Slashdot Mirror


FCC Opens Flood Gates for Junk Faxes

EmagGeek writes "The FCC implemented a Report and Order on Reconsideration (R&O on Recon) that uses some of the same exemptions for junk faxes that currently exist for the Do Not Call list. The new rules specify that junk faxers can claim an Existing Business Relationship (EBR) to justify flooding you with junk faxes. Under the new rules, a junk faxer could visit your website and call that an existing business relationship. The new rules also prevent junk-fax trapping, in which someone posts their fax number on the internet, waits for junk faxes, then files suit against the faxers under the TCPA. With all of the government-sponsored selling out of The People that has been going on in the past, say, 6 or so years, one has to wonder when or even if it is going to stop."

17 of 276 comments (clear)

  1. Even if the web page has a disclaimer? by Broodje · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have 2 comments: 1. What if my web page says "Reading this does not a business relationship make"? 2. You still use a real FAX machine with real ink and paper? Shame on you. And don't quote me SOX rules, I've been there and conquered. -B

  2. Do they prosecute the existing laws? by jfengel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I get a fair number of junk faxes as it is. There's no business relationship; it's an unlisted fax number. The FCC can open the "floodgates" as far as they want with regulations if they're not going to prosecute anybody.

    By contrast, the Do Not Call list appears to be more or less working. The few political and charity calls that still get through don't bother me much.

    I don't know why telemarketers are respecting the DNC, but the junk faxers are fearless. Maybe junk faxes are less expensive to send, so they're more akin to spam than telemarketing?

    1. Re:Do they prosecute the existing laws? by dpilot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I never signed up for the Do Not Call list.

      I never got that many nuisance calls, and that hasn't changed. I figured that the Do Not Call list was a centralized repository of live phone numbers, and I would get more calls through misuse than I get without it.

      * We eat dinner as a family, and unless someone is expecting a call, we just don't answer the phone, then.
      * As a general practice, I NEVER say "Hello" a second time when answering, if it appears that nobody is on the other side of the line. Perhaps it's urban legend, but someone once told me that getting the second "Hello" is the trigger for demon dialers used by telemarketers to hand off to a human.
      * Again, without specific expectations of a call, we have the phone disconnected at night. We used to be one digit off of a local police dept.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    2. Re:Do they prosecute the existing laws? by rjstanford · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a general practice, I NEVER say "Hello" a second time when answering, if it appears that nobody is on the other side of the line. Perhaps it's urban legend, but someone once told me that getting the second "Hello" is the trigger for demon dialers used by telemarketers to hand off to a human.

      Yup, urban legend. Many years ago, I worked IT for an ethical telemarketing shop. And by ethical I mean that not only did they maintain their own in-house DNC list, but all of their outbound clients scrubbed against every known DNC list out there. One thing that people don't seem to realize is that telemarketers (the big guys - AT&T, Chase, etc) don't want to piss people off. They also don't want to waste their time; our company was billing something like $20/hr for outbound calling. Time spent calling people who didn't want to talk to them was a waste of money.

      When the predicitive dialer calls out, it places somewhat more calls than you have agents. There's a bit of an art to tuning it for different times/locales/etc because you don't want any hangups from now having a free agent, and you don't want any agents without calls. Even back in the early 90s we were detecting tri-tones (disconnected, etc) which was easy, answering machines (which were harder), etc. Once we got a live line, we had something like .4 seconds to transfer the call to an agent along with all of the necessary information on their screen (like the name of whoever they had just called). They would start speaking immediately if it was quiet, since we'd already had one (or some of) "Hello," from the recipient. Two hellos would have gotten us in trouble with our big-name customers.

      Of course, this can change if you're talking about a sweatshop selling quasi-legal products, or Policeman's Ball tickets, or whatever.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
  3. Fun day by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Stories about AT&T handing over traffic to the NSA...now this...

    Honestly, there are some days when the news just makes me embarrassed to live in this country. And when I'm done being embarrassed, I become scared, because of how little power is left to we the people to incite change in the governmental powers that rule and abuse us.

    As a 22 year old who admittedly does not know very much about the history of our government...can any older Slashdotters explain what it was like when there were even worse government abuses than this, and what the catalyst was that finally got the people to act? I understand that an effective catalyst from back then might not be effective today...but I'm just trying to gain some hope from the fact that some day soon, the people will collectively say "ENOUGH!" and we will be able to go about trying to fix this country into what it should be, and try to patch up the horrible mess we've made of ourselves to the rest of the world.

    Although honestly part of me thinks that my youth might be the enabler of this naivety I have that there is any hope of seeing things get better in my lifetime.

    (Note: To any who find this off-topic...I would pose that it is on-topic in terms of the government screwing us over yet again, mod me down if you disagree...whatever, I feel like everything is kinda pointless right now.)

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    1. Re:Fun day by adrenaline_junky · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Great question. I'm in a cynical mood, so here we go.

      Wish I had a well researched answer, but the best I can do is pull the following out of my ass:

      Political science has developed to the point that governments, ours included, are becoming quite adept at manipulating the public.

      It has reached the point where, after realizing that their greatest threat is from the educated, they have made the "educated elite" their enemy and worked hard to curtail higher education, thus depriving the future of their greatest detractors.

      They have realized that it is not so much deception that provokes anger amongst the population, but instead a perception of weakness. So Bush never admits he is wrong. It is not that he is an arrogant bastard (though he may well be). This is an intentional tactic because his people know it works. Otherwise Bush's presidency would have ended long ago.

      Some of the tactics they use are new, based on the latest psychology and marketing theories. Some are very old, pulled straight from Machiavelli's "The Prince".

      The key thing to understand is that we have politicians in power now (and not just the Republicans) who ultimately care only about holding onto their power. They may ocassionaly indulge in doing the people's business, but it is not their highest priority.

      And why do they want to stay in power? Money. Their money, their family's money, their friend's money, the money of people that look or think like them.

      So to answer your question: things will change when enough people realize that they are being SUCKED DRY by the regime in power. And no sooner.

      When (if?) the current regime finally does lose power, there may be some catalyst that is given credit. This catalyst, whatever it ends up being, will just be the spark, however. The fuel will be realization by a large segment of the population that they were suckered, duped, and plundered.

      Here's something to think about:

      The economy is, by most measures, humming along right now. The stock market is doing quite fine. At the same time, and not by any coicidence, I would submit, the national debt has soared from about $20K per person to nearly $30K per person.

      Who do you think profitted most by the market being propped up with all this spending? Who would have suffered the most if the market had collapsed without all of this spending? Will the market *ever* collapse? If the people in power can just keep spending more and more to keep the market going up and up, who wins and who loses?

      Hint: rich people can always leave the country and go somewhere else when the cards come crashing down.

    2. Re:Fun day by Harik · · Score: 2, Interesting
      On August 21, 1992, the siege began in earnest. Six U.S. marshals, armed and camouflaged, went onto Weaver's property to conduct undercover surveillance. When Weaver's dogs started barking, they shot one of them.

      Weaver's 25-year-old friend Kevin Harris and 14-year-old son Sammy and saw the dog die. Sammy Weaver fired his gun towards the agents as his dad yelled for him to come back to the cabin. "I'm coming, Dad," were Sammy Weaver's last words before he was shot in the back and killed by a U.S. Marshal.

      Kevin Harris, witnessing the agents' killing of the dog and child, fired at the agents in self-defense, killing one of them.

      D'oh! There goes your argument! And that's not some right-wing milita's view on it either, Kevin Harris was aquitted of manslaugter. (I believe on self-defense grounds)

      They later shot his wife while she was standing in the doorway holding an infant.

      Hint: What happened is a fucking atrocity and so far nobody has been held accountable for it. No, one 18 month for 'obstruction of justice' isn't being held accountable for murder. Feel safe?

      Probably the worst thing that came out of Ruby Ridge was the fact that the only people who give a shit about it are white-power groups like stormfront.

      To recap for the retards:
      To coerce his testimony on a group he was affiliated with, they set him up on weapons charges. He refuses, and flees. After he misses his court appearance (which they know they gave him the wrong date) they get an arrest warrant. They then proceed to execute the warrant with 400 personell, a military hostage-rescue unit, and Kill-on-Sight orders for _ALL_ persons, not just the target.

      Now, is it just me, or does that sound an awful lot like an execution squad sent as punishment for not cooperating? Note they shot-to-wound the suspect, but shot-to-kill his family and pets. Then of course the people involved were promoted and given bonuses for good behavior. The only scapegoat was Michael Kalhoe, who was sentanced a modest 18 months for destroying documents relating to the incident.

      Randy weaver was cleared of all original charges, and spent 18 months himself for failure to appear in court. How even that stuck is a mystery to me, given the documented proof the clerk gave him the wrong date. I guess it's every good citizen's responsibility to know exactly when the courts require them, even when not given notice.

  4. FCC mis-step by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The FCC's made a mis-step here. Junk e-mail is one thing, it costs time and hassle but not money. Junk faxes, though, cost money. The accountants will see the cost of consumables (paper, ink/toner) go up, and they'll be able to tie it directly to junk faxes. That's when the business groups start calling their Congressmen saying "Your FCC's decision is costing our members money. Do something, or come election time our contributions go to your opponent.". That's why the junk-fax provisions of the TCPA were put in in the first place.

    Of course, there's also another catch. The FAX-sending entity probably has a FAX line too. If they're claiming an existing business relationship with you, they can't very well deny you having an existing business relationship with them, now can they? And these new rules allow you to send junk FAXes to entities you have an existing business relationship with, don't they?

  5. Re:What about telegraphs? by novastar123 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    actually a lot of places have always on fax numbers, the McDonalds i worked at in highschool did, my highschool did, The 5 person Siding and Windows company i used to work for does, The billion dollar worldwide corperation I currently work for has 4 different always on fax lines that I know of, probably more in different people's offices.

  6. Obsolete? by dada21 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I removed my fax number from my old business card about 6 years ago by ACCIDENT. I've been paying a little extra a month for the fax number (its all electronically processed now anyway) for those 6 years. I don't think a single person has asked me for my fax number in that time -- the only faxes I really receive is from marketers who I opted-in with, and I guarantee I have never made a purchase because of a fax.

    Is the fax obsolete? Does anyone rely on faxing (maybe for contracts?) for their jobs? For me, e-mail is for documents I need, SMS is for notes and quick messages. I don't see anything in my businesses that needs the fax other than applications for accounts.

    1. Re:Obsolete? by ivan256 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Business to business transactions where the seller is extending credit to the buyer (a Purchase Order sale) is still handled over fax almost exclusively. Up until the last few months, insurance business was conducted via fax. Many local governments haven't gotten around to upgrading their fax based systems.

      It's almost dead, but it's not dead yet. Luckily, for the most part, the fax machine is obsolete... At least on the receiving end.

    2. Re:Obsolete? by dada21 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Very interesting and also very odd. Paper (to me) is the least secure form of storing documents. It is easily lost, misfiled, near impossible to track, and in the long run costly to store.

      Faxing those documents makes some sense, but it is still so antiquated -- a technology from the 60s (or earlier) still being used today.

      I understand e-mail's insecurity, but I don't understand why companies aren't using the option of a secured private network to transfer information. Sure the internet is hackable, but there are enough encryption technologies to make it relatively worthless to hack if there are enough layers to transport through. I would honestly think that the best resource for an accounting department would be proprietary software that basically scans a document, allows the user to enter some tagging data ("dinner", "travel", etc) and some automated tagging ("date", "employee", "origination location") plus a basic adder ("amount", "client") that the employee could tag themselves. Once this information is bundled and encrypted and sent via another encrypted network over the Internet, I would believe the company would realize huge gains in reduced overhead.

      Are we creating busy work in order to keep people employed? Are the most efficient companies already doing this and passing on the savings to their customers? Will that be the next step?

  7. Re:One solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Let me give you a clue, here: IT DOESN'T WORK.

    I HAVE an unlisted number. I've been very careful with it, in fact. And yet, I get BOMBARDED with goddamned junk faxes day..AND NIGHT. I don't even own a fax machine.

    The best I can figure is my number, prior to me getting it, was already on some dumbasses' junk fax list.

    So, despite the fact that I pay for an unlisted number, I get an answering machine full of "beep-beep-beep" every fucking day. I've been woken up at 2am by these people, too. The phone company won't do a damned thing about it other than try to sell me new services. And now the gov't has just opened the sewer to make it 1000% worse.

    Oh and here's another gem: I'm in Canada. All the junk faxes I get are from AMERICAN companies (I found this out after putting a fax modem on my phone line to find out WHO the hell was sending them). So this decision isn't even a result of my own government's stupidity.

  8. Re:One solution... by Jon_Hanson · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That doesn't work. I have a fax number that I give out to no one and yet I still get at least one junk fax per day. I have probably been found through war-dialing.

    I actually sued a local company that advertised themselves that way in small-claims court under the TCPA. I did end up winning the case but I was only awarded court costs and not the $500 to $1,500 for a willful violation. The judge said that he had to keep things in perspective becuase he doesn't fine DUI offenders that much ($1,500). At least it cost the company in terms of time of an officer of the company (in this case the Vice President of Human Resources) that had to show up to defend themselves.

    At one time you could assign your junk faxes to Fax Wars and they would do the research of what company was lurking behind the toll free numbers (no one is dumb enough to blantly say a company name anymore) and sue them. You would then get $25 per successful suit or settlement. Alas, their website has been under construction for a while now. They were supposed to be revamping it so you could track the progress of your faxes on-line instead of calling them.

  9. I saw the restrictions go in in the first place by ianscot · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I happened to be working a short-term temp job with a computer products company that sent junk faxes back when legislation originally stated you had to have specific permission to send someone such a fax.

    That caused a little panic around that awful office. We had a little group meeting, in which we were told that we'd need to do a ton of "cold calls" to get permission to send people these unwanted faxes. Several recommended techniques for getting unknowing employees at the other end to sign off on that idea were provided to us.

    I quit the next day, after maybe three days on the job. It was excruciating to consider how asinine the whole situation was -- on our end, on theirs, for everyone... the cost in worthless faxes that wouldn't sell anyone anything.

    That was more than, oh, ten years ago now. The catalog junk mail industry has been straining at those restrictions since then, I guess. More than a little out-of-date, really, to be trying to sell hard drives over the fax... You'd think they'd be concentrating on their own Web presences long since, wouldn't you?

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
  10. Coping by Phreakiture · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Of course, there's also another catch. The FAX-sending entity probably has a FAX line too. If they're claiming an existing business relationship with you, they can't very well deny you having an existing business relationship with them, now can they? And these new rules allow you to send junk FAXes to entities you have an existing business relationship with, don't they?

    Actually, this just gave me a neat idea.

    First off, I suggest that FAX machines should have the ability to read CID data, and that FAX lines should be subscribed to it.

    What you then do with this data is up to you as the owner of the fax machine. I see three options:

    First, you could have the FAX machine pick up the line for one second and then hang it back up when a blacklisted FAX number shows up on the CID. This would be the most efficient and least vengeful option.

    Second, you could have the FAX machine fail to pick up the line when a blacklisted FAX number shows up on the CID. This is probably not the best choice, as your line is tied up ringing, and you don't really get much in return for it.

    Third, and I only recommend this one for pooled-line and low-traffic FAX machines, you configure the FAX machine so that if a blacklisted or non-whitelisted FAX number sends something, the FAX machine drops to the lowest FAX protocol available (which is a 300 baud protocol) and makes liberal use of flow control. OTOH, if an approved fax number sends something, it will go to the fastest protocol (which is a 14,400 baud protocol) and receives into a buffer so that flow control is usually un-needed.

    In all cases, any fax received should have the CID data printed on it, so that the guilty can be blacklisted.

    --
    www.wavefront-av.com
  11. Re:One solution... by NewbieV · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A little Googling came with with this company.

    Quoting from their website:

    "That junk fax could be worth $100.00! Fax Recovery Systems, Inc. (FRS) can help businesses and individuals combat the junk fax spammers that send unsolicited facsimiles day and night. These unwanted advertisements are illegal -- and a terrible waste of time and resources!"

    I've never used their services, but my office gets enough of these junk faxes that it might be worth giving them a try.

    --


    "For every right, an equal responsibility..."