Slashdot Mirror


FCC May Permit Robocalls To Cell Phones -- If They Are Calling a Wrong Number

An anonymous reader writes There have been plenty of false rumors about cell phones being opened up to telemarketers, but now the FCC is actually considering it. From the article: "Consumers have long had the support of government to try to control these calls, chiefly through the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which actually allows consumers to file lawsuits and collect penalties from companies that pepper them with robocalls or text messages they didn't agree to receive. But now the Federal Communications Commission is considering relaxing a key rule and allowing businesses to call or text your cellphones without authorization if they say they called a wrong number. The banking industry and collections industry are pushing for the change." In one case recently, AT&T called one person 53 times after he told them they had a wrong number...and ended up paying $45 million to settle the case. Around 40 million phone numbers are "recycled" each year in the U.S. Twice, I've had to dump a number and get a new one because I was getting so many debt collection calls looking for someone else. Apparently the FCC commissioners may not be aware of the magnitude of the "wrong number" debt collection calls and aren't aware that lots of people still have per-minute phone plans. Anyone can file comments on this proposal with the FCC.

217 comments

  1. Time to abandon normal phones? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    Maybe it's time to abandon normal phones now.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    1. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it's time to abandon normal phones now.

      Yeah.

      I mean do those jokers at the FCC think? Or are they being bribed?

      t seems as though their mission these days is how to fuck over the consumer.

    2. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe it's time they fixed the phone system so that telemarketing scammers from Pakistan and India can't hide behind a North American phone number.

      Maybe it's time they fixed the phone system so that telemarketing scammers in North America have to show their real number.

      Maybe it's time to shut down all number spoofing systems.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by anarcobra · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe it's time for phone companies to allow white lists for who can call a number.

    4. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      I'm afraid most of the voters don't share those sentiments. Nothing matters but cheap gas prices.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      And while they're at it, prevent the same for the Indian recruiters.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    6. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what i want! Google Voice comes close, but not quite close enough.

    7. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by Tontoman · · Score: 0

      There's already a federal Do Not Call registry, so government has already solved the problem! https://www.donotcall.gov/

    8. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unfortunately, that doesn't hamper telemarketers outside North America who spoof numbers. One number gets nailed, they spoof another one. The telcos could fix this if they really wanted to, but they make money off it.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    9. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by dead_user · · Score: 1

      Get one of these:

      http://www.amazon.com/PRO-Call-Blocker-Incoming-Telephone/dp/B00AZ43MGU/ref=pd_sim_e_3?ie=UTF8&refRID=1J6JDGKBWXFNN580TVKM

      The only downside is that if you enable blocking of no caller ID, Unknown, 000-000-0000, etc, it will block legit calls if the caller ID doesn't show up fast enough. I LOVE mine. I was getting 2-3 calls per night with 5ish more per day on the machine. This stopped them. All of them. If one gets through, I push the big red button and it hangs up and adds them to the block list.

    10. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "Do Not Call Registry" doesn't...

      stop calls from International call centers
      stop calls from commercial causes (oops, we called in mistake)
      stop calls from Political causes (If fact, Political causes are exempt from the law and will not honor a request to stop calling.)
      stop whoever else does care about the DNCR and calls anyway

      The Federal Government has not solved the problem--they have lessened the problem because legitimate and credible vendors use the DNCR list.

      Please don't even think the Federal Government can solve any problem. The Feds always make things worse (according to Federal Official) before they make a thing better.

    11. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure he was being facetious. I sincerely hope he was...

      I believe people know who their politicians serve. They just don't care. They push the button the TV tells them to and go back to their dull jobs

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    12. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Get one of these:
      http://www.amazon.com/PRO-Call-Blocker-Incoming-Telephone/dp/B00AZ43MGU/ref=pd_sim_e_3?ie=UTF8&refRID=1J6JDGKBWXFNN580TVKM

      This device appears to use a blacklist only, not a whitelist. According to the reviews, quite a few people are unhappy with it. Most junk calls seem to come from random numbers, so a blacklist is not an effective way to stop them. Blocking all non-caller-id is not effective either because many junk calls spoof CID, while many of my friends and relatives don't use CID out of privacy concerns.

    13. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, get Microsoft to do something about their Skype garbage. I do contract QA for Microsoft, and for some reason we allow these crooks to call thousands of numbers per day. The caller ID on the victim's phones shows the local Skype phone number. We don't stop them. I usually get more than two dozen of these a week which are most often vacation offers. I've seen reports showing some people get hundreds of calls per week from our numbers. I haven't heard a single word at work about even trying to stop this. The people in charge here don't give a damn. They're all from the third world so they don't have the same sensitivity to scammers that we have.

    14. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by sjames · · Score: 2

      That doesn't help much when the caller is in another jurisdiction such as India.

      It also doesn't help when some scummy debt collector has randomly associated your number with an alleged debtor that you don't know. They call relentlessly and refuse to accept that you don't even know the person. They claim do-not-call doesn't apply because they have a 'business relationship' with the debtor. They claim you can't order them to stop calling because you said you weren't the debtor. They are the biggest assholes you will ever have the mis-fortune to communicate with.

      They will happily run up huge cellphone bills for completely innocent 3rd parties if they are allowed to "wrong number" dial your cellphone over and over.

    15. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I run some software on my android phone that sends calls with numbers not in my contacts list straight to voicemail. If they're important enough, I'll call 'em back. Most of the time they're some very-low-quality recruiter or the newspaper asking me to pay to have them litter in my driveway.

      Back in the ol' Landline days, I ran a SIP gateway that went to an asterisk system. It would always ask you to press 1 if you weren't a telemarketer and 2 if you were. Option 2 would politely tell you to fuck off. I never got a telemarketing call after that. I'm guessing the VRU confused most of the robo-calling software they used. After a while I got fancy with it and installed SIP software on the cellphone I was using at the time. So if my phone connected up with the wireless network, it would register with the asterisk server and the asterisk server would ring the phone. If the phone was not available because I was away from the house, calls would go straight to voicemail. If you were on a whitelist, the asterisk system would ask you to hold on and then dial out over VOIP and connect the call to my cell phone. The software on my phone now works pretty well but I miss the power I had with Asterisk.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    16. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They will happily run up huge cellphone bills for completely innocent 3rd parties if they are allowed to "wrong number" dial your cellphone over and over.

      How come? Do you actually pay to receive calls? I pay to call out - and others pay to call me. A robocaller calling me over and over would only run up his own bill . . .

    17. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      What, people still have normal phones? Got rid of at&t years ago, when I realized my whole family used cellphones for everything.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    18. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by sjames · · Score: 2

      I live in the U.S. Here, for some godawful reason, cellular customers pay to receive the call.

    19. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 0

      confused?

    20. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

      Right. Maybe we should all switch to Skype, or Facebook, or email, for all our communication. The telemarketers would never find us there!

    21. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure about iOS devices, but you can put Android voices into blocking mode so that only select numbers will ring.

      The real problem here is that the phone companies aren't being held responsible for the call spoofing that they enable.

    22. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is probably why there's an exemption for political ads. I don't get a huge number of unwanted calls, maybe 2 or 3 a week during most of the year, but during the campaign season I'll get that many during dinner from politicians looking to get my voate.

      There's a definite conflict of interest there, but unless both sides agree to not do it and actually follow through on it, the ads will continue as they'll be hurt more by not calling than by calling.

    23. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it's time ...

      I like this, however it would be far simpler if the caller ID on my phone just displayed "Telemarketer" as the incoming number with three buttons below it. ANSWER, HANGUP, FILE COMPLAINT. I would also like to see legislation that specifies that the first incoming minute of all telemarketer calls is FREE. That gives a person enough time to determine the scam and hang up without getting charged. We would still be out the time, but it prevents those of us still on restrictive plans to avoid being charged for what amounts to an illegal call.

      The big problem with things like debt collection is the more aggressive companies (I had to deal with Daimler Chrysler once when someone used my land-line number to secure a bad loan) offshore to call centers in India where they don't give an F about American laws. I finally got ahold of some finance executive in Texas and told him that Chrysler was on the hook for about $5,000 in illegal calls (quoted him the law) and where did he want the invoice sent. He hung up on me, but I never heard from them again. No, I never pursued this. At the time that was above the amount you could small claims and I didn't have the money for an attorney.

    24. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it's time for phone companies to allow white lists for who can call a number.

      That will never happen, and I'll tell you why. Guess what, most of the big telemarketing companies in the US are ... run by the phone companies. They will resist any laws that threaten that revenue stream. Why do you think they diluted caller ID to the point where it is useless as numbers coming from other states simply show as "out of area"? As far as I know ANI (Automatic number identification - what businesses use) can not be spoofed.

    25. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      I seriously had no idea that was going on it the US. The idea that the recipient should pay for a communication initiated by someone else is ludicrous and any attempt by any organisation that allows others to involuntarily force costs upon you is horrendous. I would not touch a mobile phone upon that basis or at the very least turn off network connection when I am specifically not using the phone to initiate calls. So I gather that in the US there is an Android app that blocks all incoming calls and texts that are not on a user defined white list, you do not want the call so why the hell should you pay for it. Seriously there just has to be, else you guys are really suckers and what the FCC is intending, is plainly a criminal conspiracy with corporations to rip off the public. I'll bet the corporate discounts for their calls means they pay less when initiating a call than you in the US do when receiving it, damn.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    26. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      As one, every man, woman and child should cancel their cellphone planes until this absurd situation is resolved. Starting today.

    27. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by Technician · · Score: 1

      Closing spoofing closes normal business trunking.
      Case in point.

      I have a DID line. No outgoing phone plan at all. Normal business applications is an 800 toll free number. Call it and an entire bank of phones ring for the first available operator.

      I also have several trunk lines. Mush like the local hotel. You know the drill. Dial 9 for an outside line. What was proposed is to give each of the trunks a FIXED phone number. You can call a trunk line, but they don't take inbound calls. Instead the PBX uses the info of the extension to identify the call to the CID system. I call, you call back on my 800 number. It's the way the PBX system works.

      Unfortunately with the break up of ma bell, there exists COME equipment outside the control of ma bell. Now ma bell can't own all the PBX'es and be responsible for every extension.

      There existed a day when anything attached to a phone line was owned by ma bell.

      Now Customer Owned and Maintained Equipment (COME) has let the jeanie out of the bottle and there is no way to put the jeanie back in the bottle. I you have a business trunk line and a DID even over VOIP, setting your own line display name is a normal administrative task.

      Unfortunately this is subject to abuse.

      For more info on the subject read the manual for any good software PBX such as Asterisk, 3CX, etc. I can directly set the "Display Name" on my SNOM desk phone. I can call from various extensions as needed to display either my local market number or the 800 number.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    28. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by sjames · · Score: 1

      There are such app. You just set the ringtone to silent and set a different ringtone for people in your address book. It does limit the functionality though since you don't get emergency calls where someone you know had to borrow a phone and such.

      The whole thing is a leftover from when landlines had unlimited local calling and cellphones were a luxury item called a carphone (because it was the size of a briefcase and needed a car battery to operate anyway). Since it was a low volume luxury item, you got charged both for making and receiving the call. The phone company wasn't about to let go of that sweet deal, so it remains that way even now when nearly everyone has a cellphone.

    29. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      > It does limit the functionality though since you don't get emergency calls where someone you know had to borrow a phone and such.

      Those people can leave a voicemail message. Most telemarketers and robocalls don't. When I get a mystery calling number, I let it go to voicemail. If it's important they can leave a message, and I can call them back.

    30. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      Well - my Android phone came standard with a call block app that says only allow calls and texts from contacts. So that solves that problem.

    31. Re: Time to abandon normal phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hers a novel solution: don't answer the call.

    32. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      If it's an emergency, they can call 911.

    33. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Not all emergencies are of the 911 variety. Certainly not all urgencies are.

      I would prefer we just fine the hell out of junk callers who call cellphones.

    34. Re: Time to abandon normal phones? by sjames · · Score: 1

      And later find out that it was your wife on a borrowed phone telling you the car won't start and now she's really not amused.

    35. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by dead_user · · Score: 2

      Mine is whitelist capable, but that's too restrictive for me. I don't know what number my pharmacy will be calling from to confirm a prescription and I don't want to maintain that growing list of numbers. During the last election cycle I got 1-2 calls a night for about 2 days. By then all the major call centers had been blocked and I stopped getting harassed by pollsters and politicians. I even have a few entire prefixes blocked out due to high spam calls coming from that area code. My only complaint is that it is too easy to accidentally add a good number to the blacklist. I've added myself a couple of times. Easy enough to fix, though.

    36. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by simmee · · Score: 1

      No that will not happen. your govt does not care about you, it is filled with people who only care about who gives the an advantage in life.

    37. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by Strider- · · Score: 1

      Now Customer Owned and Maintained Equipment (COME) has let the jeanie out of the bottle and there is no way to put the jeanie back in the bottle. I you have a business trunk line and a DID even over VOIP, setting your own line display name is a normal administrative task.

      Sure, but the telco should still sanity check the ANI provided to make sure it's a number permitted over that PRI (or whatever you're calling with). IE: if you order a PRI with a 100 block of DIDs, the telco should reject any number that's not within your block of DIDs. If you want outbound calls to match your toll free, fine, but you should have to register that with the telco to permit it.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    38. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      The UK's equivalent is worse than useless. People who sign up to it get on average twice as many nuisance calls as people who don't sign up to it - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

    39. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      In other countries, it usually costs more to call a mobile than a landline, and mobiles have different area codes, for example in the UK, mobile numbers begin with 07, whereas landline numbers begin with 01 or 02. In the USA, you can't tell the difference between a mobile number and a landline number by looking at it, and the call cost is the same either way. The recipient of the call has to pay the difference.

    40. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      People who sign up to it get on average twice as many nuisance calls as people who don't sign up to it

      That is slightly misleading. Your link says :-

      A survey ... found that those registered with the TPS did report a decrease in calls. But they still received an average of ten in the past month, compared with five for those who had not signed up.

      In other words, people are more likely to sign up to the TPS if they are getting more calls in the first place. Not suprising. And then the calls they get are reduced. My experience with the TPS has been fairly good : calls certainly reduced. However, the TPS itself hardly seems to do anything (apart from keeping the list). I have complained about callers to them several times and never received any feedback. They say they issue fines of 1.5 million GBP last year -that's nothing.

    41. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      I live in the U.S ... cellular customers pay to receive the call.

      That is absolutely barmy, barmy, barmy. How can anyone possibly be held responsible for paying for something they did not want and did not initiate? No wonder you get bombarded with calls.

      Does the caller pay anything?

    42. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 1

      Maintaining a personal white list is not easy - do you want your kid's school to be able to call you? Your credit cards' fraud-detection unit? Any hospital a close family member might be taken to in an emergency?

      If this rule change is passed, then maybe it is time for some means to redirect these calls to the personal phones of FCC commissioners and board members of the companies pushing for the change.

    43. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      Yes, the caller pays for minutes at the same rate as he would to accept a call. But we don't pay extra to call a cell phone instead of a land line. And it isn't uncommon for cell to cell calls within the same carrier to be free.

      But what's wrong with the recipient splitting the cost? Granted, sales calls are generally one sided. But if two friends want to yak it up for an hour - with both benefiting equally from the conversation - doesn't it make sense to split the cost?

    44. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "They say they issue fines of 1.5 million GBP last year -that's nothing."

      They also go silent when asked how much they actually _collected_

      The UK phone abuse laws are seldom enforced and they specifically disempower endusers. There is _no_ right of private action as there is with the TCPA, and the sole regulator is deliberately restricted in staff levels so they can only deal with a tiny fraction of 1% of complaints.

    45. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "That doesn't help much when the caller is in another jurisdiction such as India."

      Sure it does.

      The TCPA allows you to go after the marketing company which hired the caller AND the company they're marketing for, so just let them give over enough information to identify the company concerned (follow the money) and then you'll probably be able to cut a deal with them to identify the USA company they hired to do the marketing.

      As for repeated calls, that's a straightforward harrassment issue and you can use criminal charges to deal with that as well as the TCPA's civil paths.

    46. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "In the USA, you can't tell the difference between a mobile number and a landline number by looking at it,"

      That's not always true.

      There are numbering ranges ("area codes") which are dedicated to cellular use and the caller usually pays (free incoming) for those.

      The issue about mobile owners paying for incoming is because the original cellular allocations gave half the band to the local wireline incumbent. They had no incentive to provide a separate area code for mobiles, so wireside and wireless calls were in the same code, meaning that callers had no idea if they were calling mobile phones.

      (On top of this, if you roamed to another town, you would be hit with horriffic roaming fees for merely being connected, whether any calls were made or not. The whole mess was an accountant's wet dream.)

      It's not so much of a big issue these days as people buy blocks of minutes and incoming calls are taken from those first.

      That model still persists to some degree, but dedicated wireless number prefixes are in increasing use USA-wide and mixed-use area codes comprise a declining percentage of mobile phones.

      (BTW, be very careful with assumptions about "mobile numbers" - in the UK 070 is a historic premium rate range and numbers in this range between GBP 0.5-1.5 per minute to call. It's common for scammers to exploit these numbers as most consumers assume "07 = mobile")

    47. Re: Time to abandon normal phones? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Standard practice for calling from a previously unknown number is often "make 1-2 one ring calls, THEN let it ring for a longer period"

    48. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "Sure, but the telco should still sanity check the ANI provided to make sure it's a number permitted over that PRI "

      This is _exactly_ what UK telcos started doing about 6-8 years ago, after years of claiming it was impossible.

      Background: Several 0900 pranklines were setup with the ability to set whatever caller-ID the caller wanted and were used for nuisance calling (including at least one SWATing incident). During heated internal debates about the legality of this, someone leaked programming documents showing the switches had filtering as a built in feature. Smaller telcos still don't filter, but the majors do filter what comes out of PRIs to prevent recurrances.

      Even VOIP providers can filter, if they see a need (legislation compelling telcos to filter outbound CLID/ANI data would go a long way towards solving spoofing issues)

    49. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by sjames · · Score: 1

      What's wrong is exactly the unwanted calls. It's bad enough that some callcenter droid thinks I exist to listen to his spew without the added insult of having to pay for it. Up until now, fines have prevented that but under the proposed change, the pointy headed bastards will just claim "wrong number".

    50. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by sjames · · Score: 1

      So all I have to do is quit my job and become an international detective? Sure, what a deal!

    51. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      And 07624 is Isle of Man mobile (01624 is Isle of Man landline). Those calls get charged at international rates.

      It is correct to say that mobile numbers begin with 07. As you pointed out, it is not always correct to say that numbers beginning 07 are mobile numbers.

    52. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Marketers aren't going to call you for a non-existant company. All you have to do is let them talk and they'll tell you who they're selling for.

      At that point you file against that company. The TCPA covers that quite nicely.

    53. Re:Time to abandon normal phones? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, they give me the name of the distributor with no assets. That's when the detective work starts.

      Sure, it will work at first, but the more it works, the harder it will get to make it work.

  2. Oh *Hell* no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They think that Net Neutrality generated ire of consumers...that didn't piss off 1/10th of the people that this will piss off.

    Instead of filing comments, can we send robocalls to the Commissioners' cell phone, and say we reached a wrong number because we intended to call someone who cared?"

    1. Re:Oh *Hell* no. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      ...say we reached a wrong number because we intended to call someone who cared?"

      They'd know you are lying. The only person that could possibly care is dead.

      Operator, information...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Oh *Hell* no. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      But then hasn't the legend firmly established that death is really only a temporary inconvenience for him?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:Oh *Hell* no. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      ...say we reached a wrong number because we intended to call someone who cared?"

      They'd know you are lying. The only person that could possibly care is dead.

      Operator, information...

      ...say we reached a wrong number because we intended to call someone who cared?"

      They'd know you are lying. The only person that could possibly care is dead.

      This gives me an idea. If say, a million or two of us nerds started up robocalling businesses, and started calling wrong numbers 24/7/365 and 1/4, maybe that would help.

      And knowing that random number generators are never really random, well heaven knows the wrong numbers that might get called.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  3. What happened to the editorz? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If they *be* calling a wrong number". Don't Slashdot got any editors no more?

    1. Re:What happened to the editorz? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Diversity in da workplace, DAWG!

    2. Re:What happened to the editorz? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Axe me about Ebonics.

  4. Robo caller asks for Mr. Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My robo caller only calls wrong numbers at least that is what the victims on the other side of the line say pretty often.

    Just let the robo caller ask if Mr smith is available

  5. Yipppppeeeee! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oops, wrong story!

  6. Once by Nemyst · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have no issue with them being able to call me without legal repercussions... once. After that, it's their job to update their robocall lists. I've informed them that they no longer have the correct number. Any further "mistakes" should be fully punishable.

    1. Re:Once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Result of your request:

      800-555-1212 -- Nemyst -- Confirmed quality number with confirmed name, removed from our call database -- Placed on working number selling list

    2. Re:Once by Kjella · · Score: 1

      This is actually a case where government regulation works, here in Norway there's a "reservation registry" against telemarketing, fixed and mobile phones. About 2.1 out of 5 million inhabitants have registered, never get any telemarketing calls. You can optionally reserve against ideal organizations too, though you can't reserve against surveys. There's a loophole for "existing business relationships" but it's pretty narrow and since that means you actually have business with them they're quite responsive to take you off any list to continue that business. Not that they have any choice either.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Once* would be awesome. Comcast doesn't offer service where I live in Seattle, but they still call landlines about once a week to try to sell us service. It's so bad, it's even an agenda item on our quarterly HOA meeting. Why spend the money to call people that you have already decided that you don't want to sell to? I often waste their time by acting interested then going through the order process then disappointing the sales person when they submit the order and it fails. I get their hopes up by making them think they're getting a commission then Comcast crushes their hopes with their refusal at the end.

    4. Re:Once by PRMan · · Score: 1

      We have that too. It's at http://donotcall.gov./ And you can register your numbers and it has a simple form to submit complaints. Companies still call by spoofing the caller ID and when you report that number, nothing happens.

      What you need to do is go along with them enough, pretend like you want their offer, but then say you heard about phishing so you need a real number where you can call them back. Then report THAT number. They get a fine for $11,000.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    5. Re:Once by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The problem is that people with debts often tell the caller that they have the wrong number, even if they don't. Since the caller is basically powerless to do much else other than harass the debtor by phone, they keep doing it. I assume it must work in some percentage of cases, otherwise they wouldn't.

      People often have the same problem when they move house. Debt collection letters for the previous occupier, and occasional visits from debt collection agencies. There isn't much you can do, other than removing their implied right of access and calling the police if they do come back.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Once by sjames · · Score: 1

      THIS! They will call every man, woman, and child in the U.S. once, then fold up their tents and open under a new name so they can do it again.

      It's about time for these shoddy businesses to be taught that I do not owe them my time or ears.

    7. Re:Once by Solandri · · Score: 1

      I'd add another caveat - that once the error is pointed out, the caller ceases any attempts to market anything. Otherwise it's no different than them calling you and putting you on the "not interested" list.

      Also, this problem is somewhat unique to the U.S. Cellular subscribers in the U.S. pay for incoming calls. In most countries, it's the caller who pays, so they have a built-in incentive to avoid mobile phone numbers. (Long story short is that U.S. landline phone plans switched over to fixed monthly rates before cell phones became popular. That is, you pay $30/mo, and all you could make unlimited local calls (and later, long distance calls). When cell phones arrived on the scene, this necessitated the cell phone owner pay cellular charges for incoming calls, in order to avoid breaking these fixed rate plans.)

    8. Re:Once by scatter_gather · · Score: 1

      This already doesn't work with the Do Not Call registry. I have telemarketers claim that they get "one free call" to every number. So they call EVERY known number for customer A. Then they get a new client, customer B. They change the business name under which they are calling and start at the beginning of their list. They NEVER STOP CALLING damnit. When you go to the FTC site to register a complaint, right there on the form they ask "Have you asked them not to call back?", rather implying that the feds will take no action unless they have called repeatedly using the same business name. Now you figure it makes sense to make it easier for the crooks to do this "one free call" with cell phones? Save yourself some grief and throw your cell phone in the trash if this goes through.

    9. Re:Once by danknight48 · · Score: 1

      Result of your request:

      800-555-1212 -- Nemyst -- Confirmed quality number with confirmed name, removed from our call database -- Placed on working number selling list

      I used to be so kind to call center workers, asking them to remove from the call list, with all the please and thank you's i could give. But most of the call centers would call back (most likely due to the above).

      Now i tell them to "Fuck off", be abusive and swear my heart out. Surly that gets you put on the "black list" and removed from the system?
      Works for me in the UK.

      I feel sorry for the staff, but at the end of the day, their job is to piss people off and they know it.

    10. Re:Once by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "Now i tell them to "Fuck off", be abusive and swear my heart out."

      I work on upsetting them and getting _them_ to swear at me. That leads to being able to lay complaints under section 126 of the UK telecommunications act (threatening calls, etc)

      If the UK police can use the act to prosecute and get convictions over off-colour jokes in twitter, I see zero reason not to use it against telemarketers.

  7. good grief by sribe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've already had cold sales calls (from a person, not a robocall) where they ask for a non-existent person, I tell them they have a wrong number, and they launch into "oh, I'm sorry, but as long as I've got you on the phone, let me tell about the great deal we're offering on replacement windows..."

    It's just that the pacing and tone of voice made it clear to me that the whole thing was scripted in advance to go that way, that the "oops, sorry, wrong number" was simply a lie told in the hopes that I would not report them for violating the do not call list.

    1. Re:good grief by PRMan · · Score: 0

      Report them to http://donotcall.gov/ anyway.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:good grief by sribe · · Score: 1

      Report them to http://donotcall.gov/ [donotcall.gov] anyway.

      Oh, I did. He called at a time when I was totally fed up with people ignoring the do-not-call list, and he added to my frustration by refusing to take "no" for an answer and getting borderline belligerent.

    3. Re:good grief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If i ever get a real person i always ask them for their home address so we can discuss it in person after work. Generally makes them freak out after i become really insistent and they end the call.

    4. Re:good grief by leonardluen · · Score: 1

      you know you can hang up on them at any time. you don't have to listen to their sales pitch.

      they have no qualms about intruding on your time and trying to sell something to you that you don't want, so just hang up on them.

    5. Re:good grief by sribe · · Score: 1

      you know you can hang up on them at any time. you don't have to listen to their sales pitch.

      I usually do, immediately. But every once in a while if I'm bored, or like in this case they're taking a novel approach, I just want to see how far they will go.

      Sort of like the shouting/cursing match with Joe from "the Windows Corporation" who wanted to alert me to my virus problem and help me solve it ;-) Seriously, after multiple calls per day for a while from different numbers, I decided to see how much abuse those scammers would take before giving up, and it turns out that if you don't hang up they'll just keep going, no matter what you say. (And, FYI, I opened with "I understand how this scam works"!)

    6. Re:good grief by leonardluen · · Score: 1

      i like messing with Joe from "The windows corporation". last time he called i wasn't even sitting at a computer and tried to see how long i could play along with them. even described the event viewer screen to them from memory so they could verify i was on the right screen. Only hung up on them because i ran out of time and had to go somewhere.

    7. Re:good grief by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      you know you can hang up on them at any time. you don't have to listen to their sales pitch.

      they have no qualms about intruding on your time and trying to sell something to you that you don't want, so just hang up on them.

      Better yet, don't answer the call. If it's important, they'll leave a message.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    8. Re:good grief by sribe · · Score: 2

      i like messing with Joe from "The windows corporation". last time he called i wasn't even sitting at a computer and tried to see how long i could play along with them. even described the event viewer screen to them from memory so they could verify i was on the right screen. Only hung up on them because i ran out of time and had to go somewhere.

      I've considered firing up a VM and going along until the point where they want money, then saying "nah, I think I'll just delete this VM image instead" ;-)

    9. Re:good grief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really got them one time when I had a VM set up and a scheduled task that ran every 5 seconds to empty the event viewer logs. They asked me to open it and said, "see all the errors?" I said, "No." After a little back and forth, I downloaded a remote viewing software to "prove it, smart guy." Started it up and said, "look nothing in the event viewer." He seemed in shock and then, as the script went completely off and he didn't have remote control, only the ability to see. So he quickly said something about it might be a neighbor and hung up. Of course, I laughed so hard. Any real tech support person would be freaking out that the event viewer was empty, as it is supposed to be full.

    10. Re:good grief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you get their contact information to get them fined?

      First question for a telemarketer - What number can I reach you at?
      If they refuse, end the call.

      If everyone did that, then it'd be possible to shut them down as quickly as they could get new lines.

    11. Re:good grief by Technician · · Score: 1

      I get those from time to time so I accidentally give them the wrong name and address. I wonder who they sent out to the apartment complex.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    12. Re:good grief by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      I get those from time to time so I accidentally give them the wrong name and address. I wonder who they sent out to the apartment complex.

      Interestingly, most of those calls don't go anywhere. Even though you make an appointment, they often don't show up.

      The ones that do, are always in a nondescript van with no business name or anything. That's because they change names basically weekly to keep out of scam lists.

    13. Re:good grief by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      As soon as they launched into the spiel, it's a marketing call and wrong number claims no longer hold water.

      The same thing applies to "surveys" which turn into sales calls or are used as a pretext to get a sales call.

    14. Re:good grief by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      There are a number of recording apps for android and iphones which are handy to prove marketing claims.

      I know some states have issues about two party calling, but sales calls are seldom intra-state and I can see an outfit which used two-party laws to get evidence thrown out which showed them making illegal calls getting extra special attention from the FCC.

      In the EU, there's a specific exemption for recording if you are using it to document criminal/illegal activity which goes over and above the one-party recording rules that allow anyone to make recordings for their personal use.

  8. Useless complaint center by RPI+Geek · · Score: 3, Informative

    The FCC complaint office is useless. I've submitted multiple complaints for robo calls and have never heard back from them.

    --

    - "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
    1. Re:Useless complaint center by Livius · · Score: 1

      It's not useless. It creates the illusion that someone is listening to complaints.

      It was never their function to *act* on the complaints.

    2. Re:Useless complaint center by PRMan · · Score: 1

      They don't call you back. But I worked for a company that got $88,000 in fines in a single month. So I can assure you they are getting fined. You just need to make sure you get to their actual number instead of the spoofed caller ID.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    3. Re:Useless complaint center by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I wonder if it can be reported as harassment and get the local police involved. Might not be able to get them fined, but you might be able to get a single party to stop calling.

    4. Re:Useless complaint center by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      State AG works. I've submitted a complaint to them about a wrong-number robocall debt collection company who was constantly calling me, and they were forced to apologize to me and stop calling my number. Of course in that case the company was semi-legit -- using their real caller ID so I could figure out who they were.

      There is no way to tell a robot that they have the wrong number. To allow repeated wrong number calls, or to allow robocalls at all, both of those are completely unacceptable. To allow both together is so ridiculous I can't even imagine the incompetence behind such a decision.

    5. Re:Useless complaint center by pbhj · · Score: 1

      >But I worked for a company that got $88,000 in fines in a single month. //

      And still found it profitable to harass people by phone? Usually such fines are miniscule compared to the companies operating funds and so just get absorbed in to the costs of doing business rather than altering the company's behaviour.

  9. File all the comments you want by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Just don't make it sound like that Jar-Jar Binks gag up there in the headline

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  10. Call these people to express your opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Thomas Wheeler, Chairman (District of Columbia)
    Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner (Connecticut)
    Ajit Pai, Commissioner (Kansas)
    Mignon Clyburn, Commissioner (South Carolina)
    Michael O'Rielly, Commissioner (New York)

    Use a pre-recorded message with a robodialer.

    Don't forget to mention that you dialed a wrong number!

  11. NotAs Simple as it Sounds by anorlunda · · Score: 1

    The Federalist Society recently posted a podcast on this subject.
    http://www.fed-soc.org/multime...

    The issues, and unintended side effects of The Telephone Consumer Protection Act are more extensive than you probably imagine.I recommend that podcast as TFA for this thread.

    1. Re:NotAs Simple as it Sounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Careful there. There's a ton of these sites pushing a particular special interest agenda (in particular, fed-soc.org is one of many fronts for the Koch brothers funded through the American Enterprise Institute). Source: http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...

      Since they all exist to push a particular business interest through mindshare, it's almost impossible to figure out where the truth lies by the "facts" presented on these sites. In this case you can safely go out on a limb and assume that it's someone sympathetic to breaking down the TCPA.

  12. Wrong direction by Livius · · Score: 3

    Why are *any* robocalls allowed? In most (perhaps all) places they fit the definition of criminal harassment, and a computer certainly has no free speech rights.

    1. Re:Wrong direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Political Robocalls are allowed under the First Amendment of the USA Constitution--"no restriction" on Political Speech.

    2. Re:Wrong direction by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      The first amendment limits the government from limiting free speech. The first amendment does not guarantee that I, a private citizen, must pay for the infrastructure for the government to make a political statement, nor that I must sacrifice opportunity to listen to their spiel. There is nothing in the constitution protecting government speech to me.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    3. Re:Wrong direction by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      That use case is different though.

      1. Your pharmacy isn't spamming thousands of people. Neither is your bank.
      2. You _already_ have a business relationship with them. When some yahoo is mass robodialing that just wastes everyone's time.

      Robocalls should be OPT IN, not this bullshit of "opt out."

      --
      First Contact is coming 2022. Are you ready for a new perspective?

    4. Re:Wrong direction by PRMan · · Score: 1

      My daughters' school robocalls announcements as well. This is very useful.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    5. Re:Wrong direction by jtara · · Score: 1

      Why are *any* robocalls allowed?

      They aren't - at least in California. The law here requires a human caller to verify that the consumer wishes to hear the message. A human needs to talk to the call first.

      There are some exemptions - for political campaigns, emergency services, prior relationship (robe-call from your pharmacy that your order is ready) etc.

    6. Re:Wrong direction by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Heh, don't even try to pull that one. Tying up your line and reversing the charges is way beyond free speech.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re:Wrong direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get yourself one of those numbers where people have to pay to call. Of course all your friends & relatives always gets the money back when they call you, so no loss to them. Telemarketers and similiar shit will either avoid you or loose money. win-win!

    8. Re:Wrong direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and a computer certainly has no free speech rights.

      unless you throw in an algorithm capable of filling out the paperwork needed to incorporate.

    9. Re:Wrong direction by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

      I mostly agree. But there are some kinds of robocalls that are actually helpful. Our kids' school, for example, uses a robo-call system to let parents know when school is canceled due to weather or other reasons.

    10. Re:Wrong direction by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      You have to have explicit permission in order to do a robocall to a number.

      How do you define explicit permission? If it's buried in page 12 of a user agreement that you have to sign, is that explicit permission? From a legal perspective, how do you separate that from the actual real-world permission like what you're thinking of? How about a line on page 12 that explicitly gives their "affiliates" permission to robocall you?

    11. Re:Wrong direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are *any* robocalls allowed? In most (perhaps all) places they fit the definition of criminal harassment, and a computer certainly has no free speech rights.

      Because corrupt politicians took enough "campaign contributions" (cough bribes cough) to put enough loopholes in the law to drive a truck full of cash though.

    12. Re:Wrong direction by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      There are some exemptions - for political campaigns

      Why?

    13. Re:Wrong direction by Livius · · Score: 1

      No-one objects to robocalls they explicitly consent to. Those are not the problem.

    14. Re:Wrong direction by Existential+Wombat · · Score: 1

      Why?

      Dumbest question of the day.

    15. Re:Wrong direction by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      So I take it you can answer my dumb question - why are politicians permitted to have robots call you up and hassle you whereas salespeople are not? They are both equally irritating in my opinion, and both of them are effectively trying to sell you something.

    16. Re:Wrong direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they write the laws, so who is going to stop them from writing exemptions for themselves?

    17. Re:Wrong direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the Supreme Court has declared that "core political speech" receives a much higher level of protection under the first amendment than "commercial speech." The state would have a much harder time defending the no-robocall law in court. Also, the politicians are the ones writing the laws.

    18. Re:Wrong direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a certain overlap you might understand between the people who write and pass laws, and the people who take part in political campaigns.

    19. Re:Wrong direction by toddestan · · Score: 1

      That's absolutely correct. They banned sound trucks (a truck with loudspeakers that used to drive around and play political messages) a long time ago because they were obnoxious*. I don't see why the same reasoning couldn't be used to ban robocalling, except that the politicians won't do it.

      *Technically they are still legal in most jurisdictions if you get a permit, but good luck with that.

    20. Re:Wrong direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you being serious or are you trolling us?

      Politicians make the fucking laws! Of course they are going to make them to their own liking.

    21. Re:Wrong direction by Cramer · · Score: 1

      YOU have an established "business" relationship with your daughter's school. When their idiot mis-programmed robot calls ME, then we have a problem. As it's a 100% automatic announcement machine, it is an absolute god damn pain in the fucking ass get it "fixed". (yes, I've had this bullshit with the Wake County Schools. And there's some charter school in Durham that calls my freedompop number.)

  13. Proofreading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't even proofread the fucking summary here anymore?

    Oh how the great have fallen.

    1. Re:Proofreading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The phrase is "Oh, how the mighty have fallen."
      You were saying?

    2. Re:Proofreading by Calydor · · Score: 1

      'anymore'?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  14. A GIANT loophole by bjdevil66 · · Score: 1

    "Sorry - wrong number," as a get out of jail free card? They might as well get rid of the phone protection part.

  15. "after he told them they had a wrong number" by jtara · · Score: 1

    Um. At that point it is no longer a wrong number.

    Glad ATT got slapped.

  16. "If They a Calling a Wrong Number" WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You racka disaprin!!!

    Who the fuck wrote the summary? Who the fuck wrote the summary title?

    Whoever they are - YOU RACKA DISAPRIN!

    American idiots.

  17. Simple solution .... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... for calls to cellular numbers: Caller pays.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Simple solution .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck with that. This way the cell companies may be able to double-charge minutes.

      I do agree, though, as that is how it is in most of the civilized world.

    2. Re:Simple solution .... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Give the receiver the option. You have received a call, please press 0 to accept this call for free or enter a dollar amount for which you would be willing to take this call. After this call is over, you have the option to remove the charge if , for example, it was your child calling stranded on the road from an unknown number.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  18. Ban reciver pays by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

    anyone though it was a good idea to make some one receiving a call pay needs sacking from the FCC

  19. That class-action-suit is a sham by surd1618 · · Score: 1

    $45 MILLION dollars for annoying phone calls

    That's the kind of lawsuit that causes the lobbyists to ride to Washington.

    1. Re:That class-action-suit is a sham by chadenright · · Score: 1

      Net income: $19,000,000,000
      Fine amount: $00,045,000,000

      That barely amounts to a slap on the wrist.

    2. Re:That class-action-suit is a sham by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Net income: $19,000,000,000

      Fine amount: $00,045,000,000

      That barely amounts to a slap on the wrist.

      You fail to recognize how greedy they are. That would be, like taking one less week's vacation.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  20. I currently get robocalls on my mobile by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2
    You mean I'll be getting MORE unwanted calls?

    .
    What is so difficult about the FCC understanding that I do not want calls on my mobile from robocallers and/or telemarketers.

    1. Re:I currently get robocalls on my mobile by Earthquake+Retrofit · · Score: 2

      You mean I'll be getting MORE unwanted calls?

      . What is so difficult about the FCC understanding that I do not want calls on my mobile from robocallers and/or telemarketers.

      What is difficult for people to understand is the difference between telemarketers and political opinion surveys. Politicians will never, ever give up their political opinion polls. There WILL be a loophole.

      --
      Fifty years of Yippie! 1968-2018
    2. Re:I currently get robocalls on my mobile by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1
      I understand the difference you say. But so long as we are talking about loopholes, you also neglected to mention the loophole that allows market researchers to cold call.

      .
      Now, if I could also stop those &*()&(^%^ political calls.....

    3. Re:I currently get robocalls on my mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop giving out your cell number. I cut my landline because of telemarketers, only family/important people get my cell number, everybody else gets my Google Call number and can leave a voice or text message. Result = No telemarketing calls, no political calls, no charity calls.

    4. Re:I currently get robocalls on my mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      stop giving out your cell number

      The modus operandi behind most robocalling that reaches cell numbers is the old-school war dialing method so they *WILL* get to every single phone number in the area code. You could literally give your number to nobody and you will get called by these assholes.

  21. It's just like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Getting away with telemarketing by posing as a survey or non-profit. And just like the "No Soliciting" sign on my front door, you can sue door to door sales if they knock on your door selling services, but not if they say "We're doing a survey for solar panels, would you be interested in buying some?"
    Oops worded that wrong...
    Getting away a telemarketing to posing as an survey or non-profit. And just like they "No Soliciting" sign on da front door, you cin sue door 2 door sales if day knock on da door selling services, but'nt if day say "We're doing a survey for solar panels, du be interested in buyng sum?"

  22. The times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They a changin'

  23. Robocalls to my cellphone: 'Ineffective' by kheldan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't answer calls from numbers I don't recognize anyway, and I recommend everyone else do the same.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Robocalls to my cellphone: 'Ineffective' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about answering those calls, with, "please hold on a minute..." and then put your phone down and ignore it until they hang up. It will cost the sleazebag companies money. If everyone did that, these evil bastards would go out of business.

    2. Re:Robocalls to my cellphone: 'Ineffective' by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      I don't answer calls from numbers I don't recognize anyway, and I recommend everyone else do the same.

      That's not an option for everybody, especially those who use their cell phone for business purposes.

    3. Re:Robocalls to my cellphone: 'Ineffective' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah that's just a work-around to a problem that should not exist in the first place. And it's a solvable problem if the industry wasn't so fucking lazy and corrupt.

      Most us want to be able to use our phones freely and fairly without having to hide. But maybe you're really young and can't imagine a time when people didn't have to hide from unfamiliar phone numbers. You think it has to be that way.

    4. Re:Robocalls to my cellphone: 'Ineffective' by chihowa · · Score: 1

      I've found that many of the telemarketers either use a random number with the same area code as the number they're calling or an 800/866 number for the caller id. I've had the same phone number since college and don't know anybody at all with that area code. So any call coming from my area code is a drunk misdial or a telemarketer. Very handy for filtering two classes of annoying calls.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    5. Re:Robocalls to my cellphone: 'Ineffective' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we are so sick and tired of cold calls and computerized robocalls to our cell phones it's gotten to the point that any unrecognized numbers from not around here (our area code or a neighboring one) gets sent straight to voicemail.. and the instant we do hear a computer talking on the other end.. it's 'dont ever call again' and click.

  24. Headlines By a-Mario by perry64 · · Score: 1

    If they a calling a wrong-a number, it's-a all right.

    1. Re:Headlines By a-Mario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If dey a callin', don't bother knockin'
      If dey a knockin', don't let dem in!

  25. Easier to collect the fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want a fine was easier to collect. $45 million seems excessive for 53 phone calls but most of us have no way to easily track down the perpetrator nor collect any award short of a lawsuit. And unless you have a well defined deep-pockets violator, good luck getting an attorney. I have received 2-3 and have no reasonable recourse to collect any money. I want an instant $50 for every wrong telemarketing/debt collection call.

    1. Re:Easier to collect the fine by chipschap · · Score: 1

      $45 million seems excessive for 53 phone calls

      No more excessive than $200,000 per song downloaded or whatever it is.

    2. Re:Easier to collect the fine by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      That doesn't seem excessive to me. If the call was on a DNC list and they chose to call it anyway, then they have chosen to break the law. Once they break the law, they no longer have a say in the consequences.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    3. Re:Easier to collect the fine by Mateorabi · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is that any law infraction justifies any punishment of any magnitude? Heads; pikes; walls? Don't go playing catch near flowerbeds on alien planets.

      --
      "You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8

  26. Once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And given the large number of businesses out there, they all will be willing to take that one free bite of the apple. Look at all the businesses around in your area. Imagine if each one was allowed 1 pre-recorded call without penalty. Especially as a "wrong number". Do you have time to ask each and every one explicitly to be put on their do-not-call list?

  27. Start robocalling FCC bureaucrats by Spy+Handler · · Score: 2

    on their cell. See if they still wanna go through with this.

    1. Re:Start robocalling FCC bureaucrats by msobkow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You think *they* pay for their air time? *LOL*

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    2. Re:Start robocalling FCC bureaucrats by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Legit question : Is that how it works in the USA? Where I live the caller pays for all expenses except for overseas roaming charges. It seems strange that you can call someone and have them experience a financial loss as a result.

  28. Wrong direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I get robocalls from our pharmacy letting us know a prescription is ready. I'm okay with that. I've also gotten fraud alert calls from my bank. I'm okay with that, too. I don't want to ban all robocalls, however, I think that the current rules are good: You have to have explicit permission in order to do a robocall to a number. If this goes through, you know that 100% of the scammy telemarketers are going to claim "sorry, wrong number" if you complain. This will effectively gut the prohibition of unauthorized robocalling.

  29. I would quickly drop my cellular service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can go months without making a phone call in my personal life. Work is a different story. I would do everything in my power to eliminate a cellular telephone from my personal life. Mifi access point might make a good alternative, or even just not having one for personal use. If enough people did this the cellular companies may get the hint and start petitioning to change the rule back.

  30. Let them know by gatkinso · · Score: 2
    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  31. Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kill everyone responsible for propsing or considering this.
    Fix the fucking cell system so that it becomes impossible to block or spoof your number. Why in the fuck can't I know who is calling me?

  32. Submitted by Toad-san · · Score: 1

    Well, I've sent in my complaint .. for what it's worth.

    "http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/01/17/176248/fcc-may-permit-robocalls-to-cell-phones----if-they-are-calling-a-wrong-number Do not, repeat, DO NOT open up cell phones to telemarketing or any other dialing scam. While you're at it, put teeth into the current telemarketing scams, fake caller IDs, and all the rest. You KNOW what's going you; you just need to find the balls to do something about it. "

    1. Re:Submitted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sent mine in too... copied below

      Please PLEASE PLEASE!!!! DO NOT reduce protections on junk calls to cellphones. Some of us do choose pay by the minute billing because as an emergency line we have very few legitimate calls.

      Its the abusive marketers and debt collectors that should be paying for calls, not the users for calls received. That FCC policy is badly flawed as it changed from landline to mobile the onus of tariff directions in terms of who pays. If someone else is paying, I will sometimes tell them what I think until they or I get tired of it. But if I am paying, there are enough of them that never get tired of calling and I have absolutely no chance. I've tried it that way.

      I once obtained then abandoned the remaining credits on a pay as you go number from PagePlus -- it was a recycled number that tons of debt collectors kept looking for the previous owner. Humane explanations of their error made zero difference and kept costing me more money absolutely uselessly spent.

      It is not a one-off oops wrong number problem, you get calls from the next shift and every one thereafter that has to make their managers quota. There was no way to get rid of those vermin that ignored the help. Assigning a silent ring tone to each number to squelch it at work only helped briefly and then they would sell it to the next call center with a new number a day later. Pity too, as other than that I liked the simplicity PagePlus offered, I just didn't want the hassle of possibly getting another dud number.

      I struggled for awhile then left, PagePlus suffered, and it was those other scumwads that caused it. Yes, some customers do walk away when they realize it is broken and not fixable at their level.

      It's an ugly problem, don't kid yourselves because a lobbyist told you otherwise.

  33. Is this a US only problem? by johanw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I mean, in Europe you don't pay if someone else calls you. So there is a common trick if some salesperson calls you "oh, one moment please", put the phone somewhere and check 30 minutes later if they are still on the line (usually not). Costs them money and time, not you.

    And on mobile phones you have programs to block numbers from phoning and smsing. Much easier than regulations.

    1. Re:Is this a US only problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, in Europe you don't pay if someone else calls you. So there is a common trick if some salesperson calls you "oh, one moment please", put the phone somewhere and check 30 minutes later if they are still on the line (usually not). Costs them money and time, not you.

      And on mobile phones you have programs to block numbers from phoning and smsing. Much easier than regulations.

      The problem in the USA is that people are getting several to dozens of calls a day. Blacklists/Blocking numbers is useless because the callers use spoofed callerID, so the number shown is different every time. Lately, they have been using spoofed callerID numbers that belong to government agencies or well-known businesses.
        Whitelists are not possible for many people. I used to be on-call at a hospital. There were about 150 people in my department that were authorized to call me. consider that each of these had three or more phone numbers and may be calling from the phone at any nurse station or outside an operating room.

    2. Re:Is this a US only problem? by dkf · · Score: 1

      The problem in the USA is that people are getting several to dozens of calls a day.

      That's not special to the USA. I have some numbers set to auto-block with very good reason. It's significantly less annoying in Europe though, as the caller pays the cost of the call (except in exceptional circumstances, which robocalls don't count as).

      Blacklists/Blocking numbers is useless because the callers use spoofed callerID, so the number shown is different every time. Lately, they have been using spoofed callerID numbers that belong to government agencies or well-known businesses.

      That's what the FCC needs to crack down on. The easiest way would probably to have a rule change that makes the phone companies part liable for any court-imposed liabilities arising from private actions over robocalls where those robocalls come from a spoofed number. That'll encourage the phone companies to sort out the problem very rapidly indeed, perhaps by making it significantly more difficult for phone users to supply the phone number in the first place. I know this will be inconvenient for some PBX operators, but mechanisms that are too easy to abuse need revision anyway.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    3. Re:Is this a US only problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wake-up! There is no way the telco's will allow any tightening of any rule that would restrict telemarketing; legitimate OR fraudulent. They make a TON of money off this. Who do you think is a major contributor to the politicians that are pushing for this law.

      Under the current system of purchased lawmakers you are seriously deluding yourself if you think they care what you or I think!

      Just like the nitwits using facebook, twitter, et.al. You are their product, not their customer!

  34. My favorite feature of the iPhone is... by rwyoder · · Score: 1

    ...to be able to have an entry in my contacts named "Spam", add the number of a telemarketer, block it, and never hear from them again.
    Caveat: Each time I add a number to "Spam", I must unblock, then block it. Apparently, the blocking action operates only on the numbers that are in the contact entry at the time the block is applied.

    1. Re:My favorite feature of the iPhone is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even better - turn on, and LEAVE on, the do-not-disturb feature in iOS. Only numbers in your address book will ring the phone, everybody else will be shunted to voicemail (unless they call twice within a few minutes - then the phone will ring, assuming that it's something critical).

      Whitelists are the only 100% effective way I've found of avoiding the telemarketing scam artists. I recently moved my main number from my iPhone to an Ooma land line, and didn't realize how bad the junk calls had gotten over the years. Even with every blacklist enabled I still get 1-2 junk calls a day. I keep hoping Ooma will add whitelisting, but if they don't I may go back to the iPhone-DnD trick.

    2. Re:My favorite feature of the iPhone is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do the same on android. Great feature. If this goes through, I'll set my phone to only accept calls from non-blocked contacts. Not in my contacts, not getting through.

    3. Re:My favorite feature of the iPhone is... by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      I don't even bother adding the number to a contact. If it's blocked it's because it's a telemarketer.

    4. Re:My favorite feature of the iPhone is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Android has this too. And on my phone I do not need to do the unblock-block dance to make sure added numbers are blocked. I also get to see each time they attempted to get a hold of me afterwards.

      Caveat: they can still get to the voicemail, as it is part of the service and has nothing to do with the phone. However, 99% of spam I get never bothers leaving a message anyway.

  35. That class-action-suit is a sham by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No it is the kind of lawsuit that gets the management at a company with $19 billion in net income to actually take notice and change how they do things.

  36. the obama administration sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IBID

  37. War Dialing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is robocalling any different from war dialing?

  38. Wrong number by bl968 · · Score: 1

    Wrong number = 1 call just one. 53 Calls = Harassment and should equal a fine. Once I say this person is not at this number they should be prohibited from calling again.

    --
    "GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
    1. Re:Wrong number by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Autodialers don't dial wrong numbers. Only people are capable of that. If the autodialer did it, it was on purpose. The proposed change allows illegal autodialers to lie and say that it was a wrong number when it in fact was not.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    2. Re:Wrong number by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "53 Calls = Harassment and should equal jailtime"

      there, FTFY.

  39. Time to post your opposition to this idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of ranting here on Slashdot, use the link to make your point.

    Make your point using clear logic, without emotion.

    I wrote mine and stated that instead of enlarging the allowed robocalls, that all robocalls not associated with local schools, utilities or emergency services should be blocked, and that the ones allowed are strictly for valid communications, and not for any kind of fiscally related calls.

    That would include blocking political calls as well as calls from charity organizations since the companies that used to robocall now use charities to make their calls giving them a fixed percentage (probably negligible) for every sale they make.

    Letting debt collectors make robocalls would be worse than the political calls and charities combined.

    I also suggested increasing the fines for regular robocalls with callerid intact, 10x for robocalls with callerid blocked and 20x for robocalls where the callerid is spoofed. All of the fines would be paid to the person who received the calls, not the government.

  40. Electronic Solutions by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    How about a law that forces phone salesmen, charities and bill collectors to have a prefix to their numbers such that any phone can block 100% of those calls before the phone rings? Put teeth in the law such that anyone trying to bypass the law not only gets bankrupted but also spends time in a federal prison.

  41. Not completely. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They do listen, but they generally only go after the most egregious. Here's an article at http://www.tormentingtelemarketers.com/2015/01/fcc-looking-at-permitting-robocalls/ that discusses this, and have links to the FCC comment site for this. Also, an interesting idea on how to get rid of telemarketers by eliminating the profit - talking to them without making a sale. No sales = no profit. No profit = bye bye telemarketer. If enough people pressed 1 and talked to a live agent, it would negatively impact their business. That's why they started using robocalls.

  42. Financial penalties using toll system by Peter+(Professor)+Fo · · Score: 1
    Whatever the caller's number the phone companies don't let people call you for free. There's a well tried and tested system for this to ensure the caller pays. So that's sorted. Next the complaints which are ignored. In the UK we have a 1471 facility that tells you who just called but works on the number and won't tell if they've withheld the number. So they continue without any redress...

    But suppose there was a number you could punch in just after a junk-call. This would then feed through to (a) the who paid for it data and (b) a central nuisance calls depot. Now as soon as say 5 nuisances are registered against some caller (indexed by who's paying not junk number) then the cost per call becomes say £3.00 If they get 20 reports then it becomes £30 per call. All collected through the existing phone toll collection system. All hassle free for the consumer.

  43. Don't answer the phone by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 2

    My phone only rings if the caller is listed in my address book with a custom ringtone. My default ringtone is silent. Everyone I know knows that if they call me from an unrecognized number I won't answer it, and all they have to do is leave me a voicemail. I also have premium txt messages turned off on my account.

    1. Re:Don't answer the phone by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Year works a treat until its the hospital / police / significant other who lost her phone is stuck and using a borrowed phone because of it. My wife thinks like you do. It was very strange calling the neighbour and having them walk over to our house to tell my wife to answer the phone because I needed her help.

    2. Re:Don't answer the phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can leave a message on voicemail. He will listen to it. He said so....

  44. they count how many complaints, act if 10,000 by raymorris · · Score: 1

    That's frustrating, I know. Your complaint appeared to dissapear into a black hole. It actually went into a database. Once in a while they take look at the companies with the most complaints and that sort of thing. They do take action once in a while. Not as much as we'd like, but occasionally.

    I found out the FBI does similar for common, ordinary IT attacks involving malware, spear-phishing etc. They don't fully pursue every case individually, but they want to know so that they can spot a TREND of increased spear-phishing in a particular industry or something.

    As a Republican, I don't LIKE pointing out that the federal government occasionally does something useful, but I have to be true to the facts. :)

  45. Another loophole they use is... by __aaaipu5720 · · Score: 2

    Another loophole they use is, if you're on the do not disturb list, they're still allowed to call you if they're calling with a survey. The law didn't want to block research, so by adding a survey to your call it becomes legal, which means that a ton of companies do fake surveys which they throw away, just so they can call you without falling afoul of the law. Then, during the call, they ask if it would be alright to call you again. Since you just answered a nice little survey, you say sure. Now you've given your legal consent for them to call you back, and they will. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

    1. Re:Another loophole they use is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Research? They don't block surveys for the same reason they don't block political calls: they benefit the politicians. Where else do you think Pew, Rasmussen and Gallop get their numbers from? And many of the tactics for the parties now is to take what ideas they already have and find new ways to sell them. Oh well. At least Frank's mom must be proud of that piece of garbage.

    2. Re:Another loophole they use is... by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "a ton of companies do fake surveys which they throw away, just so they can call you without falling afoul of the law. Then, during the call, they ask if it would be alright to call you again."

      This kind of case is specifically covered under UK (and most EU) laws. Surveys cannot be used as a pretext to gain permission for a marketing call.

  46. How to Make Them go Away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about recording a stream of the worst profane language, complete with racial slurs and blasphemous filth, and playing that on a continuous loop while you put them on hold. I'm betting they'd hang up in a matter of seconds.

    1. Re:How to Make Them go Away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about recording a stream of the worst profane language, complete with racial slurs and blasphemous filth, and playing that on a continuous loop while you put them on hold. I'm betting they'd hang up in a matter of seconds.

      A police whistle works a trick.

  47. No way.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No way should the FCC permit this. These makers of unwanted calls can check the phone number of the person they want with that of the number they have. If they don't match, they don't call. After all, they use tons of automation to save themselves time and money. They can use a little to save us time and money.

    My response to them is quite simple. It usually takes several seconds for a robocall to get a human on the line. If the call isn't from someone I know, the instant I sense that delay, I drop the call and remember not to answer that number again.

    Also, keep in mind that, every time you make one of these calls unsuccessful, you drive up the value of even making them at all. Don't respond to bill collectors, telemarketers, or survey takers who call and the whole industry will eventually shrivel and die.

  48. We're Not Interested by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  49. Re:they count how many complaints, act if 10,000 by mean+pun · · Score: 1

    As a Republican, I don't LIKE pointing out that the federal government occasionally does something useful, [...]

    And why is that? Any civilised nation must have a government. Why not be happy that is works? This whole `all (federal) government is evil' position is very immature.

  50. Re:they count how many complaints, act if 10,000 by chadenright · · Score: 1

    It is true that every nation needs a government. It is also true that the government occasionally does what it is supposed to do. It may also be true that most of the US federal government is evil, especially at the highest levels. Let me cite a source for you: http://www.ibtimes.com/us-stil...

  51. Don't answer calls from phone numbers you don't kn by javacowboy · · Score: 1

    ... or blocked phone numbers.

    Problem solved!

    --
    This space left intentionally blank.
  52. smiley. A little works, more must be better by raymorris · · Score: 1

    I did put a smiley after that comment. Here's why I said that, jokingly. Some people reason as follows:

    If some government does one thing good (at a cost of $2 trillion), then ten times as much government will be ten times as good.

    Government is like alcohol - a little bit can make things more pleasant, too much leads to major trouble.

    1. Re:smiley. A little works, more must be better by raymorris · · Score: 1

      Government is like alcohol - a little bit can make things more pleasant, too much leads to major trouble.

      And Ted Kennedy get enough.

  53. Your phone system is stupid. by redback · · Score: 1

    Its your own stupid fault for letting phone companys charge you for receiving calls.

    1. Re:Your phone system is stupid. by Shados · · Score: 1

      It originally was mainly because people would just call someone and quickly ask them to call them back, which kind of defeated the purpose.

      Now its pretty irrelevant since most people have unlimited plans and stuff, and only the cheapest of shittiest plans will have charges for incoming calls.

      But it makes for a good argument against shit like robocalls, thats why it sounds like its much more common than it is.

    2. Re:Your phone system is stupid. by Renegade88 · · Score: 1

      All these people saying Europe is smarter for only charging for outgoing calls are conveniently neglecting to mention that in Europe, you get charged more to call a cell phone than a land line. In Europe, you can tell which phones are cell phones by the number. In the US, you can't make that distinction based on the number, but it also the cost of making the phone call to a specific area code is the same regardless if the number is tied to a cell phone or a land line. At least, that's how it was when I left the US 13 years ago.

      So I could tell a European with a attitude like @redback, "It's your stupid fault for letting a phone company charge you more just because the other party owns a cell phone instead of a land line". How does that taste?

  54. Only $45 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the man should be awarded 45% of the company shares. He might be able to run the company better

  55. FFS: Welcome to what, 20 years ago? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FFS: Welcome to what, 20 years ago? 100?

    I swear to god, what would have happened to all you always-connected pussies in the 19th century?

    MAN THE FUCK UP.

  56. Re:Don't answer the phone - a trade-off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many times has your wife blocked unsolicited calls because of her method, and how many times did you have to call the neighbours ?

    Its a trade-off. Your wife thinks that a very few false positives aren't that bad when a slew of junk-calls are blocked. I think I agree with her.

    But hey, if its really that much of a problem, install an answering system (a small version of what, for instance, companies have) that will answer all "bad" calls, allowing you to enter a special code to be connected thru to the wifes or home phone. Problem solved.

  57. Wrong filing link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The link to submit a comment to the FCC is for proceeding 02-278, which is for information to be included in unsolicited faxes. It doesn't seem to relate to wrong-number cellular calls.

  58. I made my comment to the FCC by TigerPlish · · Score: 1

    Have you?

    Do it. Now. Don't give robocallers / wildly inaccurate collection agencies an inch.

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
  59. Smarter phone by grumling · · Score: 1

    Why can't my phone screen calls for me? It's supposed to be smart, right?

    In fact, why do phones even ring? Why shouldn't Siri or whoever say "Excuse me sir, but your dentist's office is calling. Do you want to take the call or should I take a message?"

    If the caller isn't authenticated, get more information before passing along the call. Sure, it would be somewhat simple for a telemarketer to fake their way in, but that's always been the case with salespeople. As the software evolves it would get better (along with sharing whitelists and other tools amongst users).

    --
    "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
  60. What joining the Do Not Call List did for me by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Finally got around to putting my landline on the Do Not Call List. The robots still call me, but half of them don't connect me to a recording, just sit there silently, and if they do play a recording and I hit "1" or whatever to speak to a live agent, half of them hang up on me. (One even plays an announcement saying "1" isn't a correct extension.:-)

    I don't know how much of this is because their robots are broken, how much is because they don't have enough call center workers at the times they're calling me, and how much is because they're just trying to harass me.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  61. no way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is wrong in so many ways we already have to put up with hundreds of phone calls we don't want now we have to pay for calls they claim are the "wrong number" that is just a lie, they will lie and say they are wrong number when in all truth they know all along they aren't supposed to be calling these numbers. I pay a lot of money per month for my cell phone so I don't get unwanted calls. I also get spammed to death and calls from political groups too I certainly don't need telemarketers, if someone cant actually have a person placing the call by hand I don't want them at all. There is enough non-human contact in this world.

  62. Deb Childs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BTW I am not an anonymous coward, you didn't say put your name in this space or I would have. Normally I don't comment, excuse my ignorance or your lack of direction

  63. publish my mailing address to file a complaint?! by locketine · · Score: 1

    I tried filing a complaint via the link in the OP but right after typing in my address I noticed that the form said all contact information entered would be publicly available on the internet, including my address. WTH? How do I complain about the complaint form?

    --
    Think globally but act within local variable scope.
  64. Backwards system! by RandomAdam · · Score: 1

    Why is your phone system backwards?

    In New Zealand (where I live) the cost of the call is paid by the caller not the receiver.....how can it possibly work out that the person who has no control of who is calling them is liable for the cost of calls? It makes no sense at all.

    Thus in NZ you control how much you spend by controlling how much time you spend calling others; receiving calls is free.

    --
    @Random_Adam

    Sometimes a sig doesn't have to be funny!!
  65. Re:Don't answer the phone - a trade-off by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Or you could just hang up when you don't want to talk to someone.

    I don't understand why everyone insists on throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

  66. Re:Don't answer the phone - a trade-off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or you could just hang up when you don't want to talk to someone.

    Please do teach me the trick to hang up a nuissance call without first having been interrupted with whatever someone is doing at that moment (eating, watching your favorite series on TV, getting the kids to bed, you name it) and having picked up the phone.

    And by the way: I've installed that "drop the call" thingy only after I got fed up with those call-center employees trying to con me with pretty-much everything to keep me on the line, and even getting angry when I told them I did not want to be bothered by them.

    I don't understand why everyone insists on throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

    What baby please? My phone drops all "number witheld" calls and I'm mentioning that to everyone whom I give my number to. Only the companies among them seem to forget it (mostly claim they cannot call without caller-ID suppression), and need to send me snail-mail instead.

  67. cancel your cell phone plans now! by jerryjnormandin · · Score: 1

    You know you pay for air time regardless if it a wrong number or spam right ? All the more reason the dump your cell phone. If you are tied to your phone because of work have work provide the phone or at least get reimbursed.