The FCC Has Started Publicly Shaming Robocallers Weekly
from the playing-the-shame-game dept
While there's been no limit of hand wringing from the grumpy grandpa corners of the Internet about the mean old "over-reaching" FCC, the agency has actually been making some good decisions lately. Reclassifying ISPs under Title II and passing tough net neutrality rules (which, contrary to chicken littles has been a good thing so far), stopping ISPs from buying state protectionist broadband law, cracking down on cramming, thwarting convention centers from blocking personal Wi-Fi so you'll use their pricey services; there's a lot of pro-consumer, pro innovation, pro-competition issues the FCC has woken up to after a fifteen year slumber.And back in May the FCC announced (pdf) that it was taking aim at the number one issue consumers complain to the FCC about: robocalling. The FCC said it was considering new rules that would not only make it easier for consumers to opt out of marketing pitches via phone or SMS, but make it clear that voice and wireless carriers can offer new robocall-blocking services without violating call-completion rules. While ISPs like Sonic applauded the FCC's plan, the agency was of course sued by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who claimed the FCC "overstepped its authority by creating new restrictions on legitimate, good faith communications from businesses to their customers."
Undaunted by yet another lawsuit in its growing pile, the FCC has moved forward and announced it's also going to start listing robocaller phone numbers every week to make it easier for consumers and services to blacklist them. That monthly data is now compiled here for your perusal each week, published as a downloadable CSV file. The FCC says its goal is to help streamline the war on dinner-interrupting robocallers:
"This data will help improve do-not-disturb technologies so they can provide the best service for consumers,” said Alison Kutler, chief of the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, which manages consumer complaints. “As we encourage providers to offer these services, and as the Commission recently made clear that there are no legal barriers to doing so, we continue to look for ways to help facilitate important consumer tools."Call blocking services like NomoRobo have applauded the move, noting that previously they needed to file time-consuming FOIA requests to obtain this data:
"For the past 2 years I have been advocating for all of the government organizations to report this data. And the push-back that we always get is well there’s personally identifiable information, what about the consumer, how do we protect the consumer, and what I’ve been saying is, listen we don’t need to know any consumer information. All that we need to know is what is the robocallers phone number. If we get that, that really helps us."Of course, this is just a step in the right direction, and not a killing blow. Most robocallers make heavy use of number spoofing technology, meaning that fighting robocalling will always be a massive game of Whac-a-Mole no matter what. The FCC's going to need to remain vigilant in keeping the list up to date and accurate, since the organic response by robocallers will be to rotate faster than ever through spoofed numbers. Still, while no single solution is going to kill robocalling, the FCC's overall actions of late should lend a hand. Meanwhile, consumers with a little extra free time on their hands can help by making robocalling less profitable and more annoying by checking out robocaller time wasters like Lenny.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fcc, robocollers, shaming, telemarketing
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You can make it a much less massive game by banning it. Calling anonymously is one thing, but pretending to have a different number than the number you have is something that I can't think of any legitimate use for whatsoever. Can you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But I'm sceptic. These numbers are always spoofed, that's why I can't block them or forward them to a sex hotline.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
No the local Chamber of Commerce is a lobby for local business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Furthermore, an overlooked issue, I am not paying the phone company to receive these calls. The phone companies and the FCC should be more proactive in stopping unsolicited phone calls.
The telemarketers who are cold-calling you are committing a tort on you. They are disrupting your life and are imposing a financial obligation (your phone bill) on you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A good use for Google Voice...
http://toao.net/595-lenny
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So there's pretty much the only legitimate use.
And because of the way Caller ID works, the number is ALWAYS faked -- it's just usually faked to be the number that is actually the originating number. The two systems are totally separate, and the Caller ID is set by the originator, not by the phone company. That's why anyone with an Asterisk box (or anyone who owns their own PBX equipment) can set whatever they want on their Caller ID.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: rebrad on Nov 5th, 2015 @ 3:20pm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Domestic Abuse Shelters
Legitimate Call Centers
I am sure there are a couple others not popping to mind right now.
There are very few legitimate uses of spoofing, and it would be complicated to construct a framework for this. That being said trying to construct it and having some failures is way better than just throwing the hands up and saying can't be done.
Money is being made selling caller id services & selling spoofing services so there is little interest on the business side of ending that income.
We have *69 to call back numbers, why not a star code to dial after an unwanted robocall that traps the actual information to track it back to the source. No more having to dial 1 during a recording to get on their do not call list for legitimate marketers and a compiled list of those doing wrong. No more filing a long complaint form online that won't actually change anything, but instant filing of the data.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Why would these services have a legitimate reason for making their caller ID appear to be coming from somewhere else? I can see how they would have a legitimate reason, in certain circumstances, for not displaying any caller ID, (ie. anonymous calling, which I did say has legitimate uses,) but spoofing is a completely different thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Telcos are your real enemy.
It's like that because Verizon, among others, makes money by supplying the arms in this arms race, Once CallerID was out in 1985, the next step was charging fees to block it, then fees to reveal it, then additional fees to SUPERBLOCK it. Also, telcos created CID, and they can certainly provide ANI instead and allow you to block that... but why stop the gravy train?
These are the same people that charge you a fee to pack data into signaling packets that they are shipping whether you use them or not. I hope the FCC goes after that next.
-C
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
One example is that your outgoing and incoming calls are on different systems. It isn't uncommon for sales and customer service departments to be geographically diverse. Outgoing calls come from sales, incoming go through customer service.
All that EVER had to be done to fix spoofing was copy the call setup information into the caller ID field on the PSTN switches, and that would prevent spoofing PERIOD. It is ONE line of code and always has been.
Tele-assault (robocalling) is a crime that has been MANDATED, into existence. It isn't a matter of engineering. It is a matter of legislative endorsement and protection of simple assault. IMHO it is one of the more egregious rights granted by congress exclusively to corporate sovereigns.
Want to fix this? Start by voting for Bernie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
My local telco has a star code to complain about the last call received but I've never used it. Why? Because they charge you for that! Why should I pay to file a complaint? Oh, and they have to have three complaints to initiate any action.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
However, it seems like the solution to stopping robocalls is the same as stopping spam: people need to stop buying the products. As soon as robocallers and spammers realize it's not profitable to do these things, then they'll stop.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Call centers presenting the main number instead of 1 of 1000 numbers assigned to them.
It is a tiny list for those who would need access to do that sort of thing, and limited use thereof. It should not be available outside of that limited framework.
POTS is not my forte, and it is possible I'm not understanding the difference (meaning) in the words used.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
If they are reporting a capture of the real information it still might take 3 complaints for them to move (we all know that one dumbass who wonders what the big red button is for, is told, is told not to press it unless, and then promptly presses it to see for themselves) to avoid false positives.
As it stands now we report the data from caller id strings that are manipulated, if they sent the real information action would happen sooner. I avoid many of the robodialers who call my landline, but if I knew I could answer, tell them do not call, then hang up, then hit a star code & press a button to designate if it was sales, scam, etc I'd probably answer the phone more.
As it stands now we have people blocking using apps or hardware on landlines but that data isn't always shared and doesn't do anything but keep them from reaching you on THAT spoofed number. A * report that turns over the actual information would keep them from reaching you because they got closed down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You know that :Do-doe-deeee tone that shows an unconnected call?
Put it at the front of your voice mail message too...
[ link to this | view in thread ]