On Thursday the US Senate voted to approave a bill strengthening the FCC's powers to address the reviled practice of robocalling.
A bipartisan proposal, the TRACED Act, was introduced by Sens. John Thune (R-SD) and Ed Markey (D-MA). If passed, it would raise the fines the FCC is permitted to levy on robocallers, and increase the statute of limitations for bringing those cases. It would also create an interagency task force to address the problem, and push carriers like AT&T and Verizon to deploy call authentication systems like the pending STIR/SHAKEN protocols into their networks.
FCC chairman Ajit Pai has repeatedly pushed for carriers to deploy STIR/SHAKEN with little apparent movement, and has indicated that if this is not done the FCC will "have to consider regulatory intervention"
It is estimated that last year alone, approximately 48 BILLION robocalls were placed in the United States.
The TRACED Act, which passed with a vote of 97-1, now moves to the House of Representatives. There it will contend with other anti-robocall bills already waiting for consideration.
Earlier this month, Pai proposed new rules to allow carriers to more aggressively block robocalls.
Hopefully lesson 22 will come to our phones.
Related Stories
Submitted via IRC for AnonymousLuser
Ajit Pai proposes new rule that would allow carriers to block robocalls
On Wednesday, the Federal Communications Commission announced a new measure that would grant mobile phone carriers new abilities to block the growing number of unwanted robocalls.
The new rule would make it easier for carriers, like AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile, to automatically register their customers for call-blocking technology. As of right now, customers have to opt-in on their own. It would also allow customers to block calls coming from phone numbers that are not on their contacts list. Commissioners are expected to vote on the measure at their June 6th meeting.
"Allowing call blocking by default could be a big benefit for consumers who are sick and tired of robocalls," FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said. "By making it clear that such call blocking is allowed, the FCC will give voice service providers the legal certainty they need to block unwanted calls from the outset so that consumers never have to get them."
[...] A majority of the US Senate already backs legislation from Sens. John Thune (R-SD) and Ed Markey (D-MA) that would make it easier for the FCC to seek financial penalties from robocallers and provide both regulators and law enforcement additional tools to combat these unwanted and illegal calls.
Members in the House of Representatives like Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) also have their own anti-robocalling legislation that differs from what's been proposed in the Senate, but it includes some similar language, like increasing the length of time the FCC has to find and go after bad actors.
FCC to require anti-robocall tech after "voluntary" plan didn't work out:
Phone companies would be required to deploy technology that prevents spoofing of Caller ID under a plan announced today by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai.
Pai framed it as his own decision, with his announcement saying the chairman "proposed a major step forward... to protect consumers against spoofed robocalls." But in reality the FCC was ordered by Congress and President Trump to implement this new rule. The requirement on the FCC was part of the TRACED Act that was signed into law in December 2019. Pai previously hoped that all carriers would deploy the technology voluntarily.
"I'm excited about the proposal I'm advancing today: requiring phone companies to adopt a caller ID authentication framework called STIR/SHAKEN," Pai said in his announcement. "Widespread implementation will give American consumers a lot more peace of mind when they pick up the phone." The FCC will vote on the measure at its March 31 meeting.
Previously:
AT&T Ramps Up its Fight Against Robocalls With Call Validation Feature
FCC Approves Plan to Stop Robocalls!
Anti-Robocall Bill Passes Senate
The Robocall Crisis Will Never Totally be Fixed
FCC Pushes Carriers to Implement Caller ID Authentication by 2019
Robocallers "Evolved" to Sidestep New Call Blocking Rules, 35 State AGs Tell FCC
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 24 2019, @02:05AM (7 children)
Does the law have any teeth? Will the Telcos actually use it? Who gets prosecuted in the next year or so? Does the law actually do us any good?
I've long ago stopped answering the phone, unless I recognize the number displayed. I just can't be bothered with useless bullshit phone calls.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Friday May 24 2019, @08:08AM (1 child)
It probably will now, after people have started getting calls saying the Social Security Administration has cancelled their Social Security Number. They'll put up with a lot of stuff, but when you start impersonating the US government itself ...
(Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Friday May 24 2019, @12:15PM
Let me know when some CEO goes to jail. Till then ... yawn.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @02:22PM (4 children)
The telcos would love to use it. Imagine being able to advertise all spoofed numbers are auto-blocked, etc. It is only poorly designed regulations preventing them now. So unless this repeals or overrides those existing regulations I doubt it is qhat we want.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 24 2019, @02:27PM (3 children)
I think that you are a little naive. The telcos make money off of those spoofed calls. They are reluctant to shut down a paying customer. They COULD shut them down, and maybe they do shut down a few of the worst of them. But, revenue is revenue, and they aren't turning down free money.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @02:31PM
I would switch in a heartbeat. I cant imagine the robocalls would outweigh the millions of people doing that. Every provider would be forced to offer it
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @05:47PM (1 child)
Exactly, which is why the Senate bill doesn't go anywhere near far enough. And Ajit Pai [shutterstock.com] [may be NSFW] is doing his best to keep the gravy train rolling in.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 24 2019, @05:54PM
The only reason that image might not be safe for work, is my boss would think I took his picture while at work. No cameras allowed, blah blah blah . . .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @02:05AM (7 children)
Regulation of content is not their business. We shouldn't let them muscle in.
The proper way to deal with this is to force open the billing tech that will definitely reveal the real number. Give us the ability to block them! Anything less is bullshit, but bullshit is all I can really expect from the low class people that win elections. That's too bad. We have the power to change all that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @03:04PM (6 children)
When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail, eh?
You're a fanatic [quoteinvestigator.com]:
Not telling you what to think, say or do here. Just pointing out that you're a tiresome crank.
Have a nice day!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @04:09PM (1 child)
Is this a bot?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @05:04PM
GP here. I don't know. I guess that depends on how you define 'bot'.
If bots drink coffee, then I'm definitely a bot. MMMMMM...coffee.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @04:14PM (3 children)
You're a fanatic
Well, you're an idiot, so I'll take that as a compliment.
The carriers must be turned into a dumb pipe. You do your own filtering! This is the subject of the article. Go to your facebook if you wanna talk about something else! We here have to force open our communications systems to protect our rights.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by NotSanguine on Friday May 24 2019, @05:02PM (1 child)
Except that on *every* topic, you always have the same pseudo-argument and bullshit "solution."
Regardless of the topic, you *always* claim that the problem is that every elected official is completely corrupt and that every voter *knowingly* elects said corrupt people, and that the only solution is to vote every single elected official (you seem to focus on the Federal government, which is odd since state and local governments are way more corrupt) out and replace them.
As if that would solve the problem. Which it wouldn't. I could launch into a tirade (but I don't want to step on your toes, friend) about election reforms (public funding, anyone?) that would remove the perverse incentives, but like I said, you *can't* change your mind.
That said, your ideas, beliefs and opinions are yours and I would fight to the death to protect your right to hold and express them, even though I may disagree with both your policy prescriptions and your slant.
As I said, you can't change your mind. Would you at least consider changing the subject once in a while? Just for the variety?
The topic under discussion here has little to do with "dumb pipes." The TRACED Act [congress.gov] is about increasing penalties for fraudsters using caller id spoofing to hide their locations and identities. It's also about encouraging (weak sauce, telecoms should be *required* to verify that the source phone number is accurate before completing a call) telecoms to crack down on caller id spoofing, especially since those same telecoms take profit on *every* call they complete.
I guess this could be construed as being about "dumb pipes" if you believe that those who wish to deceive others and steal their money and identities have just as much right to use telecom networks as folks who are calling their kids, parents or friends.
You picked the wrong guy with which to have this conversation, friend. You can look at my posting history. I've railed (since long before you ever showed up here with your moronic "Gub'mint bad! Bad Gub'mint! bullshit) about how dumb pipes are a necessity for liberty and economic development.
While the Federal government (via the FCC) does have some role (albeit a fairly minor one) in promoting "dumb pipes," most of the work needs to be done at the state and (most importantly) local levels. You do so by creating competitive environments, which most state and local governments have eschewed for franchise grants to the few, large communications providers that dominate the industry.
So by all means, continue to blather on. Although it might not be a bad idea to consider this [quoteinvestigator.com].
Toodles!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @06:42PM
every voter *knowingly* elects said corrupt people, and that the only solution is to vote every single elected official (you seem to focus on the Federal government, which is odd since state and local governments are way more corrupt) out and replace them.
As if that would solve the problem. Which it wouldn't.
Of course it would. The voters are the only problem. They elect corruption to get a piece for themselves. The same rules apply locally, more so usually, so much so, that the feds have to step in occasionally. This explains your situation perfectly. Your denials are the only obstruction towards improvement. It's the classic addiction thing. You refuse to see your problem. Well, we can, quite clearly. And you all are just playing *Kill the messenger*. It's a simple game, going back thousands of years. So, whatever, knock yourselves out, just please keep a safe distance. I'm not interested in getting hit by shrapnel and your other trash.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @05:55PM
Just bend over a little, and I'll have your pipes opened in a moment . . .
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Friday May 24 2019, @03:01AM (3 children)
Am I misunderstanding this, or is this another fucking smart phone app?
So what about "simple" cellphone users?
What about plain old telephone service users?
Right, off to the gas chamber, then.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday May 24 2019, @05:29PM
I'm sure that's how it could be marketed (as it could give, which the FCC has not forbidden, telecoms a new source of rent-seekng^W revenue), an app that lets you know when the source of a phone call doesn't match what its caller id says.
But STIR/SHAKEN has *nothing* to do with smartphones and there's no reason why an app would be required.
Essentially, the STIR and SHAKEN [transnexus.com] protocols implement call authentication between telecom providers. This allows the destination provider (for you, whomever provides your cell service) to verify, when the call is routed to their network, that the actual source matches the phone number provided with the call.
In a reasonable world, the telecoms would have implemented such a system long ago. However, since telecoms make money on completed calls, they've dragged their feet.
There are valid reasons to "spoof" caller id. For example, if a customer service department has geographically distributed agents (say, working at home or at satellite offices), you want calls from that organization to reflect the correct, centralized, call in number. That said, there are plenty of ways to avoid needing to do this.
In any case, there's no *good* reason why telecoms can't (or shouldn't) just block calls with spoofed telephone numbers without any intervention from your phone ("smart" or otherwise).
The Senate bill is a start, but more needs to be done. Until then, I suggest wasting the fraudster's time [inc.com] and/or verbally abusing [soylentnews.org] them.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday May 24 2019, @05:35PM (1 child)
I'd also point out that STIR/SHAKEN [transnexus.com] would make swatting [wikipedia.org] much more difficult, if not impossible.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 24 2019, @06:02PM
That is a nice side benefit. Of course, the MSM may not like that. SWATTing provides so many opportunities for wild headlines - not to mention head shots.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Captival on Friday May 24 2019, @03:04AM (7 children)
The TRACED Act, which passed with a vote of 97-1
Who was the 1? Article fails to mention it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by zocalo on Friday May 24 2019, @06:49AM (6 children)
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @02:27PM (5 children)
Interesting, what spying/other crap is included in this bill then?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @05:31PM (4 children)
I don't know. Why don't you read the bill [congress.gov] and report back to us on all the nefarious shit that the "deep state" is hiding in this incredibly devious and freedom destroying bill.
We all look forward to your detailed report.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @06:30PM (3 children)
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/tcpa-expansion-becomes-more-likely-traced-act-gaining-steam-groundswell-bipartisan [natlawreview.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @06:58PM (2 children)
What specific portions of the TRACED act will have those consequences?
You made (well, quoted actually) an assertion. Back it up with evidence, or it's just an unfounded assertion.
Evidence, motherfucker! Do you have any?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @07:06PM (1 child)
Why would there only be "specific portions" that are relevant?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @07:53PM
Okay, *any* portions or all of it.
Anything to support such an assertion.