FCC sets a record breaking $120m fine for rude robocalls The FCC has upheld a $120m fine levied against a man accused of making 96 million illegal robocalls. The commission on Thursday announced it would indeed seek to collect the massive fine it had first proposed against Adrian Abramovich in 2017. Abramovich, a Miami-based travel marketer it said was behind tens of millions of …
Difference between mobiles and landlines is that mobiles get a limited number of airtime minutes and the calls use those up, and so, cost the person called.
So the law prohibits robocalls to mobiles.
Which does f#ck all to stop them.
"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.
But they CAN set it up on the sidewalk outside (which under typical municipal rights of way belongs to the community and falls under the First Amendment) and soapbox away, especially if your back is turned to the house but you're loud enough to be heard anyway.
"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.
That should be the two choices.
BTW, Google and others do the same thing by calling every week asking businesses to update their Google Biz listings (even if you do not actually have one). They give you the "option" of being removed from their robocalls by pressing either the number "2" or "9". In reality this does nothing and they call the next week or again the same week using either a local area code phone number or an international one. How long will it take the FCC before they fine Google $100 BILLION (that's with a "B"), for this chronic abuse and violation of anti-SPAMMING laws?
The only deterrent for these mega-SPAMMERS is prison time for the execs or BILLIONS in fines.
Here's something to think about. Suppose I wanted to put a bell in your house, and tell you anyone in the world can set it off whenever they wanted, day or night? You would likely tell me to go somewhere very hot. Yet that is exactly what we have done with phones.
If possible, set your phone to ring only for phone numbers you have entered into your contact list (or a subset). Then route every call not on the list straight to voice mail. Take back your privacy. Drive telemarketers out of business.
I don't think so. They'll just start flooding voicemails with messages intended for voicemail. Once voicemail boxes get full, messages will have to be winnowed out in case they're important, and the last thing you want is an important call balked because the mailbox is full. They're patient. Plus, some are unscrupulous enough to masquerade their number...perhaps even as someone you know.
The BT Nuisance Call Blocker phone goes one better than this: If not on the whitelist the incoming caller has to state their name before the phone will ring in the house. It rings, states "Do you want to accept call from [incoming caller]?" and then you accept or reject the call. This has stopped 99.9% of the nuance callers my 86 year old mother-in-law was getting. (I have no connection with BT other than as a purchaser of this phone)
Back when WHOIS listed data on website owners I received a scam vacation giveaway robocall.
I never answer calls from unknown numbers but the robocaller left a voicemail that mentioned a website URL.
Doing a quick WHOIS search and various public records searches I was able to glean the actual phone number of the "advertising" companies CEO.
He did not find it amusing when I called him to ask him if he'd like to participate in a survey for a chance to win a cruise.
Er, back 'in the old days' we didn't find ourselves compulsively chained to our phones. Sometimes, we weren't around to answer them, and sometimes we *gasp* even turned them off. How reachable do you really need to be? How connected? A little needy are we? Perhaps one should should endeavor to use their phone wisely instead of being owned by it. I call it a 'grip'. You should get one.
"Er, back 'in the old days' we didn't find ourselves compulsively chained to our phones."
Er, back "in the old days" we tended to miss calls that could be VERY important. Like the call that you mum had a heart attack and as a result died in the hospital without you knowing about it in time to get there for her last moments. Or the client willing to close a big contract if you respond in the next 10 minutes. Or the office letting you know your call to the boonies is cancelled.
Why do we stay in touch? Because it matters!
It just happens that this fine is declared just as the FCC and the Government are to fight over robocalls - in politics 'coincidence' is almost never a thing ...
Second: why would Pai at the FCC want to stop robocalls? He's got the perfect situation - his mates the telcos make millions from the calls, the FCC can justify their fat salaries by making millions from the fines, the only people that suffer are the common people at the bottom.
My feeling is the next thing Pai says will be "Hey look, we don't need extra legislation because we are dishing out big fines ..."
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
