AT&T Will Now Filter Robocall Spam, If You Pay Them Extra
from the ill-communication dept
When the FCC recently released its "new" robocall plan, consumer groups quickly noted how it wasn't really new, and didn't actually accomplish much of anything. Outside of making it clear that carriers could implement robocall blocking tech by default, most of the plan was just a rehash of past (inadequate) FCC policies. Worse, the plan fixates almost exclusively on "scam" calls (when "legit" telemarketers and debt collectors are the biggest culprits of unwanted calls), and does absolutely nothing to punish carriers that fail to implement either call blocking tech, or call authentication tech (to thwart number "spoofing").
Another criticism of the plan was that it opened the door to letting carriers using the robocall scourge as an excuse to charge consumers even more money for protection that most think should be included free by default. For example Harold Feld, a lawyer for consumer group Public Knowledge, recently predicted just this thing when I spoke to him about the FCC's (not really) new plan back in May:
"Feld said the plan also opens the door to U.S. mobile data customers — who already pay some of the highest prices in the developed world — paying even more money to mobile carriers for tools consumer groups argue should be free and part of existing service by default.
“Pai can’t resist giving carriers more goodies at consumer expense,” Feld says. “While we will need to see the actual language of the proposed order, this appears to allow carriers to have complete discretion to filter calls however they want in the name of blocking robocalls, and then insert a ‘robocall blocking’ line item fee on your bill.”
Last week, AT&T demanded a hefty pat on the back for finally offering consumers robocall blocking tools. Many in the press were happy to praise the company for being "the first major wireless company to automatically block spam calls." But a closer inspection showed that not only was AT&T's new offering not really new, the company was doing exactly what Feld warned about. While AT&T did offer some limited robocall blocking functionality for free, to actually block suspected spam calls consumers need to pay an additional $4 per month:
"Despite the change, customers will still have to manually add undesired phone numbers to block lists or pay $4 a month to send all suspected spam calls to voicemail. That's because this is little more than an expansion of AT&T's Call Protect service, which has a basic free tier and a paid tier with automatic blocking of spam calls.
Phone companies can block robocalls by default starting today, FCC says Call Protect has been available since 2016 but only if customers opted in to it. The difference now is that Call Protect will be added to AT&T phone lines automatically."
Outlets like CNN somehow forgot to mention to readers that actually protecting yourself from annoying spam calls would cost extra. They also failed to note how AT&T has spent the better part of the last decade blaming everybody but themselves for their own failure to do more to police robocalls. Nor did anybody much mention AT&T's long history of turning a blind eye on scams perpetrated on the company's own customers, especially in instances where they've netted a cut of the proceeds.
Most news outlets seem to have bought the FCC and industry claim that the only thing preventing us from ending robocall hell was murky FCC policy regarding the carrier ability to deploy robocall blocking tools by default. In reality, the lion's share of our robocall problems stem from carriers which don't want to pay for the tech, and/or want to turn fixing the problem into yet another profit center. Another major problem is that while the FCC is happy to fixate on easier smaller scam operations, they're not really keen on holding larger and more politically powerful telemarketers and debt collectors, many of which ignore existing law, harass consumers, and use the same tactics as scam outfits, accountable for the exact same behavior.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blocking by phone number does nothing when robots are spoofing the numbers in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
... and if you want the ACTUAL number they were calling from, you need to talk to their legal department.
... at least, that's the way T-Mobile operates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank you Ashit Pai
For another fee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so in other words
The concurrent evolution of bitcoin and/or crytocurrencies dictate that gay 5G VR be tantamount to Android Prime Day drones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: so in other words
...yeah,
so, I don't get this?
Did you post this before your meds kicked in?
or am I waiting for my meds... ..... ..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: so in other words
Oh - idk, I thought it was pretty funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Profit above all
They fear losing the massive profit from the TRUNK and SIP services that they sell to the robocallers and telemarketers - so they have to make that money up somehow.
Jacking prices and adding fees has always worked in the past - since that's what they know, that's what they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Profit above all
Redundant. SIP is a trunk technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Considering that this is a company who charged me $5.00 for not having a phone line with my naked DSL.
Considering that this is a company that routinely charges people fees (admin, sport, etc) for doing nothing.
Heck, $4.00 and they actually did something, well, isn’t that a bargain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do I really need a phone number anymore?
I'm old enough to remember life before cell phones (well before them being common place). Over a decade ago I canceled my land line when I realized that the land line bill was higher than the cell bill (this was before data plans were common) and I hadn't used the land line at all in that billing period.
While I do still have occasional phone calls, I am communicating with text messages and e-mail far more than voice calls. As there are alternatives (although not integrated) for voice, I'm not sure a voice and text plan is even needed anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do I really need a phone number anymore?
Your cell phone has a phone number, too. And the scammers/spammers will abuse that number like any other. If you're not getting 5+ spam/scam calls on your cell phone every single day like I am then count yourself among the lucky ones. For now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do I really need a phone number anymore?
Five per day?
I returned from a week out of town to find the shits blew up the phone company provided answering machine within the first four days. Then the phone itself recorded another dozen or so calls that the machine could not answer before it gave up on the fifth day.
Then you try to return calls and find everything is your fault ... six degrees of gaslighting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do I really need a phone number anymore?
Its certainly possible to drop the voice service. I setup a phone with no SIM card to receive voice and text msgs (free google apps and free phone #) and it works ok - really dont use it much since I have a typical cell/data plan that my company pays for. But I suspect you'll still be subject to spam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do I really need a phone number anymore?
Google Voice does a great job of filtering spam. Unfortunately, with Hangouts going away, using voice/text that way has got a bit more convoluted.
This is one of those situations where Google's tech works so well that I have no qualms with giving up some of my privacy to them in order to properly filter my voice calls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuck AT&T, These douchebags are Jerkwagons
Fuck AT&T, These douchebags are Jerkwagons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do what everyone else does, you not in the contact list, your call does not get answered as I don't know you. It's amazing that this actually works and spam calls along with robocalls have nearly ceased.
I'm sure that makes all the congressmen happy trying to drum up campaign contributions along with the political parties. Since they won't address the issue, I've found a way that works for me.
I'm sure those that have to answer the phone from business locations are not that thrilled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So you pay the four dollars?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A lot of people use their cellphone for business and must answer every call they get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sinc so many people who want Amazon to be liable for what 3rd parties sell on Amazon, why not make AT&T liable for scam using AT&T’s network? Sure it would stop robocalls, but it would also stop 99% of all calls since they couldn’t risk liability if people lost money because of a phone call.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One of them is title two and the other is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why
why do we pay for the service anyway..??
Phones have been subsidized for years, and 90% of what they get is Straight profit.. they dont need to do many repairs, only basic installations.. And Cellphones, after Setup properly, Last and last, unless you want to upgrade..
Year ago there was a BIG cut in employees at ATT.. think it was over 1/3. They have shifted to Mobil, and letting th e Copper Fail..
$30 per month is allot when you consider how much is possible from 1 Cell tower..everything passed $1000-2000 is Profit.
And Information/numbers, are an independent company now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I totally didn't see this coming... nope nope nope...
(I'd link the comment I made about them screwing consumers this way when the announcement was made & they softly mentioned the telcos could charge to do it but I'm tired)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IF it works...
I'm assuming this "service" you have to pay $4 for will work about as well as AT&T's rural cell coverage. Meaning, it won't. At all. So this is a $4 fee for a "product" that puts it in compliance with a non-mandatory "directive" from Pai, but doesn't actually, you know, work.
No thanks. I'll stick with 3rd-party apps that do work. And, not use AT&T for anything when I can help it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Four years w/o a cell, up yours wireless corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]