20 Carriers Face Call-Blocking in the US for Submitting Fake 'Robocall Mitigation Plans' (arstechnica.com) 67
"Twenty phone companies may soon have all their voice calls blocked by US carriers," reports Ars Technica, "because they didn't submit real plans for preventing robocalls on their networks."
The 20 carriers include a mix of US-based and foreign voice service providers that submitted required "robocall mitigation" plans to the Federal Communications Commission about two years ago. The problem is that some of the carriers' submissions were blank pages and others were bizarre images or documents that had no relation to robocalls. The strange submissions, according to FCC enforcement orders issued Monday, included "a .PNG file depicting an indiscernible object," a document titled "Windows Printer Test Page," an image "that depicted the filer's 'Taxpayer Profile' on a Pakistani government website," and "a letter that stated: 'Unfortunately, we do not have such a documents.'"
Monday's FCC announcement said the agency's Enforcement Bureau issued orders demanding that "20 non-compliant companies show cause within 14 days as to why the FCC should not remove them from the database for deficient filings." The orders focus on the certification requirements and do not indicate whether these companies carry large amounts of robocall traffic. Each company will be given "an opportunity to cure any deficiencies in its robocall mitigation program description or explain why its certification is not deficient." After the October 30 deadline, the companies could be removed from the FCC's Robocall Mitigation Database.
Removal from the database would oblige other phone companies to block all of their calls.
Monday's FCC announcement said the agency's Enforcement Bureau issued orders demanding that "20 non-compliant companies show cause within 14 days as to why the FCC should not remove them from the database for deficient filings." The orders focus on the certification requirements and do not indicate whether these companies carry large amounts of robocall traffic. Each company will be given "an opportunity to cure any deficiencies in its robocall mitigation program description or explain why its certification is not deficient." After the October 30 deadline, the companies could be removed from the FCC's Robocall Mitigation Database.
Removal from the database would oblige other phone companies to block all of their calls.
Seems somebody is serious (Score:5, Interesting)
Cannot understand why this took so long. Do you know how many Robocalls I got, ever? Zero. Do you know how many SPAM-calls I got in the last 20 years? Maybe 10 altogether in those 20 years. Of course, this is Europe, but the US is really massively behind in fighting this pest.
Re:Seems somebody is serious (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you know how many Robocalls I got, ever? Zero. Do you know how many SPAM-calls I got in the last 20 years? Maybe 10 altogether in those 20 years.
Unfortunately, here in the US, political calls are exempted from the robocall rules. I have received commercial robocalls, but the close-to-election-season robocalls I've gotten far outnumber the commercial ones (at least that is my impression; I haven't really kept count).
I get a fair number of junk calls nowadays - one or two a day, on average. Fortunately I take advantage of my phone's "silence unknown callers" setting, so they just go straight to voicemail - and It's pretty rare that those sorts of callers actually leave any message (side note - when they do, it's invariably a robocaller). Any legitimate callers who aren't in my cell phone's address book get routed there too, but that's uncommon - and I add them to my contacts when it does happen, so it's only a one-time inconvenience for them.
Re:Seems somebody is serious (Score:5, Insightful)
I do as well, but for people like contractors, plumbers, etc., that might be getting calls from potential customers, they can't really afford to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, no disagreement there - a lot of people's circumstances won't lend themselves to this approach. And, regardless, it's really more of a "make the best of a poor situation" than anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
I do as well, but for people like contractors, plumbers, etc., that might be getting calls from potential customers, they can't really afford to do that.
Having to answer waste-of-time calls comes with the territory. One of the first things you'll discover when running your own business is the number of other businesses that will call you attempting to sell you goods and services for your business.
Re: (Score:3)
Having to answer waste-of-time calls comes with the territory. One of the first things you'll discover when running your own business is the number of other businesses that will call you attempting to sell you goods and services for your business.
Oooh... so I could come up with a business that sells stuff to those businesses that are trying to sell stuff to your business. I'm gonna be rich! Got their phone numbers perchance?
Re:Seems somebody is serious (Score:4, Insightful)
However, the spam calls I get are very often not political. They should be blocked. They WERE blocked for awhile, until they all realized the enforcement wasn't going to happen. Now we've all been trained to never answer the phone.
Re: (Score:2)
The political ones are just as much of a nuisance, but you think the crook would keep himself from being one, given the chance?
Re: (Score:2)
That is messed up...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
> far outnumber the commercial ones (at least that is my impression; I haven't really kept count).
That used to be true here, but something changed a few months ago. I'm not sure what caused it, but we now get dozens of extremely dumb robocalls every day without fail. I've had as many as 5 within a 1-minute period, and it's very unusual to go a whole hour without getting any. Whoever is doing it, isn't both
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that the receiver pays most or all the costs for mobile phone calls in the US doesn't help (I think - is that still true?). In Europe the caller always pays, so robocalling is a lot less cost effective.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually in Europe the one called may have to pay for roaming, but when not roaming the caller has to pay the full price, true and roaming is increasingly free. This also makes sure the caller can always be identified as otherwise the carrier of the one called would not get their cut. Hence calls without that originator information do not even get routed in Europe. It does help that robocalling is actually illegal and SPAM calling is so too and providers are legally obligated to block perpetrators The only
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The cleanup effort was championed by a fella called "Ajit Pai" who was reviled by activists for being a member of one of the two major political parties and with whom they had some policy differences.
Now that he's retired, people with different-colored hats are implementing the plan.
The whackos probably caused 3 years of delay and untold wasted manhours and scam damage, mostly among the feeble elderly.
These whackos feel righteous about what they've done.
Re: (Score:2)
The cleanup effort was championed by a fella called "Ajit Pai"
He was also responsible for letting Verizon weasel out of their C-Block spectrum agreement regarding handset locking, and NN going *poof*. Obligatory Pirates of the Caribbean reference. [getyarn.io]
Re: (Score:2)
Yay, he got ONE thing right?
But he also sold out Net Neutrality, so yeah, he was a sellout hack. Utter garbage at his official job, but I doubt that hurt his retirement plan.
Re: (Score:3)
Even a broken clock can be used to hammer in a nail. Or something like that...
Re: (Score:3)
Ajit Pai and his majority on the FCC had years to deal with this. Show evidence that any 'whackos' stood in the way of blocking spam calls.
Re: (Score:1)
they had some policy differences.
Riiiiight. Because net neutrality isn't important at all and Pai's pandering to corporate interests had no ill effects whatsoever....
Oh. Wait....
Re: (Score:3)
Money. It's always been about money, and when there isn't some immediate need to protect children, US politicians can be ... well... heel dragging.
A lot of this comes from the prevailing attitude that regulation and free speech are mutually incompatible. Americans put free speech above their own food, medical and educational priorities. Citing "freedom to choose", which I can't believe that "choosing poison and/or death" is even on the table.
Re: (Score:2)
Money. It's always been about money....
Yeah, guess I'm gonna have to question this, since I'm wondering where the money is coming from.
It ain't the Generation who was told bedtime stories of Nigerian Princes driving revenue through clickbait, raised on spam. Kinda doubt it's Millennials or GenX, so who the hell is still picking up a phone and answering robocalls to validate any money spent on that? Are Boomers that damn lonely?
Seriously.
Re: Seems somebody is serious (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Money. It's always been about money, and when there isn't some immediate need to protect children, US politicians can be ... well... heel dragging.
A lot of this comes from the prevailing attitude that regulation and free speech are mutually incompatible. Americans put free speech above their own food, medical and educational priorities. Citing "freedom to choose", which I can't believe that "choosing poison and/or death" is even on the table.
Two things to clear up. One? It's never actually about protecting the children. If somebody's saying that, especially if they're saying it breathlessly and in an agitated fashion? They've got some nefarious bullshit they want to shove through the system that will help them maintain or gain power over others. Two? We choose to pay insurance companies to run death panels out of fear that the government will run death panels. We worship capitalism. Having anything decided on any basis outside of how much profi
They were serious (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cannot understand why this took so long. Do you know how many Robocalls I got, ever? Zero. Do you know how many SPAM-calls I got in the last 20 years? Maybe 10 altogether in those 20 years. Of course, this is Europe, but the US is really massively behind in fighting this pest.
Know how many Robocalls I get? None. I don't live in Europe, but who knows? Maybe I'm lucky, and every other American is getting millions per day.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm lucky, and every other American is getting millions per day.
I got three just last week.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. So there must be something that can be done even in the US, it is just obscure or difficult or you need a lot of luck.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. So there must be something that can be done even in the US, it is just obscure or difficult or you need a lot of luck.
It isn't "right", I guess you would have to say. It takes more work than better systems. But it can be done. Anyhow, to be certain, and to your point, the phone system here in the USA is a destroyed mess.
I think the whole start of this US issue was the ending of "long distance", and the breakup of Bell Telephone.
So the stage was set. While people were busy thinking "Wonderful, I can call my cousin in Guatemala, they weren't thinking that someone in Nigeria could call them and scam them at no cost.
Th
Re: (Score:1)
I'm in the US. My former land-line number and a business number are forwarded to my cell phone. That means I have 3 numbers, and that means I get 3 times the spam/scam/junk calls. I get 20-30 calls a day that are junk. Since I run a business I can't not answer them. Usually on weekends I get zero or 1 spam/scam/junk calls. Although on Sunday (yesterday) I got 10 calls. Not sure what changed.
Only 20? (Score:2)
That seems like a remarkably low number. A start I guess, but seems like it will do nothing of any noticeable impact.
Re: (Score:2)
That seems like a remarkably low number. A start I guess, but seems like it will do nothing of any noticeable impact.
Given the nope-not-a-monopoly among the largest carriers, I'll be honest; I didn't think that many carriers still existed. LECs were eating CLECs for lunch decades ago.
Are there names to validate these numbers that mainstream marketing has overlooked, or are we to consume this factoid without question.
Re: Only 20? (Score:2)
I suspect that all those listed are outside the US.
For a more efficient way of stemming the flood of robocallers just set up an automation so that anyone called could just push for example the # twice to flag a call as unwanted robocall. 3 flaggings and all calls from that number would need to go through a randomized menu of "press 1 to hear options..." After 10 such flaggings all calls from that operator would be put through that menu and after 20 that operator would be blocked and any caller will be put t
Re: (Score:2)
Android is partway towards your proposal with its "Report as spam" system and an option to suppress calls from numbers which have been flagged by enough people.
20 Useless Cell Carriers (Score:2)
I bet I never received a beneficial call from any of these carriers.
As another poster has said, "Cannot understand why this took so long." - so true.
I can surmise the possible legal FCC defense - The FCC gave the plaintiffs all this time to formulate and respond with cogent plans, and all the FCC got in response was useless & worthless replies.
A reasonable judge could consider the arguments of both sides and simply say, "Case dismissed with prejudice; verdict for the defendant (the FCC)".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure these 'telecoms' will go out of business and come right back under a brand new name, but still be under the same owners, and those owners are protected through a series of shell companies from full on blacklisting.
True. It is a commonly used tactic to avoid law enforcement and other legal entanglements.
And those "new companies" should not get any special dispensation from the FCC on this matter - apply the same rules to EVERY CARRIER regardless of size or "age".
Re: (Score:2)
Just out of curiosity: Given a typical robocall with a forged caller ID, how would you determine what company originated the call?
Re: (Score:2)
The caller ID you get to see is not the caller ID used for billing. The billing info is a different protocol.
Re: (Score:2)
OK. Is this information viewable/accessible to the average schmuck?
Every so often, we get a call that says "unknown" that is actually legitimate (our eye doctor is one of those.) It would be nice to have more data to filter calls, and even more nice to have a mechanism that would block calls tagged to one of those 20 companies.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it (true calling number) is visible to owners of 800 type numbers, but not to regular customers of the phone system.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it (true calling number) is visible to owners of 800 type numbers, but not to regular customers of the phone system.
That is true.
That is how "call centers" for credit card issuers, airlines, hotel chains, and so on identify their premium customers from the masses so the premium customers can be routed to special handling groups.
Re: (Score:2)
It would also put an end to the many scams that are based on spoofing a trustworthy (-ish) number. Also the annoyance when they spoof rendom locan numbers and the unfortunate legitimate holder of that number gets a zillion 'did you call me?' calls.
The claimed reason for allowing that is so extension in a business can give out the main number. But with all of the abuse, the phone companies should be required to register extensions that are allowed to give out the main number and if anyone else tries it, thei
Reminds me of a story I heard long ago (Score:5, Funny)
Speed Camera (Score:2)
A man got a traffic ticket and instead of sending the money, he sent a photocopy of some dollar bills. In response, the police sent him a picture of handcuffs. The guy got the message and paid the fine.
The setup of that story is that the ticket came from a speed camera (including a photo of the car), so the man's point was that the ticket wasn't "real" because it didn't come from a "real" traffic stop:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... [snopes.com]
They have to show cause (Score:1)
Missed the birdie (Score:1)
At least they were honest (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also the one saying they didn't have such documents. I can respect honesty. I may hate what they do, but I can respect that they're upfront about it.
Seems like a whitelist would be better (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd prefer the FCC pick an arbitrary date by which all carriers need to have submitted a remediation plan. As of that date, a whitelist is created. From that point onward, US carriers would block all other service providers that aren't on that whitelist - and new carriers have to submit a legitimate plan before they can be added to the whitelist.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd prefer the FCC pick an arbitrary date by which all carriers need to have submitted a remediation plan. As of that date, a whitelist is created. From that point onward, US carriers would block all other service providers that aren't on that whitelist - and new carriers have to submit a legitimate plan before they can be added to the whitelist.
Not sure that's an ideal plan with regards to a cutthroat market. Next thing you know, your competition is lobbying Congress for their definition of "legitimate plan" in order to cripple competition.
Re: (Score:1)
What more is it that you're asking for?
The companies have until Oct 30 to update their plans. Companies without plans can be removed from the valid-carrier database.
Re: (Score:1)
> have submitted a remediation plan
Forget about remediation plans. Just financially disincentivize the practice, with prejudice.
One way to do that: make it so that any time a phone customer receives a pre-recorded call that hasn't been specifically exempted on a per-call basis by the FCC, the customer is owed money (say, $1000), and the customer's phone company has to credit the customer's next bill for the amount in question; t
Yeah. (Score:2)
For the love of god⦠(Score:5, Insightful)
It will never happen (Score:3)
Republican are pro-grift, and their definition of "free enterprise" includes wage theft, child labor, and death for profit as is normal practice by Big Pharma. Robocallers will always exist because they have friends in high places.
Re: (Score:1)
Republican are pro-grift
Both parties are pro-grift. That's why swapping administrations never makes any difference in these situations.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They will continue until the Republicans are in charge again, and then it will start over until the Democrats take control.
I am getting tired of this bullshit. The Democrats have had full control over both Houses along with a Democratic president and this issue was not solved then. Same with abortion.
So I gotta ask: What will be different this time?
Feel free to dismiss me as a Republican supporter. It will help with the cognitive dissonance you get when the Democrat's words do not line up with their actions. The Republicans are even worse than the Democrats; however, the Democrats still are not good enough to vote for.
Shows how serious they take the FCC (Score:2)
This is basically putting both middle fingers up in response to that request.
The rest could probably not even be bothered to give them at least the finger instead of just a "Huh? Was there a noise?"
I mean, how more blatantly can you say to a regulation body "I don't give a fuck what you want, I do what I want, regulate the plebs and stay off my back"?
Use collective punishment for no-regulation answer (Score:2)
Punish all carriers with a monthly fine based on their size and the total number of robo-calls coming into the country.
They'll form their own organization to take care of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good (Score:2)