Good start. Next, put the people running these scam phone providers in jail.
Or start assassinating them. They prey on the most vulnerable Americans. Why not declare war on them and start decapitating their organizations?
[flagged]
FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
81–90 of 281 posts
Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
#82Just kill the phone. It's a terrible anachronism. If you insist on voice you can attach an ogg/mp3 file to your email.
I'm not one of the people down-voting this, I'm inclined to sort of agree with you. Where you lost me was attaching files to an email. Are you really suggesting this solution has fewer problems than telephones?
Well, isn’t that essentially what voicemail is? We already have a mechanism to send voices as files—it’s just that not all voicemail systems deliver them in that format.
It wouldn’t solve everything, but considering how many scammers rely on real-time urgency in their calls, shifting phone communication toward asynchronous messages could actually help. It would undercut that pressure tactic, and it would also make record-keeping much easier.
Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
#83More details: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-25-694A1.txt
Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
#84I 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.
Onvoy VOIP numbers are rife with scammers using them (Sinch).
Really sad how these rules do nothing to stop them
Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
#85Before 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've lost track of how many times I've seen people say something like, "I gave them something so they would go away, but they keep calling me." So yes, bothering people until you get some money from them is probably viable. Keep in mind that it doesn't have to work on everyone. If it works on 1% of their victims it's probably still profitable.
Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
#86https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-25-737A1.txt doc with list of the removed company names.
There are a LOT of ISPs on this list. I wonder what's going to happen to all the legitimate VOIP users? No more cable phone lines, effectively?
Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I can imagine there are many reasons the US doesn't fix this..one of which probably that much of US customer service is outsourced to people outside the US! This. Gotta have your round robin of foreign call centers be able to spoof the main customer service line numbers for whoever they're contracted to represent. Personally I think that should all be done in software these days, not something supported at the telec…
This isn't even an unreasonable feature to implement. We just need something like SSL certs: Has Legitimate Business holding phone number XYZ granted other entity the right to use their identity?
Exactly. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to spoof numbers, but all of them are people acting on behalf of the owner of the number being spoofed. Enforce that.
Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
#88EVE Online has had a functional anti-spam system for many years: it costs you some money to contact someone who doesn't have you in their contacts. The amount is configurable and the feature can be turned off. You as the receiver keep 70% of the fee. Think of how quickly spam would go away.
Or just make callers cover all the costs, like in some countries. Still, I really wish there were an option to charge incoming callers as you suggested—because honestly, about 90% of calls I get outside my circle are unsolicited. That way, only the 10% that truly matter would reach me. Right now, I’m on a strict “no-ring” policy: if a call turns out to be legitimate, I’ll call back. But nobody gets real-time PSTN acc…
> Or just make callers cover all the costs,
Wait, who covers the cost in the US?
Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
#89Good start. Next, put the people running these scam phone providers in jail.
Or start assassinating them. They prey on the most vulnerable Americans. Why not declare war on them and start decapitating their organizations?
I pray and yearn for the day that they legalize and allow drone striking ransomware operators.
Re: FCC bars providers for non-compliance with robocall protections
#90For KYC-like needs, foreign companies or bad actors are registering their LLC in Wyoming which satisfies the requirements, according to a friend of mine who’s in the business…