nav search
Data Center Software Security DevOps Business Personal Tech Science Emergent Tech Bootnotes
BOFH
Lectures

back to article
FCC sets a record breaking $120m fine for rude robocalls

$120 million fine

fine has been set, but not paid as yet

should I hold my breath .............................................

12
0
Bronze badge
Thumb Up

Re: $120 million fine

fine has been set, but not paid as yet

FCC needs to hire Hells Angels to collect the debt or Adrian can just move overseas.

13
0
Silver badge

Re: $120 million fine

"fine has been set, but not paid as yet"

How long in jail in the event of a default?

11
0
Silver badge

Re: $120 million fine

As a US-Government-imposed fine, they can just seize and garnish.

4
0
Silver badge

Re: $120 million fine

"As a US-Government-imposed fine, they can just seize and garnish."

Well, yeah, but they are still going to have difficulty unless he has a Picasso in the basement.

9
0

Re: $120 million fine

"As a US-Government-imposed fine, they can just seize and garnish."

I originally read that as "just season and garnish" - which somehow seemed an appropriate response to to much spam.

2
0
Silver badge
Devil

I Wonder who...

His one free phone call will go to?

Who's betting no-one answers?

16
0
Silver badge
Joke

Re: I Wonder who...

If he sets up a premium rate line that charges $120m by the minute, he can easily pay off the fine...

6
0
LDS
Silver badge

Re: I Wonder who...

IIRC read about how some prisons in the US were colluding with telephone companies to extract a lot of money from inmates and their families, forced to use the prison call lines at premium prices...

7
1
FAIL

Happy Dude

No reference to Homer and his "Happy Dude" auto dialer scam?

5
0

Only $120,000,000?

I was under the impression there was a (up to) $1,500 fine per call. He is going to pay just $1.25 per call. That's almost a reasonable cost of doing business.

15
0
Silver badge

Re: Only $120,000,000?

Let's face it, fines for these kinds of things are eyewash for the masses. The laws should be changed and penalties should increase and minimum sentences in years or even decades. Make the penalty high enough and the problem will drop. However, there are those who always thing that a) they're smarter than the law and b) the law doesn't apply to them.

7
0
Silver badge

Re: Only $120,000,000?

..The laws should be changed and penalties should increase and minimum sentences in years or even decades.....

America already operates sentences in centurys.

11
1
Silver badge

Re: Only $120,000,000?

That's almost a reasonable cost of doing business.

For a legitimate business making well segmented cold calls maybe, But not at the likely success rate of spam calling.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Only $120,000,000?

Many US states still have the death penalty.

Those same states also have the highest murder rates.

So how will a thousand year sentence help?

5
2
LDS
Silver badge

"So how will a thousand year sentence help?"

There are two types of criminals.

One won't be stopped by any kind of sentence, because he or she has very little to lose, or a mental state or situation which hinders to asses or fear consequences. Many of these are often involved in crimes which isn't about big money. Prison can't be a deterrent - just a way to keep them locked for a while.

But the other, which mostly include white-collar criminals, may be more careful if their operations means a long time in a jail, and losing all the accumulated money, especially it they get caught early and money effectively tracked and recoverd. Otherwise, they regard a little time in jail as a "business cost" - offset by the opportunity to get rich easily and quickly.

6
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Problem with white collar crimes...

If they are stupid enough to try it, they are stupid enough to think they can get away and avoid any size of punishment.

If they are clever enough to try it, they are over confident and think they are clever enough to escape any size of punishment.

2
0
wsm

Could it be?

This fine has had zero effect on robocalls. If anything, they have increased. Maybe the FCC could try the pillory or guillotine?

10
0
Silver badge

Re: Could it be?

I suspect most robocall operations are offshore thus harder to nail plus you have an extradition treaty to deal with. His problem appears to be operated in the US robocalling the US; dumber and dumb.

3
0
Silver badge

Re: Could it be?

This fine has had zero effect on robocalls.

He wasn't fined for robocalling, he was nailed mainly for spoofing the caller ID. Had he simply used a correct number he'd not have been fined (or not on this rap, at any rate).

7
0
Silver badge

Re: Could it be?

"He wasn't fined for robocalling, he was nailed mainly for spoofing the caller ID."

And having a record message. In the US, all telemarketering calls must have a live person on the other end; recorded messages are always illegal. It is still perfectly legal, unfortunately, for politicians and wanna-be politicians to robocall you to the living end. So long as they do it between certain hours.

5
0
Silver badge
Devil

The FCC listens to consumer complaints now?

Last I heard, they called it DOS attack.

5
0
Silver badge
Pint

So, I assume

If I get a robocall for Trump 2020 I can sue?

6
1
Silver badge

Re: So, I assume

Nope. Guess who wrote the laws, and guess who they exempted from them.

8
0
Silver badge

First step the fixing robocalls

Make the punishment jail rather than fines to the FCC. With all the utterly pointless ideas the FCC has proposed for fixing robocalls, one might think that they've just looking for easy revenue collecting fines.

3
0
Silver badge

Re: First step the fixing robocalls

No, because some wisecracks can continue to operate from prison. With a big enough fine, the government can seize and garnish.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: First step the fixing robocalls

Have fun putting people who are robocalling from India with a VoIP number in jail.

The first step is to force the phone companies to actually do something about the problem. They have the ability to stop this, or at least greatly reduce it. But they are too lazy (and cheap) to do anything substantial. Some let you use the service nomorobo.com, but that is not bulletproof because illegal robocallers can just change their numbers daily and even use an active number belonging to a real person. I have had people call me because a robocaller used my number. Stopping robocalls isn't going to increase the phone companies' revenue so they will not do anything about it unless forced.

4
0
Silver badge

Re: First step the fixing robocalls

"With a big enough fine, the government can seize and garnish."

Only if there's sufficient there to seize.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: First step the fixing robocalls

But garnishing isn't dependent on size. They'll just skim off anything you earn in future, and you're encouraged to find a prison job for privileges.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: First step the fixing robocalls

Why one or the other? Do both. The message should be, pull this shit, and your prison time will be a luxury compared to the poverty that awaits you when you get out. And give the same punishment to those who create and spread computer viruses. Tired of all this BS.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Actual First step the fixing robocalls

1. Make the telecoms provider equally responsible for payment of fines, they after all could not have been unaware of the robo calls and they allowed the spoofing feature.

2. Fine the companies who paid for and profitted from the offensive robocalling, without them then there would have been no profit to the assualt.

1
0
Pirate

Re: First step the fixing robocalls

Three reasons for punishments: getting even, deterrence, fairness. Let the punishment fit the crime. Put the convict in a cell where a loud bell goes off at random intervals, day and night. If they don't turn it off, it continues to ring. Put the switch to turn off the bell in an inconvenient location. They also must have no access to a phone or other means of communication, because he otherwise may set up a new scam. In addition, there must be an appropriate fine, which is much larger than what.he could have earned.

0
0
Silver badge

As for fixing the robot all problem, simply regulate the caller ID require all calls show their actual number if there's no way to ascertain it (VoIP, international), say it's VoIP of international or whatever. Make call spoofing a case of identity theft.

8
0
Anonymous Coward

"simply regulate the caller ID require all calls show their actual number"

We send thousands of calls out using numbers that don't belong to is on a daily basis.

As do thousands and thousands of contact centres around the world.

It's all legit and perfectly legal.

1
12
Silver badge
Mushroom

We send thousands of calls out using numbers that don't belong to is on a daily basis.

Then fucking stop doing it. Don’t care if it’s currently legal, it should be illegal. There is no legitimate reason to use a false number. If you’re not prepared to identify yourself with a number owned by you then you fall into the scumbag category.

17
1
LDS
Silver badge

"As for fixing the robot all problem"

Regulate to make it opt-in only. Even opt-out lists may not work fully, especially if not all numbers are allowed (i.e. mobile ones).

I can't really see why someone should be allowed to waste my time and interrupt me if I didn't explicitly allowed him. It's a basic human right to be left in peace.

At least in old times you could unleash dogs against beggars at your door... and some of those beggars were really poor people, not just fraudsters trying to deceive you.

3
1
Silver badge

I disagree. Last I checked, you can legally speak FOR a company, not AS a company (as liability and culpability come into play). It should still be YOUR name on the Caller ID, then you state in your pitch whom you represent.

4
0
Silver badge

Re: "As for fixing the robot all problem"

"It's a basic human right to be left in peace."

Not in this case. You're running up against the First Amendment which is why campaign calls (political speech) is exempt.

1
0
LDS
Silver badge

"is why campaign calls (political speech) is exempt."

Actually, it isn't. FCC surprised politicians in the last election when the chairman told them that calling mobiles wasn't allowed:

https://www.fcc.gov/political-campaign-robocalls

Don't ask me if the difference between mobile and landlines phone makes any sense, but that's the law...

The First Amendment gives you the right to speech, doesn't force anybody to listen to you...

5
1
Anonymous Coward

"Then fucking stop doing it. Don’t care if it’s currently legal, it should be illegal. There is no legitimate reason to use a false number."

So you really think that number you see when your Insurance company phone up is ACTUALLY coming from someone working for that company? Or are you really that naive?

Or may you WANT to call your bank back on an international number, you know that one registered in Bangalore.

2
6
Silver badge

"It's all legit and perfectly legal."

That's the problem. It provides cover for those who abuse it. Perhaps it's time to make it illegit and illegal.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: "As for fixing the robot all problem"

"You're running up against the First Amendment which is why campaign calls (political speech) is exempt."

Presumably this allows politicians to lose votes by pissing off potential voters. Does it also allow calls to be spoofed as being on behalf of your opponent? That would appear to be the most effective form of robocalling.

1
0
Silver badge

We send thousands of calls out using numbers that don't belong to is on a daily basis.

That was very naughty of you. I'm not talking about making those calls. I'm talking about trolling people by not explaining why such a situation pertains.

Then again, you gave all the clues so they ought to have been able to figure it out.

Have an upvote.

0
2
Silver badge

"So you really think that number you see when your Insurance company phone up is ACTUALLY coming from someone working for that company?"

If it isn't it's a problem. In fact, it's one of two problems. One is that it's a fraudster. The other is that the company is outsourcing its relationship with its customers which, in the long run, is an incredibly stupid thing to do.

This, of course, introduces a third problem: telling which is which. Or, to express it a different way, it makes the telephone, like email, into an untrustable means of communication. If a communication, possibly urgent, from a business such as a bank, is untrustable that is a very serious matter. Any time my bank tried to call me they were unable to authenticate themselves so I simply told them I didn't believe they were the bank. (As these were marketing calls no harm was done.)

2
0
Bronze badge

"Then fucking stop doing it. Don’t care if it’s currently legal, it should be illegal. There is no legitimate reason to use a false number. If you’re not prepared to identify yourself with a number owned by you then you fall into the scumbag category."

If someone is calling me from a support center I'd rather have the support line show up on the CallerID than their individual extension. Playing phone tag with a support group can be hard enough, but having to do it with a specific individual is nigh on impossible.

So there are definitely cases where I see it being a benefit, but you should have to apply for a permit of some kind to do it.

0
0
Silver badge

"So you really think that number you see when your Insurance company phone up is ACTUALLY coming from someone working for that company? Or are you really that naive?"

In such a situation, phones would likely be internally routed through a PBX or the like. In which case, the call would be routed through the internal network before being forwarded outside, and that outside link to the phone company would be the "front door" number, which the Caller ID would report. That's fair enough, as the phone company loses control beyond the front door anyway. Still, perhaps a level of control and liability is needed in such a setup to stem abuse of such a system (like requiring phone company inspection of the interface and assurance it belongs to just one firm).

1
0
Silver badge

Re: "is why campaign calls (political speech) is exempt."

"Actually, it isn't. FCC surprised politicians in the last election when the chairman told them that calling mobiles wasn't allowed:"

That's ONLY because. when the rule was first issued, cell phone users got charged significantly going AND coming (because the wireless network gets used either way). If it weren't for prepaid plans that still only allocate so many minutes (many postpaid plains are flat-rate with calls now), there would be a push to relax the rule, especially with the rise in telephone cord-cutting (thus a similar push for 911 identification of cell phones for emergency services--it dovetails).

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: "As for fixing the robot all problem"

"At least in old times you could unleash dogs against beggars at your door... and some of those beggars were really poor people, not just fraudsters trying to deceive you."

Funny, I never heard much about that. Probably due to the assault, manslaughter, and murder charges that followed.

1
0
Silver badge

@Charles 9

In such a situation, phones would likely be internally routed through a PBX or the like. In which case, the call would be routed through the internal network before being forwarded outside

Yeah, that's one way to do it. Company in one location contracts out calling customers (I'm talking about calls the customers actually want, not unwanted calls) to a call centre in another location (or possibly more than one call centre). So when the call centre makes a call, it dials a special number for the company that contracted it, a number that is a hunt group for several (perhaps large values of "several") lines at the company itself. Those lines go to a PBX, which then forwards the call to the customer over yet more lines, all to make it look like the call came from the company itself. That's some rather expensive tromboning, requiring twice the number of lines as actual calls and a PBX.

Or, the company authorizes the call centre to make calls on its behalf using the appropriate calling ID for the company. Legal, legit and moral (again, assuming these are calls the customers want to receive).

Either way the customer gets a call that identifies itself as being from the company (but is actually from a call centre). One way is a lot more expensive than the other.

Note: "Lost all faith..." didn't explicitly say that this was what the call centre was doing but he/she/it left enough clues that it was easy to figure out. Yet few people managed to do so. Not even after I responded to him and left a clue that people were missing something.

1
0
Silver badge

I'm of the mind that if my really IS important to you, you'll (a) answer the bloody call at onc r AND (b) do it yourself, if you want something done right. Shows how far you're REALLY willing to go...

1
0

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing