top | item 19920539

FCC Chairman Proposes Robocall Blocking by Default

351 points| daegloe | 6 years ago |fcc.gov | reply

180 comments

order
[+] duxup|6 years ago|reply
According to Ars they want to leave it up to the carriers if they want to charge for it, if that is accurate and the robocall problems escalate then you could end up paying for it by default ... or just get robocalls all day.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/ajit-pais-roboca...

"It will cost $X a month for service, and $Y more if you want to be able to use it..."

And as a revenue stream I worry this could create a perverse disincentive for carriers, why deal with a problem that makes people give us more money?

[+] hedvig|6 years ago|reply
The more I look at things as I age, the more I see market based solutions as only benefiting the supplier and always hurting the consumer.
[+] hedora|6 years ago|reply
This sort of incentive scheme is the main reason credit card companies can charge transaction fees to vendors (for “fraud prevention”).

At this point we all effectively pay an extra few percent sales tax for their “services”, when simply securing the payment network would cost much less than that.

[+] bduerst|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] js2|6 years ago|reply
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. Transcription, for your amusement: Hi this is Carolyn calling from reliable resource communications. Reliable resource communications is a telecommunications service used by other companies to notify consumers on their behalf. I have made numerous attempts to reach you regarding an entry form that was filled out in your name within the last 12 to 18 months to receive a new car. Now this will be my final attempt to notify you that your name was pulled and you are going to receive one of our top three major prizes. It will be in your best interest to give me a call back at soon as possible. My number is 984-292-1515 at extension 3:21. We are not a telemarketing agency nor timeshare and this is not a cold call please do not ignore this message. I'm very aware of the do not call list but wouldn't be calling unless someone actually answered. This is a time sensitive matter and I do look forward to hearing from you. Once again congratulations my name is Carolyn.

[+] deathanatos|6 years ago|reply
> 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.

[+] hangonhn|6 years ago|reply
What's this voice captcha you use?
[+] mehrdadn|6 years ago|reply
For the captcha, do you have any proposal for what to do when the caller is legitimate but doesn't speak English?
[+] dmazin|6 years ago|reply
Are there any other, maybe more consumer-friendly, anti-robocall tools?
[+] dgdas9|6 years ago|reply
Wasn't her name Carolyn?
[+] paulgb|6 years ago|reply
Direct link to the news release (PDF): https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-357464A1.pdf

tl;dr the action would allow carriers to default to blocking calls on the part of their customers. Once SHAKEN/STIR (caller ID authentication) is available, this means carriers can block calls that don't include authenticated caller ID. Presumably they already could do this if the customer opted in.

This all seems like a good idea, but I think Pai is overselling it a bit by calling it "bold."

[+] jessriedel|6 years ago|reply
> Today, many voice providers have held off developing and deploying call blocking tools by default because of uncertainty about whether these tools are legal under the FCC’s rules.

Is this really true? How absolutely dysfunctional things must be.

[+] btown|6 years ago|reply
Pai, overselling something? I'm shocked.

That said, this is exactly what a competent FCC should do - in the absence of a larger ruling to require consumer-protecting behavior to be implemented by carriers, it should seek to clarify existing rulings - which is exactly what is happening here. Carriers interpreted an older FCC statement to prohibit them from blocking robocalls by default, and it's likely this was never the intent.

[+] microcolonel|6 years ago|reply
Does this authentication rely on devices, or is the authentication at the carrier level?
[+] j-c-hewitt|6 years ago|reply
Robocalls are a constant annoyance for me (I get maybe 1 per day on average) and almost all of them are criminally fraudulent solicitations of some kind including calls impersonating the Social Security Administration etc.

It's like being forced to read my spam folder with an audible alert. I have to field calls from a lot of clients that I have never spoken to before or have only called them a couple times, so only answering phone calls from recognized numbers isn't really an option.

[+] paulie_a|6 years ago|reply
I get about ten a day and you are dead on. They are all criminally fraudulent. This shouldn't be handled by the FCC but the fbi. Every single person at the robocalling company should be arrested, even the secretary.

This isn't a civil matter, this is criminal and should be treated as such.

[+] dpcan|6 years ago|reply
One!!?!? I am keeping track, and my biggest day was 29 robocalls about 2 weeks ago (all between 7am and 6pm).

I don't always use privacy protection when registering domain names, so my number is out there, and after I get a new domain I get crushed over the next few days with robocalls.

I am in the same boat where I have to answer all the calls or I lose business, so it's a nightmare. Also, I can't even do anything productive on my phone because the calls interrupt everything.

[+] jdenning|6 years ago|reply
It seems pointless to implement any new rules when the bad actors already know that they can just spoof caller ID to use a fake number and avoid any consequences. I'm already on every opt-out list in existence - it does nothing. I've filed complaints with the FCC about people breaking the rules - nothing.

What needs to change:

1) Fix Caller-ID so that it can't be spoofed for fraudlulent purposes

2) Make it easy to report violations of the rules to the FCC

3) Actually enforce the rules

Then the Do Not Call Registry and bans on robocallers might actually work.

[+] jedberg|6 years ago|reply
If this actually happens I will be thankful that at least he did something good during his tenure.

I suppose this will get through since it doesn’t hurt the profits of the telcos. In fact it will give them a new profit center! Because I’m sure that they won’t offer “block by default” for free.

[+] josefresco|6 years ago|reply
> In fact it will give them a new profit center!

And that is why I'll give him 0.0 credit.

[+] raverbashing|6 years ago|reply
Funny, because if they charged all those calls by the price they sell consumer services they would make a lot of money. But no

It's the same thing with "USPS going bankrupt", charge commercial mail its actual cost (x10 what costs now) and see the money come in. You get subsidized cost if you actually buy a physical stamp and glue it to your letter

[+] m463|6 years ago|reply
I suspect everything he does is vetted by the telcos.

I think another way to implement it that would be "telco friendly" would be to charge for each phone call, even if it doesn't connect.

[+] hedora|6 years ago|reply
Why don’t we just fine the telco $10 each time they connect an obviously fraudulent call?

The fact that they’re still using signaling system 7 is not a defense for their negligence.

[+] justinmchase|6 years ago|reply
Because the people appointed are essentially placed there by companies that profit more by having the system the way it is right now.
[+] paul7986|6 years ago|reply
I have my iPhone on Do not Disturb allow only contacts to ring my phone.

Also, for each contact I want to be notified about their texts Ive edited each contact > text tone —> Emergency Bypass on and no text tone.

My phone is now back to what I feel belongs to me and not scum using MY phone to bother me for their benefit.

[+] sxates|6 years ago|reply
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 they even get to your phone. Seems to work well.

[+] paul7986|6 years ago|reply
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.

[+] korethr|6 years ago|reply
I will welcome a workable solution to the robocall problems. In the interim, they provide a source of entertainment.

The most common ones I get are from The Credit Card Company to tell me that because of my excellent credit history, I have qualified to get my credit card directly through them at a lower interst rate, instead of having it resold to me through Visa or Mastercard. For these calls, I'll generate a fake card number, SSN, name, address, etc, and start answering their questions. Inevitably, when the number comes back as bogus, they get angry, and yell at me to tell me how much of a cocksucking faggot I am and that they're going to come rape my daughter. I laugh at their attempts to form insults being less coherent than their English in general and move on with my day.

Of course, as soon as I tried to start recording these calls, they became much less frequent. I can't help but wonder if my number hasn't become blacklisted by these scam centers in India and the Philippines as a known unprofitable time waster or something. Why waste your time calling someone you know you can't get anything out of when there's lower-effort marks out there which will be more profitable?

All the same, I'd prefer not to have deal with these guys, so any actually workable solution would be welcome.

Edit: Hah! While reviewing this post, I got yet another call from these guys. And I got the most persistent one of 'em I've had yet. They're getting good with semi-plausible responses to the most common deflections. But, their geography skills aren't much better than mine. Apparently Lebanon is in Canada.

[+] nullc|6 years ago|reply
> Inevitably, when the number comes back as bogus, they get angry, and yell at me

I was really surprised the first time I got a got a bunch of obscenities out of one of these scammers-- I figured they'd consider being screwed with just a cost of doing business.

Weird.

Aside: I went from a couple a day to none in the last three days after saying "DO NOT HANG UP. You have reached the US department of illicit telephone communication"<click>. Perhaps a coincidence.

[+] bcheung|6 years ago|reply
How will this be implemented from a technology and policy perspective?

The idea is one I am definitely supportive of. My phone rarely comes out of DnD now because of the robocallers.

But the devil is in the details. Forcing people to add someone to their contact list before being able to receive calls from them will probably be a bit draconian.

Another possible solution would be that someone can request access to call you and there is some service that verifies their identity and presents that information to you.

"[NAME] is requesting permission to contact you through [VOICE CALLS, EMAIL, TEXT]. Allow/Deny?"

Another good solution might be to add something equivalent to HTTPS / SSL certs, where only secure and verified identities can contact you.

[+] wavefunction|6 years ago|reply
I'd settle for non-spoofable CallerID
[+] nartz|6 years ago|reply
1. Why can we not ban spoofed numbers?

2. It would be great if instead they introduced legislation that made it dead simple to sue robocallers, i.e. - request your call records from carrier - submit said call records through online portal proving excessive calls

[+] post_break|6 years ago|reply
It's hard to verify caller ID with current tech is why. Well hard, more like costs money to verify.
[+] mitch3x3|6 years ago|reply
This will probably get buried, but I’ll give my personal solution to reducing the number of robocalls over the past few months. Be a robot. Either answer the phone with absolute silence or have a very loud dial tone playing. It might be a coincidence, but I’m fairly certain this has put me on robocall blacklists. Bonus points if they give you a callback number to a call center... just keep spam calling them with a loud dial tone. I only get a couple of calls per week now.
[+] mydpy|6 years ago|reply
Does anyone have statistics on the impact of robocallers? They're ubiquitous and universally obnoxious. I haven't seen any reporting on their effectiveness for the services they're advertising for. I wonder why do they even bother.

I understand these calls mostly take advantage of unsuspecting people, but I still can't imagine the impact these calls are making financially.

[+] fulldecent2|6 years ago|reply
There is only one actual solution to this problem.

1. Get the list of phone numbers of everybody working at AT&T (Sony style) 2. Set up robocalls randomly from each of these numbers to each of the other numbers 3. Share this list and your specific howto instructions with three other people

Every other solution fails.

[+] olliej|6 years ago|reply
I feel the correct solution (given the current admin, and U politics in general) is just to stop allowing telcos to charge for receiving calls. Fundamentally for everything they say about robocalls, it's still profitable for a telco if you ever pick up.
[+] onepremise|6 years ago|reply
This should be a no brainer. Robocalls should be illegal and blocked by your phone provider. Must the chairmen really make an exploit a profit margin for corporations? We need somebody in the FCC that can at least understand technology and consumers.
[+] chapium|6 years ago|reply
I disagree with having the service providers block the calls. Shouldn't that be up to the consumer? Having your carrier block a call seems like an overreach. I feel this erodes trust in the phone system even more.
[+] dymk|6 years ago|reply
How is a consumer supposed to reliably block robocall without help from the provider? The provider is the only entity in this system that has the information needed to curb robocalling.
[+] JohnFen|6 years ago|reply
> Shouldn't that be up to the consumer?

The telephone provider is the only one who has the technical ability to block these calls. But I agree that it should only do so with the consent of the subscriber.

[+] bcheung|6 years ago|reply
Sounds like consumers would have a choice.

From the link:

> He expects providers to offer consumers robust, free call blocking tools based on analytics & consumer contact lists.

I do have some privacy concerns about the contact lists being exposed but in general this seems like a good thing.

[+] jawns|6 years ago|reply
Presumably they would be blocking it on the consumer's behalf, with the consumer's consent, through an opt-in program.
[+] al2o3cr|6 years ago|reply
99% of the robocalls I see nowadays are using forged caller ID.

Having the provider drop them is analogous to having ISPs drop packets with forged source IPs.

[+] koolba|6 years ago|reply
Off by default for scammy caller ID seems like a reasonable default. Bored seniors can always enable it back.
[+] teknopaul|6 years ago|reply
Is there any legitimate use case for robocalls at all? Can we not make it illegal punishable with the death sentence? Would any law abidng citizen be affected? Presuming post and sms messages are still allowed.

Hypothetically, natch.

[+] burntoutcase|6 years ago|reply
> Can we not make it illegal punishable with the death sentence?

I think all spammers should be dealt with in the manner Vlad Tepes used to deal with Turks, criminals, and people who talk at the theater. However, we're going to need a lot of thick, sturdy bamboo stakes if we're going to impale every spammer we find.

[+] DrWumbo|6 years ago|reply
This is awful. There's no chance of their system having a 0% false positive rate (positive in this case meaning spam). Even a low FPR means that potentially important calls will get blocked by default.