Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Chair Wants Carriers To Block Robocalls From Spoofed Numbers (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the good-riddance dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The FCC in 2015 made it clear that voice service providers can offer call blocking tools to customers, but commissioners said at the time that more needed to be done about Caller ID spoofing. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has now scheduled a preliminary vote for March 23 on new rules designed to solve the problem. "One particularly pernicious category of robocalls is spoofed robocalls -- i.e., robocalls where the caller ID is faked, hiding the caller's true identity," the proposal says. "Fraudsters bombard consumers' phones at all hours of the day with spoofed robocalls, which in some cases lure consumers into scams (e.g., when a caller claims to be collecting money owed to the Internal Revenue Service) or lead to identity theft." The proposed rules would let providers "block spoofed robocalls when the spoofed Caller ID can't possibly be valid." Providers would be able to block numbers that aren't valid under the North American Numbering Plan and block valid numbers that haven't been allocated to any phone company. They'd also be able to block valid numbers that have been allocated to a phone company but haven't been assigned to a subscriber. The proposal would also codify the FCC's previous guidance that phone companies can block calls when requested by the spoofed number's subscriber. The upcoming vote on March 23 is for a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which means the rules won't take effect immediately. The FCC uses NPRMs to seek comment on proposals before issuing final rules.

9 of 178 comments (clear)

  1. And any other CLI masking, please! by aglider · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's no reason for companies to mask or spoof their phone numbers. Yes, please, stop all that!

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    1. Re:And any other CLI masking, please! by tomhath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, there is a reason, albeit not a good one. If you knew who they are you would never answer them.

      The Do Not Call list is a joke, the proposed rule is an example of good regulation.

    2. Re:And any other CLI masking, please! by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, there is a reason, albeit not a good one. If you knew who they are you would never answer them.

      Actually, that's a pretty good reason. Most of us stopped answering anonymous and unrecognized calls years ago, due to the likelihood such attempts at contact would be nuisance calls.

      I run a local service company, and I'm obligated to answer the phone call when a local prefix shows up. Too often now, that winds up being an offer for a preapproved small business loan or a need to update my records for some such thing.

      With robocalls able to mimic local phone exchanges, we're back in the wild, pre-caller ID days, and might as well have to answer every phone call... what are we? Savages?

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re: And any other CLI masking, please! by aglider · · Score: 3, Insightful

      YOUR phone operator knows who you are and whether your advertised number is licit or not. NO EXCUSE!

      --
      Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    4. Re:And any other CLI masking, please! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is a reason for businesses to spoof a number.

      Likewise, a reason for me to ignore those calls. I understand what you say, but at this point, don't care.

      This is all much too little, much too late. Over the years of being bombarded by this worthless crap, I've just reached the point where if you aren't in my address book on my phone, it won't even ring. For me and a lot of others, the telephone has been just about destroyed as a communications tool.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  2. ALL by markdavis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why the F would you want to block only robocalls from spoofed numbers? Let me make a better proposition:

    1) Ban/block *ALL* robocalls, period.
    2) Ban/block *ALL* spoofed numbers, period.

  3. Ajit is consistent by TimothyHollins · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On this topic I actually feel like I can trust Ajit Pai.
    After all, there is no big company making these robocalls, hence no big bribes for Ajit to collect.
    Should Verizon or AT&T ever start the practise however, I suspect Ajit will turn the ship around on a penny like he did with net neutrality.

    There is one thing to be said for Ajit, he represent predictability and stability.

    1. Re:Ajit is consistent by DogDude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      After all, there is no big company making these robocalls, hence no big bribes for Ajit to collect.

      Who allows robocalls to happen in the first place, Einstein? Who gets paid for the robocalls calls, Doctor?

      Jesus Christ.. No wonder we have Trump.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
  4. Doesn't get us far by PuddleBoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So the conditions that would be blocked would be;

    --numbers that aren't valid under NANPA: foreign numbers and nonsensical numbers like 000-000-0000
    --valid numbers that haven't been allocated to any phone company: in NANPA's reserve (like bogons)
    --valid numbers that have been allocated to a phone company but haven't been assigned to a subscriber: in a carrier's reserve

    which completely ignores all calls that spoof legit numbers that already belong to another entity, which is the most dangerous type of spoofing and the one that needs the most attention. "Hi, I'm from the IRS. See my number? I'm legit!"

    Come on, grow some teeth