termination fees have been phased out for most people for 4 and all people for 2 years. Yet in my case despite paying full price for the latest IPhone I'm stuck with Verizon. Why? Because in one key location where I live it's the only carrier with data coverage.

Try xfinity mobile. They use Verizon's network and you pay $12/gb. You can byod or buy one through them.

They are good for iPhones but not great otherwise. My parents switched to them 6 months ago. They don't allow you to bring another Android phone (yet), so I had to switch from my amazing Galaxy S5 to a S9 purchased through them. Aside from being a major hardware downgrade for my purposes, all their phones have locked bootloaders so you can't mess with them at all (aside from `pm uninstall`ing most bloatware).

You also can't bring a non-iOS/Android phone to their network (aside from iPhones, all devices must be purchased through them).

I plan on buying a Librem 5 when they are released; I will have to switch carriers and pay more every month, but freedom is worth the price.

But for my parents, paying just $7/line in taxes and then 20-30 dollars per month for data is well worth it, even after factoring in the expensive upgrades from the old S8+/Note 7 to their S9+/Note 9 (and yes, the S8+/Note 7 would have worked perfectly fine on their network if not for their asinine restrictions).

Post reply on HN