FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections • Hacker News Board

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#191

Post by pdabbadabba » Mon, Aug 25, 2025, 10:03 PM UTC

rstuart4133 wrote: post #181

Meanwhile, here in Australia ... It used to be as bad as others describe here, if not worse. A few years ago my 92 yo mother disconnected her land line because she was getting 20 calls a day. The spammers had figured out the number range of her retirement village, and hammered it mercilessly. But other day I was reflecting on how oddly silent it has become on the phone spam front. This article made me wonder - just h…

> Yet now in 2025, they had a total victory, they've annihilated all phone spam, and I didn't notice for months. No media release, no trumpeting from the roof tops. They just quietly and effectively did their job.

How?

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#192

Post by afavour » Mon, Aug 25, 2025, 10:12 PM UTC

HankStallone wrote: post #186

thephyber wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. I didn’t realize how bad it got until my father stopped answering calls. It turned out he was getting (no hyperbole) 90 calls a day from spammers and vendors he had no relationship with. I used the iOS filter, the AT&T filter, and turned on the shortcut so the phone doesn’t ring unless the caller is in his contacts. The problem is that it already changed his behavior. He doesn’t answer the phone anymore, even if…

That's wild. I'm in the US, and I get maybe 1-2 spam calls a month. I get more spam texts than calls, though not many of those either. I've never done anything special to try to prevent them, so I wonder what the difference is.

My theory is age. I get very few calls. Neither does my wife. My mother in law is called multiple times a day. I assume there’s some basic demographic data available out there and they’re targeting retirees because they know (statistically speaking) they’re an easy hit.

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#193

Post by BobaFloutist » Mon, Aug 25, 2025, 10:16 PM UTC

0xTJ wrote: post #106

reactordev wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shut one down, another pops up in its place.

This is why executives need to be held personally responsible when they direct a company to wilfully, blatantly, and repeatedly disregard laws to the detriment of society. These are people who should be in prison for a time, and barred from serving as an officer of a corporation for more time after that. Eventually people get the message; you don't get to break laws just because you hide behind the name of a company.

"Limited Liability" should not mean "No Liability"

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#194

Post by rconti » Mon, Aug 25, 2025, 10:20 PM UTC

afavour wrote: post #192

HankStallone wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's wild. I'm in the US, and I get maybe 1-2 spam calls a month. I get more spam texts than calls, though not many of those either. I've never done anything special to try to prevent them, so I wonder what the difference is.

My theory is age. I get very few calls. Neither does my wife. My mother in law is called multiple times a day. I assume there’s some basic demographic data available out there and they’re targeting retirees because they know (statistically speaking) they’re an easy hit.

My 86 year old father regularly gets calls from his "grandson" (who does not exist)... who is in jail, and needs help.

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#195

Post by BobaFloutist » Mon, Aug 25, 2025, 10:23 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #69

coldpie wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can someone from outside the US make my phone ring? Why can't I opt out of calls sourced internationally? Seems like an easy way to fix the problem. There is no reason for anyone overseas to call me, and if someone US-based does phone spamming, we can prosecute them.

An easy way to "fix" the problem for closet dwelling US nerds like us who've decided we don't want to use the telephone anymore. Everyone else in the world isn't like us, and have to actually use their phones to talk to real people everywhere. Pretty much everyone has family abroad, etc... This just isn't a serious suggestion. Which is why this is likely to end up getting rolled back. Surely most of these providers a…

>Pretty much everyone has family abroad, etc

Yeah, and they use Whatsapp, Telegram, or Facetime, or Messenger to connect.

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#196

Post by everforward » Mon, Aug 25, 2025, 10:27 PM UTC

nutjob2 wrote: post #145

teeray wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think there are HIPAA issues there. You can't just SMS a random number medical information, it ends up being something like "$HOSPITAL has a message for you, log in at $RANDOM_EHR or call us back at $NUMBER".

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#197

Post by nutjob2 » Mon, Aug 25, 2025, 10:30 PM UTC

nkrisc wrote: post #188

nutjob2 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The text message should explain the nature of the call and which number to call in reply. That’s basically how most SMS scams work.

Are phone calls less scammy?

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#198

Post by collinfunk » Mon, Aug 25, 2025, 10:34 PM UTC

afavour wrote: post #192

HankStallone wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's wild. I'm in the US, and I get maybe 1-2 spam calls a month. I get more spam texts than calls, though not many of those either. I've never done anything special to try to prevent them, so I wonder what the difference is.

My theory is age. I get very few calls. Neither does my wife. My mother in law is called multiple times a day. I assume there’s some basic demographic data available out there and they’re targeting retirees because they know (statistically speaking) they’re an easy hit.

FWIW, I am in my 20s and receive many phone calls. But maybe your theory is correct and I am an outlier.

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#199

Post by anonymousiam » Mon, Aug 25, 2025, 10:37 PM UTC

The only Google service that I still regularly use is Google Voice. They've partnered with NoMoRobo and their call screening really works. I get 2-3 spam calls and a few spam SMS texts per day, and they are all filtered so I don't see them unless I look in the Spam folder.

Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections

#200

Post by pentamassiv » Mon, Aug 25, 2025, 10:48 PM UTC

afavour wrote: post #192

HankStallone wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's wild. I'm in the US, and I get maybe 1-2 spam calls a month. I get more spam texts than calls, though not many of those either. I've never done anything special to try to prevent them, so I wonder what the difference is.

My theory is age. I get very few calls. Neither does my wife. My mother in law is called multiple times a day. I assume there’s some basic demographic data available out there and they’re targeting retirees because they know (statistically speaking) they’re an easy hit.

I think an important factor is also how long you had the same number. I switch numbers every couple of years because I get a new contract and moving the number to the new company is such a hassle. Over time you share your number with more and more companies and people who sell it or get breached.

My parents had their number for ~30 years. I never get spam calls or texts. They get one once a week or so (this is in Germany, we get a lot fewer of these calls).