Robocall Ban Should Target Texts and Foreign Calls, FCC Chief Says (cnet.com) 56
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has proposed another set of robocall rules, this time to ban malicious calls that spoof caller IDs in text messages and international calls. From a report: The anti-spoofing rules will be voted on by the FCC Aug. 1, and they already have the support of more than 40 state attorneys general, Pai said Monday. These new rules would close the loopholes in targeting international callers, including one-way interconnected VoIP calls, and scammers using text messaging. They are part of the FCC's "multi-pronged approach to battle the noxious intrusion of illegal robocalls, as well as malicious caller ID spoofing," Pai said. Last month, the FCC voted unanimously on a proposal to give mobile phone companies greater power to "aggressively block" unwanted robocalls.
Doing the right thing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ajit Pai? Doing the right thing?
Where's the catch...?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe this "proposal" is just his way of getting a few lobbyists to come and visit his office.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Probably he's been getting the spam and been just as annoyed as everyone else.
Re:Doing the right thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No catch, It's just that Comcast et al. have no dog in this particular fight.
^^^^^^^^
Re:Doing the right thing? (Score:4)
I'm guessing that AT&T and Verizon will label this as a "service" . . . and you will pay for it as a surcharge with your monthly bill. The charges for this "service" will outweigh the lost robocall revenues.
Re: (Score:1)
AT&T already is...
https://itunes.apple.com/us/ap... [apple.com]
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T already is...
https://itunes.apple.com/us/ap... [apple.com]
Except that app and the service it provides are free for AT&T customers, so not so much.
Re: (Score:1)
Or, alternatively, "FCC chief who has consistently acted against the interests of consumers in pustulent ways now behaves in a way that appears to be in line with consumers' interests, so people are naturally suspicious that he's found a way to fuck them over that just appears to not be such a thing"
Re: (Score:1)
This is obviously a conspiracy by the Republicans who control the FCC to get Trump re-elected by fixing robocalling/spam calls!!!
The question is, did the masterminds make a deal with the foreign spammers in the first place in order to create the problem to be solved? Is this actually a false-flag campaign?!?
[No, I actually think it's just people doing the best they can to combat what's plaguing the American people, as it's in the long-term best interests of everyone involved
They don't want to block ... (Score:1, Insightful)
robocalls. The FCC should impose a requirement that the carriers pay the subscriber $100.00 for EACH robocall they receive with no possibility of parole. This would make the carriers "want to block" the calls, and therefore they would.
Currently, they do not "want to block" the calls because they "support" (make money from) them. If they were instead "losing money from" those calls, they would figure out how to get rid of them in an afternoon.
Re: They don't want to block ... (Score:1)
It would also make me setup robocalls to call my own phone constantly. What a stupid idea.
Singles Females in My Area (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
That's what you get for signing up to the MILFMailer!
This will pass because the FCC also gets robocalls (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Calls Blacklist PRO - Call Blocker" by Vlad Lee
I use the same app and love it. I use it the same way you do, in whitelist mode.
The only issue with whitelisting is that I have to remember to turn it off if I am expecting a delivery.
Re: (Score:1)
This will pass because the carriers will use it to add a small surcharge to every phone bill in perpetuity
Just like number portability, E911, and the other junk fees. Pure profit for the carriers. They will stuff congress' pockets full with a small percentage of those dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Other loopholes to close (Score:2)
Pai or someone needs to close the loophole that allows political and non-profit calls too.
Re: Other loopholes to close (Score:1)
I think Congress carved out that exemption, and Congress can't currently agree on if water is wet.
Group text's from emails (Score:2)
Now, I am getting spam from the same type of deal.
How the hell do you block shit like that on a phone?
Re: (Score:2)
I use an Android app for blacklisting calling number and texts on phone. I get Zabbix and Nagios alerts via my ISP's SMTP to SMS gateway.
Re: (Score:3)
I use to have a Unix server send text messages to my phone via text messages when ever a service went down. Did this by sending the email to p"hone #"@carrier.com. Now, I am getting spam from the same type of deal. How the hell do you block shit like that on a phone?
Most carriers allow you to block texts by sending a text to them. For example, with Sprint you can send "spam <number>" to 9999 and they'll block the number and mark it as spam. The number can be a short code, mdm or email address. You can also block domains and all email. Here's a list of available commands [sprint.com] for Sprint.
This sounds like a huge loop hole (Score:3)
that will make robocalling more legal or give them some rights.
This is counter to what I desire, and you should too.
There are two phone numbers there is CID which is what is displayed on your phone and also what is spoofed using a loop hole introduced by corp switch boards that do not want internal extensions displayed.
The real number it the ANI this is the billing number and the true origination of the call, and this is the number I want displayed.
It is fucking useless to report spoofed numbers to the do not call registry and this is what makes this mechanism completely ineffective and useless.
The ANI is the info I want displayed on my phone as it shows the true source of the call and gives me a way to "follow the money".
This is the number that provides legal info as to the source of the call, that info has somehow been restricted as "private".
Every single call made has that info available and this is what the robo dicks are using to hide behind.
The callers don't what their true number displayed because what they are doing is prohibited.
The carriers don't want the number displayed because they derive revenue from the prohibited calls.
The Coup de Gras is that the carriers want to monetize call blocking so they can double dip.
They get paid to allow the calls and then they get paid to block them.
Politicians are terrified that call blocking will stop their own revenue stream, you will notice that all political calls are expressly allowed in any of these call limiting schemes.
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
How does the exchange you are connected to, know the billing number of a phone number that your exchange is *not* connected to?
It has to be told, right?
What do you think call display is?
What do you imagine that your exchange could do to ensure that the number is really coming from where it says it was? How does your exchange know that the call was not routed through specific exchanges before it got to you?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to assume that you didn't pay attention to the remark that I quoted, and didn't pick up on that I was intending to be rhetorical, because at worst your comment is irrelevant to what I was saying.
Let me requote what I was addressing:
And here you are talking about using a new protocol that isn't in every single call yet, so.... while yes, you are right about what you are talking about, it doesn't change the fact that the above poster was wrong about
Re: (Score:2)
What do you imagine that your exchange could do to ensure that the number is really coming from where it says it was?
That wasn't you?
Your idea for how to defeat spoofing just won't work. Maybe if it were two landlines and this was 1974, but today no. It would break all kinds of ways.
Re: (Score:2)
And as for being old.... just how old do you think POTS is?
I'm aware that automating it like I said would probably break shit, but I still think that something like it is the only way to defeat caller ID spoofing once and for all.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting effect (Score:2)
False positives. (Score:2)