FCC's Chairman's Blog Supports New Crackdown on Unwanted Calls

  • +6
    ANonieMouse
    See
    https://www.fcc.gov/blog/another-win-consumers
    Quote:
    " … That's why I am proposing today the Commission crack down on robocalls, robotexts, and telemarketing calls – the number one source of consumer complaints at the FCC. … "
  • +7
    DaFox
    | 4 replies
    Quote:
    First, we are giving the green light for robocall-blocking technology, declaring that these market-based solutions can be offered without violating our call-completion rules. The FCC wants to make it clear: telephone companies can – and in fact should – offer consumers robocall-blocking tools.

  • +5
    Tamianth
    Thank you Nonie for a great read!   I like how they included the DC's in that also!  :)
  • +5
    Pudge
    Thanks for posting, Noni!  I almost want to say, too little too late but I'll take what we get!
  • +4
    ANonieMouse replies to DaFox
    Now THAT looks like a picture of what could happen if the shelters from which we got our cat and our dog didn't require that the cat be spayed and our dog neutered.  It even has the right colors, markings, ears, and facial expression!
  • +4
    Resident47
    Applause for the only sensible response to the FTC's nudging four months ago.
    https://800notes.com/forum/ta-b914f584387134b ... s-to-fcc-notice

    "we clarify the definition of "autodialers" ... We also close the "reassigned number" loophole"

    File each under "About Bleeping Time". I'm tired of watching consumer lawsuits drag out while corporate defendants whine "but we didn't use the dialers that way" and "we didn't know the mobile number changed hands". I'll wait for the actual petition rulings before I wave any "win" pennants.

    "Any reasonable way of saying "no" [to automated calls] is allowed."

    Yes, but which methods can be reasonably enforced? Verbal orders carry the same weight as written per the TCPA, but it's often harder to prove the nuisance caller got the demand. If all bot-callers are required to provide an easy opt-out, they might also be required to provide a receipt of the "shut up" order, maybe by email or SMS, and/or an automated reply within the same or a subsequent call confirming the opt-out, which then might be recorded by the complaining call recipient. Then you give that auto-receipt the same weight legally as a Certified Mail receipt so we don't have to type up paper letters and spend six-plus dollars every time we need total assurance of call cessation.
  • -6
    ShaDoe replies to DaFox
    | 2 replies
    Please provide a list of telephone providers that are presently blocking calls per the FCC. I am on Verizon and have been for sometime. I can only block 10 calls and forward 10 calls.  It has been like that for the years I have been on Verizon.  Since I was getting a multitude of scam calls everyday I then joined nomorobo.com.  This company and a few others have made gigantic changes to alot of peoples lives. They do what phone companys are not doing; blocking calls. Nomorobo has done a fantastic job for me.
  • +3
    William replies to ShaDoe
    Sounds like you expect the telephone service providers to pre-emptively block telephone calls ... and on what basis are those providers to determine the call is originating from scammers, etc. ? They don't even enforce Caller ID on their customers, so a call originating from one provider with faked Caller ID information cannot be blocked by Verizon !! Then there is the mess caused by VOIP and calls coming from hacked company PBX systems.
  • +3
    Resident47 replies to ShaDoe
    Please provide a check for $750 to perform your research for you, based on a broad and vapid request. Please explain to Admin how your comment is not poorly veiled spam.

Reply to topic