Slashdot Mirror


Republicans Want To Leave You Voicemail -- Without Ever Ringing Your Cellphone (recode.net)

bricko quotes a report from Recode: The GOP's leading campaign and fundraising arm, the Republican National Committee, has quietly thrown its support behind a proposal at the Federal Communications Commission that would pave the way for marketers to auto-dial consumers' cellphones and leave them prerecorded voicemail messages -- all without ever causing their devices to ring. Under current federal law, telemarketers and others, like political groups, aren't allowed to launch robocall campaigns targeting cellphones unless they first obtain a consumer's written consent. But businesses stress that it's a different story when it comes to "ringless voicemail" -- because it technically doesn't qualify as a phone call in the first place. In their eyes, that means they shouldn't need a customer or voter's permission if they want to auto-dial mobile voicemail inboxes in bulk pre-made messages about a political candidate, product or cause. And they want the FCC to rule, once and for all, that they're in the clear. Their argument, however, has drawn immense opposition from consumer advocates.

443 comments

  1. Counter-argument by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 5, Informative

    People want to leave politicians and marketers a big turd on their front door - without ever ringing their doorbell.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:Counter-argument by DivineKnight · · Score: 5, Funny

      In this case, I believe the 3 AM Vuvuzela Orchestra in D-minor outside their bedroom window is more appropriate.

    2. Re:Counter-argument by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1
      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:Counter-argument by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Politicians in power are so far from the public that they won't hear you over their 100 acre lawn.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    4. Re:Counter-argument by Buchenskjoll · · Score: 1

      Another good trick is to leave the turd in a burning paper bag - and then ring the door bell.

      --
      -- Make America hate again!
    5. Re:Counter-argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    6. Re:Counter-argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really can't find any problem with this scheme.

    7. Re:Counter-argument by mjwx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In this case, I believe the 3 AM Vuvuzela Orchestra in D-minor outside their bedroom window is more appropriate.

      Surely A-major would be better. Politicians being older have poorer hearing in the higher frequencies.

      Personally I'd prefer the 1812 Overture be played outside their homes... preferably with a full cannon fusillade of live ammo.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    8. Re:Counter-argument by troon · · Score: 2

      The most common vuvuzuelas â" those heard at the World Cup, for example â" sound a Bb. That'd work in D-minor but not A-major.

      --
      Ydco co ,df C erb-y go. a Ekrpat t.fxrapev
    9. Re: Counter-argument by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      A major it is then.

    10. Re:Counter-argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fsck 'em all - I ALREADY get un-rung messages on my cellphone from advertisers/religionists/utility-company-whores and the like.

    11. Re: Counter-argument by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      This (And its thread lineage) are probably the best thread I've read in a long time.

      My compliments, good humans!

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    12. Re:Counter-argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're underestimating the Vuvuzela

    13. Re: Counter-argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do. I do NOT want these voicemails. I already do not accept calls from anyone I don't know. Why would I want their voicemail?

    14. Re: Counter-argument by EpicHub6428 · · Score: 1

      Ok - let's say you miss a very important phone call and it goes to voicemail. If placing ads in your voicemail box is OK for politicians to do, then it's OK for all marketers to do. And that means you'll need to listen to 7 advertisements from everything like mattresses sales to hemmoroid creams each time you need to CHECK to see if you have missed something important. Sounds like Hell to me.

  2. New Revenue Stream! by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...and AT&T can charge $20/month to automatically remove it!

    1. Re: New Revenue Stream! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just another reason we are going end up performing ballistic maintainence on our politicians fairly soon.

    2. Re: New Revenue Stream! by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

      Of ALL the political parties....

    3. Re: New Revenue Stream! by meerling · · Score: 1

      LoL, I'll have to use that term the next time I'm in a Shadowrun or Cyberpunk game. In real life though, just stick with recalls, votes, and writing your politicians to tell them what you think about it.

    4. Re:New Revenue Stream! by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      So just add a spoken message to the voicemail that you don't use it due to spam, then turn off all notifications and use a hidden number.

      Things like that causes people to avoid using phones. I have a private hidden number on my private mobile phone just to avoid telemarketers.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    5. Re:New Revenue Stream! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hidden number won't make a difference. Legislation (or regulations) will probably require telecoms companies to place the message in the voice mail box of every number they control.

      The problem is a political one, not a technical one. These politicians are being cocks.

    6. Re: New Revenue Stream! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Agent" is far too generous.

      He's a stooge, at best. A common idiot that can be tricked into revealing classified info with ease.

    7. Re: New Revenue Stream! by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      See, there's one of them responding now!

    8. Re: New Revenue Stream! by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      You're probably right. They changed the lamp-posts in DC to purely vertical ones a decade-plus ago. MUCH harder to properly decorate the lamp-posts with politicians that way. . .

    9. Re:New Revenue Stream! by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      Junk calls are why I got rid of my landline. I get fewer on my cell, but still manage to get some. . .

    10. Re:New Revenue Stream! by Salgak1 · · Score: 2

      Actually, to go all Stephen Colbert. . . . they're being cock-holsters. . . (evil grin)

    11. Re: New Revenue Stream! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you tried sharpening the top first? If not, don't. Just push harder next time.

    12. Re: New Revenue Stream! by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      Have you tried sharpening the top first? If not, don't. Just push harder next time.

      Is that you, Vlad?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    13. Re:New Revenue Stream! by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      It should be possible to have an App go through your voicemail and delete this spam before you ever see/hear it.

    14. Re: New Revenue Stream! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. If he's manipulated by Russia, he's a pawn at best.

    15. Re:New Revenue Stream! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stopped using phones a few years back. My life is much better for it.

      Now before this triggers someone to jump on me about work, life, friends, and all that stuff, I must say, it hasn't really been impacted.

      If you want to give it a try before cutting the cord, the best way is to put your phone on silent permanently. I kept mine like this for almost 2 years before I ditched it.

      I find I value personal contact much more, I make firmer plans and stick to them (e.g. meet you after work at 6pm for a drink) and my focus is more immediate and concentrated on the people I am with - including myself if I am alone.

      While it may not work for everyone, for me, I am much happier.

      What is interesting is how some things in life are quite difficult without a telephone number. That surprised me, as even my bank gives me a hard time every time I speak to them and have to declare (again) that I do not have a telephone number. In some ways it's almost become a requirement of modern life, which is a pretty scary concept when you think about it...

    16. Re:New Revenue Stream! by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 1

      I may turn off my AT&T Visual Mail and just use Google Voice. It transcribes the calls and, optionally, sends an email with the info. It's what I do with recruiters.

    17. Re:New Revenue Stream! by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      So the only way to contact you is to find your snail mail address and send a message in a standard size brown envelope in order to reach you.

      Everything else goes into the paper shredder.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    18. Re: New Revenue Stream! by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      Turn off, hide, disable... Sounds like a real pain if you need to actually be available for contact.

    19. Re: New Revenue Stream! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the human scum that were behind Dick Cheney, I guess they're not dead and they completely manipulated Clinton, then they've twisted Trump's arm with that huge constant media propaganda campaign.

      That is who is doing most of the manipulating around, like perhaps DNC hacks were an inside job, it might be an inside job from the American Deep State not a designated cartoon villain. Notice how the US has been busy killing thousands (and caused a cholera epidemic. well done!) and sells weapons to the Saudi for ONE BAJIRILLION DOLLARS and thus still is acting like Al Qaida's air force and supplier.

      Thanks for the bombings in Europe, Obama and Trump. Or in a non-sarcastic way : fuck you Obama and Trump, for participating in the funneling of billions to the terrorists and thus causing the bombings in Europe.
      And fuck the White Helmets, for they are a bad symptom of what's happening : Al Qaida types glorified by the media as saviors. If there were any Nazi nurses accompanying the Einsatzgruppen during Operation Barbarossa and they instagrammed themselves rescuing and caring for children, this would be about it.

    20. Re: New Revenue Stream! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol. Nope. He extremely rich. Has been all his life. He doesn't have to do anything he does not want to. You idiots try to put him in some type of box. Must be Russian. Must be a stooge. Bla bla.

      Grow up. This is nonesense. There would be something after so many decades. Trump could just have not run and enjoyed his wealth. Nothing would affect him.

      But the way American was going it wouldn't be good for his family. So he ran. So then if there was dirt in him lol before he ran he would not have.

      Do you think he was stupid enough to do something and get caught after he ran? No.

      This is why this whole thing is stupid.

      The election is rigged. Nope. Invoke popular vote. Nope. The Russians did it. Nope. Some scandal. Nope. Must be a Russian spy from childrensvtv show. Nope. Then he must be a racists. Nope.

      Get a clue. Trying 20 things one after another each failing. At some point you need to do what is best and stop undermining our government.

    21. Re: New Revenue Stream! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blame your own retarded governments. Bringing in mass immigration unchecked. Enjoy your wasteland losers. You need a trump to save but there is only one and we got him.

    22. Re:New Revenue Stream! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha, now that would be the way to do it!

      As it happens, I still use email and various flavours of IM, as well as video calls on the computer that I initiate, often by prior arrangement with my clients. I also do make phone calls, but use a SIP account and soft phone to do so.

      As I wrote, it works for me, but YMMV.

    23. Re:New Revenue Stream! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably. I'd be more concerned about the abuse of it though. What other provisions does it include? I've been having a problem contacting old friends with it only allowing me to leave a voicemail even though they are right down the road. AT&T seems to be able to choose exactly when they feel like activating it.

    24. Re: New Revenue Stream! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once my 85 year old mom who has never touched a computer is gone, I may try this.

    25. Re:New Revenue Stream! by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I'm sure one of the reasons why everyone has a phone number is because of inertia - it's pretty much expected in modern society. If that ever changes, I predict a mass-exodus of people from the phone system. Almost all the calls I get are either people I don't want to talk to, or simply spam, and if I felt I could drop having a phone number I'd do it in a heartbeat.

      If I was the phone company, I'd be a bit more scared. Surely they must realize one of the reasons why people dumped their landline is because you get less junk calls on a cell phone (or at least you used to). If they were smarter, they'd oppose laws like this, and would work at getting all the spammy robocallers kicked off the phone network. Otherwise, if the idea gets out there that you don't need a phone number, they won't be able to put the toothpaste back in the tube so to speak, and they'll hemorrhage subscribers at rates that will make them wish they were selling cable TV.

  3. call (202) 226-8000 by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    and fill up the voice mail.

  4. We're going to get this sooner or later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We haven't reached critical mass yet, but once enough people only use cell phones for communication the floodgates will be opened.

    1. Re:We're going to get this sooner or later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone uses cell phones for communication except luddite cows.

    2. Re:We're going to get this sooner or later by quantaman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      We haven't reached critical mass yet, but once enough people only use cell phones for communication the floodgates will be opened.

      Cellphones were on par with landlines in 2014. I'm sure they're a healthy majority now.

      Either way, I can think of few things more obnoxious than prerecorded voicemails. It's bad enough I don't even know why marketers would want to do so in the first place, I'm not sure what marketing course teaches to you associate your client with feelings of incandescent rage.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    3. Re: We're going to get this sooner or later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

    4. Re:We're going to get this sooner or later by meerling · · Score: 2

      There's a reason I'm on the do not call list, to get rid of that kind of B.S. in the first place.
      As to landlines, I only know 4 people that have one, everyone else just has cellphones.

    5. Re:We're going to get this sooner or later by fellip_nectar · · Score: 1

      I use Skype, you insensitive clod!

      --
      Worst. Signature. Ever.
    6. Re:We're going to get this sooner or later by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what marketing course teaches to you associate your client with feelings of incandescent rage.

      Hmm I suspect that's the Scam Marketing Course which would explain why politicians wan't to enable it

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    7. Re:We're going to get this sooner or later by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      I use email, you insensitive clod!

      ...

      Now get off my lawn!

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    8. Re:We're going to get this sooner or later by c · · Score: 1

      Either way, I can think of few things more obnoxious than prerecorded voicemails. It's bad enough I don't even know why marketers would want to do so in the first place

      Marketers are all about exploiting loopholes in peoples attention filters, and they're really, really bad at considering consequences. They think they've found a new trick and they're going to exploit it good and hard. What they aren't considering is that voicemail is likely the least preferred offline communications mechanism people have available. If you asked the average person to rank email, texting, IP messaging services and voicemail, I expect 90% or more would have voicemail at the bottom.

      Fill voicemail with spam and people will just drop it.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    9. Re:We're going to get this sooner or later by jhecht · · Score: 1

      And it will kill voice mail, another example of advertising destroying something that once was useful.

    10. Re:We're going to get this sooner or later by thomn8r · · Score: 1

      There's a reason I'm on the do not call list, to get rid of that kind of B.S. in the first place.

      It's so cute that you think the Do Not Call list actually means anything...

    11. Re:We're going to get this sooner or later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I'll be able to form my own PAC and use this? "Hello, this is Make America Grate(SP intentional) Again. We support Donny Trump and you should too! His ideals of removing all public support and assistance, including any healthcare, and redirecting the money to military and corporations is the best thing ever! And corporations should be free to leave voice mails like this at any time day or night. So if you agree that poor people have no right to your money for basic food and housing, vote Trump!"

         

    12. Re:We're going to get this sooner or later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its precious you think it doesn't

    13. Re:We're going to get this sooner or later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pay attention. The do-not-call list has an exemption for politics. Sure, they aren't supposed to call you to sell you a rubber chicken subscription or a tahitian vacation, but you can bet your ass they'll use that list as a first or second round source for politi-spam. Because there's nothing to stop them.

    14. Re: We're going to get this sooner or later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of us still keep a landline because we live in areas with frequent hurricanes, power outages, etc. I've been through 4 major hurricanes, 2 earthquakes, and 2 tornados, and hundreds of power outages. My old landline reliably works. No power needed.

  5. I'm starting a web site by taustin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    to document every politician who does this, how often, and about what. It will offer no commentary on whether it is good or bad, whether the politician should be thrown out of office or given a medal. Just that they did it, how often, and about what.

    Who is willing to help me post bail when I'm arrested for it?

    1. Re:I'm starting a web site by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      post a link for submissions when you do, i will even record the messages in mp3 or ogg format and send them, let the whole public know what those dirty rotten scoundrels are saying

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    2. Re: I'm starting a web site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's already a website where you can do this, it's called FACEBOOK.COM

    3. Re:I'm starting a web site by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Just make sure you're recording the ones that are doing this, not the ones the ads are supporting. They aren't always the same people precisely because of people like you.

    4. Re:I'm starting a web site by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      There are already a plethora of websites where users can document obnoxious phone calls (and other users can look up numbers to see who is this unknown caller calling you, and read those complaints about it). Seriously just search the web for any random unknown caller's number and you'll find tons of them.

      Unless these prerecorded ringless voicemails don't have a callback number associated with them somehow, those existing sites would serve that function just fine.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    5. Re: I'm starting a web site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Try http://800notes.com/
      They have been collecting data for over six years.

    6. Re: I'm starting a web site by taustin · · Score: 2

      And they'll only censor the entries about politicians they agree with. You know, like they do now.

    7. Re:I'm starting a web site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make sure the indiegogo or gofundme or whatever you end up using to find bail money gets submitted. I'll donate if it gets that far.

      If you run into trouble, try to find a lawyer willing to do it pro bono as it could be a pretty solid first amendment right issue. For high profile cases involving electronic freedom and free speech, both the EFF and ACLU can be good contacts for finding people who will help you with your case. But I would be shocked if anyone took action against you publishing public information about political campaigns. What you can't easily defend against are the ways powerful people suppress unwelcomed people with things like anonymous threats or IRS audits.

    8. Re:I'm starting a web site by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to include the phone number of their constituency office. A script to allow it to be robocalled might also be appropriate.

    9. Re:I'm starting a web site by Kevoco · · Score: 1

      It will be difficult-to-trace PACs that mumble their name at the very end of their message only after you've listened TO their message

    10. Re:I'm starting a web site by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Just make sure you're recording the ones that are doing this, not the ones the ads are supporting.

      It's a distinction without a difference.

    11. Re:I'm starting a web site by joemck · · Score: 1

      This would be searchable by candidate, not number. After all, you vote for candidates, not phone numbers.

      I'll be implementing a simpler system: Spam my phone, lose a vote.

    12. Re: I'm starting a web site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except they now block VPNed traffic. Presumably because of trolls but it's a dickinass move to those of us who legitimately log scumbag telemarketer #s and build up their content. Was doing it for years but no way am I going to drop IP protection to help them now.

    13. Re:I'm starting a web site by Imrik · · Score: 1

      If the Republicans send a voicemail supporting a Democratic candidate, or vice versa, there is a significant difference between the two. I only bring this up because it's a tactic that has already been used in telephone campaigns in the past.

    14. Re: I'm starting a web site by kenh · · Score: 1

      i will even record the messages in mp3 or ogg format and send them, let the whole public know what those dirty rotten scoundrels are saying

      You don't even see it, do you? By recording their voicemail message and putting it on a public website you aren't hurting them, you are helping to spread their message!

      --
      Ken
  6. Let them by Jrono · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let them.

    The backlash to ghost Republican voicemail spam will be so severe Reagan, Nixon, and Lincoln will all posthumously switch to the Democratic Party.

    1. Re:Let Them by TWX · · Score: 1

      Is there a way to configure voicemail to only allow either approved numbers or approved ranges of numbers? I would be happy to approve only my local area codes if I could. That would not eliminate all spammers but might well eliminate most of them.

      It also sounds like we need to push for our cell phone providers to create the voicemail equivalent of spam filters, where if the voicemail system receives too many voicemails to too many boxes from the same number it would get deleted as unwanted spam. If we as customers opt-in to this then it would be difficult for them to claim that the carriers were violating any kind of rights.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re: Let them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they really think people will respond positively to harassment?

    3. Re:Let them by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Even if the voicemails initially appear to support Democrats?

    4. Re:Let them by kenwd0elq · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Reagan at least was a Democrat for quite a while. Back in the early 1970's, he said that he didn't leave the Democrat party; the Democrat party left him. And if you read the party platforms and public statements of most Dems in the 1950s through the mid-70's, they sound VERY Republican.

      Today's Democrats used to be called "Communists", and today's Republicans used to be solidly Democrat. Last century's Republicans are now Libertarians, or Anarchists.

    5. Re:Let Them by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the voicemail is held on the operators end, not on your phone, so theres not you approving it. which is how the whole leaving you voicemail without ever calling you works anyways so it's unlikely there would be some filter if it were to go through.

      older smartphones had apps for on-device voicemail though, not sure if current apis allow easily for that.

      you could just turn off the voicemail and never use it like most people tbh.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    6. Re:Let them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Today's Republicans are Fascists in the real Musolini sense of the word - insane idealists motivated by religious zeal to ignore reality and pursue only their personal power fantasies instead of bothering with practical concerns.

    7. Re:Let them by Pfhorrest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Today's Democrats used to be called "Communists"

      Completely the opposite. Eisenhower was further to the left of any politician in recent memory. Reagan and Nixon were further to the left than most Democrats today. The whole spectrum has moved to the right in absolute terms -- but both left and right have moved further from their common center, so from a parochial point of view ignorant of history and the wider world, it looks like the left has moved left, relative to the current center, which is far right of where it used to be.

      See the many sourced answers here for more details:
      https://www.quora.com/The-Left...

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    8. Re:Let them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you talking practical concerns as they relate to the principals of God and Jesus?? Or practical concerns as they relate to "facts" peddaled by the fake news media??

    9. Re:Let them by rworne · · Score: 1

      The backlash to ghost Republican voicemail spam will be so severe Reagan, Nixon, and Lincoln will all posthumously switch to the Democratic Party.

      Those guys all switched already. Back on January 20, 2017, to be exact.

      No, they switched on June 5, 2004, April 22, 1994, and April 15th, 1865, respectively. That's how the Democrats roll..

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    10. Re:Let them by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Voicemail spam could support unicorns, puppydogs and world peace and it would STILL be considered harassment.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Let them by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Please. From over here in Europe, what your political system looks like is one religious nutjob party that hates everything non-white and one non-religious nutjob party that hates everything white.

      I can't really see anything resembling a political platform in either of them. Mostly because they have pretty much identical stances on everything but religion and whether or not white males are the devil.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:Let them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are stunningly stupid, and every idiot who moderated this up shows exactly why slashdot is a garbage dump of fools.

    13. Re:Let them by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      I suspect that they would have transited to the Libertarian party instead.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    14. Re:Let Them by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      And the disputes will be handled in a basement at Proxima Centauri with a missing staircase.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    15. Re:Let them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would they bother?

      Anyone following politics must have noticed that the Republicans have moved away from conservative into comic book villain evil by now.
      The people who still supports them aren't going to change their mind because of some minor harassment and they know it.

    16. Re:Let them by Cyberax · · Score: 0

      Are you fucking kidding us? Today's Democrats were called "Republicans" and today's Republicans were called "crazy dingbat wingnuts".

    17. Re:Let them by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Or practical concerns as they relate to "facts" peddaled by the fake news media??

      It's "peddled", unless the fake news media is on a fucking bike. I'm sure your grasp of facts is A1.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    18. Re:Let them by Maritz · · Score: 1

      The 4chan-ization of slashdot continues.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    19. Re:Let them by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1, Insightful
      If you had been here, you would realise that the level of terrorism is trivial to when the Americans were funding the IRA, and in spite of the terrorists, the murder rate in Europe (even the worst parts) is still far lower than the murder rate in America due to Americans.

      "Guns don't kill people - Americans kill people"

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    20. Re:Let them by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      We would, if the US stopped destabilizing countries and leaving it to us to mop up the mess.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    21. Re:Let them by jaa101 · · Score: 1

      when the Americans were funding the IRA

      While simultaneously lecturing the UK on how their anti-terrorism measures infringed on civil rights. 9/11 was the final nail in the coffin of that rhetoric.

    22. Re:Let them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My college astronomy professor actually had a very nice visual aid that I think applies to this topic. The topic was about cosmic inflation, and how it appears that we are at the center of the universe because all galaxies are moving away from us. On one of those clear overhead projector sheets he had printed a diagram of like 30 dots. Then on another he had the same thing printed but enlarged by a couple percent. What he show was that, no matter where you are in the universe, if you line up the same dot on the 2 sheets, it looks like every other dot is moving away from that dot.

      The same thing applies in politics. One could say that Reagan/Democrats/Republicans moved one way or the other in relation to each other, and depending on your perspective, all explanations are true.

    23. Re:Let them by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      If we're talking about the political spectrum.There's two axis. From left to right, is based on economics. Top to bottom is either authoritarian or libertarian. Based on that, The Democrats to more center-left on economics, but way WAY up the top on being authoritarian (zero question about that!). The Republicans however are about halfway on the right side (not center) of economics, but lean center-authoritarian. But FWIW, the Tea Part faction is far-right economic and lean heavily libertarian. So, it's still an identity struggle for the Republican party at the moment.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    24. Re:Let them by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So, according to you real fascists promote individual gun rights and free speech? Hmmm. That's a new one. Mussolini confiscated guns; restricted free speech and used mobs to shut people down.

      So, is the the Dems or the Reps who want to confiscate guns? Who are happily rioting in attempt to restrict speech?

      OK. Looks like you don't know nothing 'bout nothing.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    25. Re:Let Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have never had a cell phone that was not on phone voice mail as well as call in, they sync of course after I do one or the other. Also thinking about it now the app that is pre-installed on my phone for voice mail allows me to send a message to another using the same app without dialing. Used that to forward messages to my fiance phone at one point.

      Her phone never rang just new voice mail notification after a minute or two, long enough to get through the system.

    26. Re:Let them by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How can you call a party that is "hard on crime" and has created a "department of homeland security", that clearly wants to decide what people do in private anything less than hard-authoritarian? Fanboy much?

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    27. Re:Let them by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Except neither Hitler nor Mussolini banned private firearm ownership, hence using that as the definition of fascism is not only stupid (because this is completely orthogonal to fascism), but also ignorant.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    28. Re:Let them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guns don't kill people, American blacks do.

      https://i.redd.it/dstfhsqdslly.png

    29. Re:Let them by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Evil, I like it. Spam them out right before the election so people can't work out the scam until after it is too late.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    30. Re: Let them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bravo!

    31. Re:Let Them by TWX · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about carrier-grade spam filtering, not end-user spam filtering. Make it opt-in so that the carrier is simply doing what the customer asks for.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    32. Re:Let Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Apple phone transcribes the voicemail. I'm sure Androids do the same.

      If this comes to pass we'll have spam filters for voicemail in the not too distance future.

    33. Re:Let Them by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt any of the carriers would be willing to forgo the revenue stream they'll get from the spammers.

    34. Re:Let them by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The backlash to ghost Republican voicemail spam will be so severe Reagan, Nixon, and Lincoln will all posthumously switch to the Democratic Party.

      You say this like it's something new.

      What they do currently is that they ring your phone, and then under two seconds later place a new call to your phone, which goes straight to voicemail, and then they disconnect the first call before your handset ever rings (usually).

      This "new tech" was all the rage in 2014&2016.

      The FCC filing says they have "proprietary technology" to connect directly to the carrier voicemail servers, but while that sounds like an SS7 or TCP connection, it could very well be the same old shit as used in past elections, just obfuscated with a syntactic destruction.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    35. Re:Let them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, OK...I can't tell if you're serious or just venting hatred. Either way, my lefty tree-hugger take on it is:

      There is a major difference in economics. Republicans want to reduce taxes on business and the rich, and reduce government regulation of businesses.

      Democrats want to tax the rich at higher rates, because being rich is a privilege enjoyed by a small group's social contract with the masses. The masses give their money to the small group, enabling them to be rich by CONSENT. In return, the small group (the rich) pay a higher tax rate in order to fund the public infrastructure NECESSARY for social stability. It's necessary in a system where one group controls a vast amount of the money, and the rest of the people are poor by comparison.

      The rich can either accept the Democrat's position and be HAPPY with their giant mountains of money, or they can have revolutions. Revolutions are the result of increasing wealth disparity.

      Every few years, blood must be spilled. Until the day when this misunderstanding between opposing forces ends. It's not a threat, it's just the cycle of human madness, repeating ad nauseum...

    36. Re:Let them by myth24601 · · Score: 1

      Establishment of DHS was as close to bipartisan as you generally see in DC. It passed with veto proof majorities in both houses. Sen John Kerry (Democratic nominee for President in 2004) and Sen Hillary Clinton(Democratic Nominee in 2016) vote voted for it (Obama wasn't in Congress at the time).
      .
      Both parties created Homeland Security.

      --
      No matter where you go, there you are.
    37. Re:Let them by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, the war-hawk, tough-on-crime, legislating-so-called-morality party is definitely the "less authoritarian", sure thing.

      Which is not to say the Democrats are anything close to libertarian themselves, but they're certainly less vocal proponents of the worst kinds of authoritarianism than the Republicans are.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    38. Re:Let Them by joemck · · Score: 1

      Why have one revenue stream when they can have two? Charge spammers to be allowed to leave messages in the first place. Charge users to block the spam. Offer spammers a more expensive tier that bypasses the blocking. Then offer users a more expensive stronger blocking plan that blocks those.

    39. Re:Let them by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It's not that simple. The civil rights movement was very successful, and we're more tolerant of different people than we used to be.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    40. Re:Let them by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Spamming Democrats with voicemails appearing to support Democrat candidates might pick up a decent number of people who don't follow politics.

    41. Re:Let them by Imrik · · Score: 2

      It's still harassment, but if you blame the wrong people for the harassment and as a result vote for the people they really want you to vote for, the campaign is a success.

    42. Re: Let them by kenh · · Score: 1

      Are you really so confident your beloved Democrat party won't employ this tool also?

      Just because they didn't petition the FCC for permission doesn't mean they aren't interested in the outcome.

      It wasn't that long ago that /. was all up in arms about Republicans using Big Data to micro-target voters, and how that was sooo terrible... then countless commenters reminded attention-deficit suffering Democrats about how Team Obama was literally celebrated 8 years earlier for employing the very same Big Data techniques to win the White House in 2008.

      --
      Ken
    43. Re:Let them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democrats were largely in agreement with Republicans in the PATRIOT Act, and have not attempted to shut down DHS.

      The two parties are two sides of the same globalist coin, with a few outliers in each party.

    44. Re:Let them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but annoying people with fake stuff from the opposition party is an old Nixonian ratfucking technique. http://www.correntewire.com/ratfucking_a_gop_tradition

    45. Re:Let them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow that's nuts. Eisenhower championed a huge federal spending program (interstate highways) and presided over the country when income tax rates were higher than 80% for top earners. Nixon considered a negative income tax and founded the EPA. Neither considered attacking Social Security. Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex that is the darling of Republicans today.

      Both parties were similar in a way they now are not. They both actually wanted to make things better and to serve the people at large. Neither does now. We now have no liberals and conservatives. We now just have corporatists who compete to hoodwink the populace with their own particular brands. They act in concert to remove rights and reduce the wealth held by the bulk of the population at the direction of their wealthy masters. I understand you may feel abandoned by the Republicans.... because you have been. But the old left/right thing doesn't really serve to produce the best analysis of our political situation. Corporatists serve the corporate structure and only the corporate structure. All the rest is ruse. Divisive issues to encourage us to bind ourselves while the meat of the issues that will really change our lives are kept well away from us.

    46. Re:Let them by Trogre · · Score: 1

      You forgot the Z axis - Liberal through to Conservative.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  7. Let Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Let them do this. I'll route their call to a custom voicemail message saying that they agree to abide by a rather restrictive EULA in return for leaving a voicemail. Additionally, the charge for leaving such a ringless voicemail will be in the mid four to five-figures range.

    Naturally, any disputes with the EULA must be settled via arbitration by a "neutral" arbiter service that I've paid off well in advance to find in my favor a majority of the time.

  8. HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by psergiu · · Score: 4, Informative

    *#61# (call) - Shows if Voice Mail (voice forwarding) is enabled and your Voice Mail number.
    #004# (call) - Disable all Voice Mail forwards.

    If your network is non-standard (or your network operator is a prick) those don't work, call customer support and ask them to disable Voice Mail completely and remove your Voice Mail mailbox from the HLR.

    VoiceMail is useless anyways. If someone really needs to get hold of you, they will call again.

    --
    1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    1. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      VoiceMail is useless anyways. If someone really needs to get hold of you, they will call again.

      I like voicemail as a fallback though. It's how I ignore answering the phone if I don't know the number.
      If they leave a voicemail, I can check if they were just a telemarketer or something important without actually talking to them, and I can do it at my leisure.

    2. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by dwywit · · Score: 1

      It's not useless. If your number is set to "private" or "withheld", then I'm not going to pick up - ever. You need to leave me a message if you want me to contact you.

      How much does it cost for a 1-900 number? Or whatever the automatic reverse-charge service is.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    3. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Not true. I get voicemail from family all the time. Since it's on the phone they assume I will see it eventually. The phone calls don't get through because I won't answer the phone all the time, I may be in meetings, drivings, at the store, etc. That's the whole purpose of voice mail so that the phone stops becoming your master and demanding that you respond NOW or else!

    4. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by Pfhorrest · · Score: 4, Interesting

      VoiceMail is useless anyways. If someone really needs to get hold of you, they will call again.

      While probably true, it's also true that if someone really needs to get hold of you, they will leave a voicemail. This makes ignoring all calls and only checking voicemail a good way to screen out pointless time-wasting calls. If it's important there will be a voicemail, if there's no voicemail it obviously wasn't that important (or they messages you another way instead).

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    5. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by meerling · · Score: 1

      Have you ever gotten death threats?
      Letting it ring to voicemail is a way to screen that kind of garbage.

    6. Re: HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hi Darinbob, it's me again. Can you please call me back." -- Yeah, really don't wanna miss those really important voicemails that tell you nothing more than your phone's call log can in a fraction of the time.

    7. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by psergiu · · Score: 1

      If i get ANY call with "private" or "withheld" i reject the call right away. 99% chance it's a telemarketer or scammer, 1% chance is a bozo friend that discovered how to hide his caller-id and wants to prank you. Why lose your time listening to the messages ? And also paying for that (listening to VMs is usually not free)

      --
      1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    8. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by psergiu · · Score: 1

      The phone is not your master - your family is now - they know you will waste your time listening to whatever idea they have at any moment.

      If you cannot respond NOW, you reject the call. If they call again, then it's something important and you answer. Or they can send a text. Or they can respect you and wait until you have time to call them back.

      --
      1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    9. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by psergiu · · Score: 1

      I personally almost never leave voicemails. I will call again later if i really need to talk to that person.
      I find-it degrading to basically be told: "yeah - we don't feel like talking to you, speak to this machine instead and maybe we'll consider listening later". I'm calling a person because i want to speak at that moment with that person. Else i would send a text message or email.

      --
      1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    10. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by Pfhorrest · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And I find it degrading to be expected to drop everything else I'm juggling and give my undivided attention to a task I don't yet know warrants that treatment. So please go ahead and send a text or email, or leave a short voicemail, saying what it is you want to talk about -- you don't have to talk at length to the machine, just give me an informative subject line basically -- and I will try to find the time to give you that undivided attention at the appropriate level priority. But I can't afford to let just everyone force their conversation to the top of my never-empty queue of things I'm always having to spend my time on. It's my precious limited time and I'll decide how much to spend on what and when... and mystery conversations about I-know-not-what-yet can stay perpetually at the bottom of that list.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    11. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I like to have voicemail as a trap for those people I don't want to talk to. They leave voicemail and think that I'll eventually get back to them instead of calling again and again and annoy me that way.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you answer if there's a second call within a minute or two? Then you are using the same method as brown listing mail servers do.

    13. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by dwywit · · Score: 1

      No, it's not generally scammers or bozos - it's customers who are particular about privacy, or just paranoid about their numbers escaping to the wild, so I have to be able to respond to them. Yes, voicemail service is a cost, but it's tax-deductible for business, so it's not too bad.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    14. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you cannot respond NOW, you reject the call.

      Not if you're driving.

      If they call again, then it's something important and you answer.

      Not if you're driving.

      Or they can send a text.

      If they have a cell phone.

      Or they can respect you and wait until you have time to call them back.

      Your girlfriend calls but you can't answer because you're driving home. You get home and call her back but she's in the shower. You get changed, head over to her place and she says "did you bring x?". Of course you didn't, because you never got the message, because voicemail doesn't exist in your world.

    15. Re: HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well see this is not how it works, at least not with me. Unless you are paying me serious cash, I am not going to stop and drop everything I am doing to talk to you. I don't even have voicemail. Mainly for the reason I don't like wasting precious heartbeats going to the voicemail menu, waiting for the call to connect and then waiting to hear

        "You have 1 new message, Message 1 4085551234 May 25 2017 3:15pm ... ... Hey this is John, can you call me back right away, thanks! ... ... Press 1 to keep this message, Press 7 to delete this message".

      That's about 25-30 seconds from unlocking the phone to hearing you tell me to call you even though I already know you called me because I have your number in the caller log.

      Rather since you do have my number in this scenario I am expecting you to send me a text message. If you want to get me to get back to you faster, describe your (valid) concern in the text. Feel free to use more than one text.

    16. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by vivian · · Score: 1

      I used to disable voice mail but my phone provider keeps re-enabling it.
      Now my voice mail informs the callers that I'm sorry I missed their call - please try later, or send me a text, and don't leave a message - because I am never going to check my voice mail.

    17. Re: HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And risk losing an awesome call like that?? You have got to be kidding. (Fun thing just happened, my phone corrected kidding to killing but I caught that).
      I am an unstable, aggressive sociopath and I love hearing from people just like me. Say you call me up and you threaten to come to my house to shoot me.. I would be thrilled. In fact I would leave the back door open for you so that you can come into my house. Should you really show up, I would fuck you into your ass and you can call me daddy, and I am not even gay.

    18. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      People seem to think that calling is more immediate and likely to get a response, compared to sending a text or email. In reality I'll just probably ignore their call if I'm at work, and then listen to their voicemail hours later and then forget to do anything about it anyway.

      SMS and email will be dealt with sooner in most cases.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Ugh... I use Voicemail so I don't have to talk to them. If I get a call I don't recognize twice in a row and they don't leave a message I block them.

    20. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      VoiceMail is useless anyways. If someone really needs to get hold of you, they will call again.

      Agreed. While it's original intent was a benefit when first introduced, the abuse that is now evident makes this feature useless. I would actually consider this as an equivalent to email SPAM, which would require by law an opt in/out. Unfortunately some laws are setup to default to opt in and they should be the opposite.

    21. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by Walter+White · · Score: 1

      VoiceMail is useless anyways. If someone really needs to get hold of you, they will call again.

      I use voicemail to screen calls for numbers not in my contact lit. Most of them are from spammers or con artists. Some of those leave voice mails too. I have two that claim to be from the IRS advising me that the sheriff is on the way to lock me up if I don't pay up.

    22. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like someone I wouldn't want to talk to. So you'd always get voice mail. And if you kept calling without leaving voicemail, probably blocked.

    23. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      There's no guaranteed way to get an immediate response from me. If my GF texts me, I might not hear/feel the notification and it could be hours before I check the phone. If she phones, I might have the phone on silent because I'm in a meeting, and it could be hours before I check the phone. It really depends on what I'm doing at the time.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    24. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      I find-it degrading to basically be told: "yeah - we don't feel like talking to you, speak to this machine instead and maybe we'll consider listening later".

      You're going to have to accept that you will never be able to contact a large fraction of people via phone with that attitude. Since I have no idea what you're trying to contact me about, I have no reason to think that it's worth interrupting what I'm doing to talk to you. And if somebody thinks that they are too important to leave a voice mail that I can listen to on my own schedule, then I consider them not worth talking to in any case.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    25. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by Cederic · · Score: 1

      A sim card transfer to a new phone somehow broke my voice mail eight years ago.

      Haven't been able to use it since. Haven't missed it. Either I answer, or the phone rings until the caller hangs up. They ring back or they don't.

      For urgent messages there are far more viable approaches that are more immediate, more reliable and infinitely more likely to actually work.

    26. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      I had an issue a few months back where I left a voicemail after exhausting all other avenues of contact.

      I called every department in their phone tree in their US office.
      I emailed their US office.
      I emailed their canadian office.
      I faxed their US office.
      I tried calling their canadian office but it wouldn't accept calls from my area code.
      I left a voicemail at their US office.

      You know who called me back?
      The guy with the fax machine!
      Screw voicemail.
      I rather call a few dozen times before you pick up than leave a voicemail.

      Then there's these;
      "I'm sorry, but the person you called has a voice mailbox that has not been set up yet, Goodbye."
      They make up more than half of the people that have voicemail enabled.
      They just CBA to set it up or turn it off.

      Voicemail is fully disabled on all of our lines if you need something call back or text.

      If you won't accept a call or text from me I wouldn't do business with you either unless you were my only option.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    27. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't do that anymore. These days, they use local numbers, mostly formerly used by elderly people from what I've been able to tell. Old people die and their phone numbers go to telemarketers.

    28. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Voicemail has been dead for a decade.

      I left you a voicemail about it...

    29. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with texting?

    30. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      I would never use voicemail for something important. If it's important, and they don't pick up my call, then I text them and tell them "call me, it's important".

    31. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      And I reply "what about?" so I can decide if it's important.

      Too many people insist that their matter is important without having any idea what else I may be doing and how important that might be in comparison, so I can't just take anyone's word that it's important. In fact, people just saying something they won't tell me what it's about is important screams "not important!" the same way that someone saying "trust me" screams "untrustworthy!"

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    32. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I only got texting recently, and my mother doesn't have texting and would never be able to figure it out.

    33. Re: HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe...

      "You have 3 new messages, Message 1 4085551234 May 25 2017 3:15pm ... ... Hey this is John, my cell phone died and I'm calling from my neighbor's landline, can you call me back right away at this number, thanks! ... ... Press 1 to keep this message, Press 7 to delete this message".

      "Message 2 4085559876 May 25 2017 3:45pm ... ... It's John again, had to leave the neighbor's house because of the rampaging zombie horde. I'm on the pay phone outside the Cumby's on Pleasant Street. Pay phones, who knew they still existed? Anyway, we're stocking up for a trip into the mountains. Not sure about cell reception up there, but my neighbors are ham radio operators, Bob has a rig and should be able to get in touch with them. ... ... Press 1 to keep this message, Press 7 to delete this message".

      "Message 3 8425555417 May 25 2017 5:30pm ... ... The zombies were waiting for us. The neighbors are dead and... I think one of them bit me. I'm sure it's nothing. Don't come looking for me, I'll meet up with you at the usual place. I'm getting this strange craving... ... ... Press 1 to keep this message, Press 7 to delete this message".

    34. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you try Twitter? That usually gets the fastest response.

    35. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by joemck · · Score: 1

      "listening to VMs is usually not free" -- The only provider I've been on that charged to listen to voicemail was Tracfone, and it cost because the call to the voicemail line counted as a call and consumed minutes.

      I've had Verizon landline, which charges a flat fee for having voicemail in the first place, but the fee was the same regardless of how much or little I used the service. Comcast "landline", Boost Mobile and T-Mobile have all had voicemail packaged into the base rate for no additional charge. Boost and T-Mobile both have visual voicemail apps for Android that are free to use, and an additional flat fee to transcribe all voicemails to text.

      Still, the only case where a "private"/"anonymous" number has anything legitimate to say is if someone's activated it by accident. These numbers NEVER leave a message.

    36. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well with that attitude you're either going to play phone tag or else you think you're the only one whose time is precious and limited.

    37. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly; I knew I was not the only one screening calls. Agree with your point 100% (Don't really know--or care--to mod one up)

    38. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The solution is to get a home data line. Use services that can send calls to cell phones such as hangouts/google voice. Have a PBX and one google voice number. PBX the incoming calls, as in have a 3 or 4 digit code to reach you. Provide that code only to people you wish to answer. You can even use multiple codes where you give a different code to each set of people you know. This allows you to classify incoming calls. Family, work, friends and such. Everyone else gets a useless message box. No phone line payments. No cell phone call payments. Just data line to house and data to phone. Handle messages however you wish. It takes some work but it saves cash over time and you can completely stop all nuisance calls.

    39. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      People think that whatever they want is more important to you than it actually is, more often than not. GP is 100% correct. If talking to my voicemail offends you, text first. No guarantees even then, but it's vastly more likely than just dialing and assuming I'm going to answer because I have nothing more important to do.

    40. Re:HLR codes on any Standard GSM network by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure they just use the same area code and prefix as the number they are calling, and then just randomly generate the last 4 digits and use that for their caller ID. If it's a number they use a lot then when you do a search on that number you'll find people complaining about junk calls from that number, but when I do a search on the unknown local numbers I get calls from I usually get nothing. I could try calling the number back myself to see where it goes, but I really don't want to bother someone who is most likely innocent and just got joe-jobbed by some scammer.

  9. Consent by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    “Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”

    Republicans have never been big on consent.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re: Consent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow good burn. It might even cause Trump to step down!

    2. Re: Consent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really thought Stephen Colbert's Trump-is-Putin's-cockholster "joke" would have been the coup dat gras to force Trump to vacate the White House, but apparently Trump is too stupid to know just how much of a killer insult that was!

    3. Re: Consent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GayWAD Membership Survey (OPTIONAL)
      ... [ ] I have used BREITBART.COM to find a sex partner

      Ha. Child's play, especially for that naughty silk hunk Stevie Bannon. I myself have exchanged bodily fluids with the entire staff of breitbart and infowars. Call me Mr Yummy Cummy.

    4. Re: Consent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. He is a grade-A asshole but he is also our President and he is doing a great job. I could not care less if he went and grabbed Angela Merkel's pussy. (That's a lie. I would fear for his sanity).

    5. Re: Consent by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Wow good burn. It might even cause Trump to step down!

      That would be hazardous for someone that's been placed on a pedestal so high by his constituents.

    6. Re: Consent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      **psycho alert**

    7. Re: Consent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What "great job" has he done?

    8. Re:Consent by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Trump was a star? In what alternate reality?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    9. Re: Consent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you follow them with a blind loyalty that anything the CiC says will be done?

    10. Re: Consent by Cederic · · Score: 1

      What is this, "AC plays Internet hard man" day or something?

      Some other AC a few comments above being equally idiotic, wondering if I've missed an announcement.

    11. Re: Consent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He killed the TPP. We all owe him for that one.

  10. Sounds like email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds very similar to what email is. Except you do not have control over a spam filter or are even offered one, it is impossible to keep any of those recordings private from curious onlookers, you do not control who gets your phone number unlike your email(somtimes), and finally you can't just switch numbers with ease and tell everyone who may ever call you the new number. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

    Give them a spam filter they control while also making all robocalls go to voicemail and this sounds like it could be 'interesting'. Will be lawful and legal in two weeks regardless because banana republic and greed.

  11. okay by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    but can people delete it without ever having to call their voicemail??
    the cellphone providers should be allowed to give customers the choice to have the unsolicited voicemails deleted automatically as soon as it is recorded, perhaps a whitelist so your voicemail will only accept voicemail from authorized callers like those in your contacts in your phone

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      but can people delete it without ever having to call their voicemail??

      the cellphone providers should be allowed to give customers the choice to have the unsolicited voicemails deleted automatically as soon as it is recorded, perhaps a whitelist so your voicemail will only accept voicemail from authorized callers like those in your contacts in your phone

      No, we'll probably all have to disable our voicemail entirely to get around this.

    2. Re:okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can in fact I have only called my voice mail a hand full of times in the past few years, otherwise it gets downloaded to my phone, no call in required, just part of my unlimited plan.

    3. Re:okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But voicemail as it is now is an epic fail, in need of a serious rethinking of its implementation. Or a sod-it-all Reimplementation. Next on the list: caller ids.

       

  12. New Record by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have to hand it to the Republicans - I thought they couldn't come up with any measures that would be any lower or more despised than they already have. I clearly underestimated them, because who would have thought they'd side with telemarketers, of all people?

    1. Re: New Record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despised... all the way to the Presidency, the House, and Senate.

    2. Re: New Record by gweilo8888 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yep. It's nice when the game is carefully rigged and gerrymandered in your favor so you can win even when you're the unpopular party, isn't it?

      /sarcasm, in case it isn't obvious

    3. Re:New Record by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Political parties are all about, at their heart, marketing. The only difference from your average telemarketer is the lack of quality of the product they are selling.

    4. Re:New Record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I suppose it wouldn't do any good to point out while you're indulging your anti Republican rant fix that a fairly prominent Democrat's campaign in 2012 used direct to voicemail messaging. In fact, his campaign and the DNC got sued over it in a class action lawsuit. That campaign? Obama for America. I suppose that doesn't temper your hate-on at all, does it?

    5. Re: New Record by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Ask Bernie.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    6. Re: New Record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Source? I looked for references to this but can't find anything.

    7. Re:New Record by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Fuck you, Russian spam bot.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    8. Re:New Record by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 3, Informative

      I suppose it wouldn't do any good to point out that I said measures, now? If the Democrats tried pulling something like this - and I mean changing the FCC rules to allow someone to pull this sort of shit - I'd be pissed off at them too.

      And if a Democratic candidate did it regardless of the rules? I'd expect them to get slapped and fined for it.

      But let's be brutally honest, the two parties are NOT equally bad right now. That's not to give the Dems a pass, it's just that the Republicans have gone totally unhinged. Go look at what their agenda is, and tell me that they give two sh*ts about anyone but the tiny fraction of billionaire donors. They're not even pretending anymore. Go tell me that Ajit Pai really does mean to help us all by sticking a shiv in Net Neutrality and letting Comcast/Verizon/etc free to do whatever they want. Go tell me that the GOP majority really is going to act as a check on Trump's attempt at doing a speedrun of the Nixon presidency.

      And I think it sucks, because we need two sane, reasonable, yet generally opposing parties to make our current system of government work. That's not the case though, at present, and I say that as someone who was once Republican.

    9. Re:New Record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. As much as I despise voicemail spam, Trump administration environmental policy, educational policy, stance on national monuments, discretionary funding cuts, general corruption, border wall, immigrant detention deportations are all more despicable -- and, I dare say, more destructive of national civic life.

    10. Re: New Record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did. He said that because he was behind in normal delegates (not just super delegates) he didn't get enough votes to get the nomination. Sometimes trying to take over a political party to get a nomination just doesn't work out (especially in a country that unfortunately gives people only two party options). At least he avoided a billion+ dollars of smear campaign though, so he still gets to be an idol to the masses.

    11. Re:New Record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, all right-wing arguments are Russian propaganda..

    12. Re: New Record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask Bernie.

      Bernie was not a Democrat until he ran for President. Why is it that the Party is supposed to get behind someone like that? The core of the organization is people who support the Party.

      What people should be pissed off about is how the Party treated Lessig, who was a Democrat before he ran for President, but had to deal with a Party organization repeatedly changing the rules out from underneath him to knock him out the campaign.

    13. Re:New Record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A single Democrat did it, got caught, and got punished. Somewhat annoying, we moved on.

      Here we have Republicans intentionally making this poor behaviour explicitly legal for all. So just because we've moved on from when Obama did it, we're not allowed to be pissed off that everyone might be doing it routinely from now on?

    14. Re:New Record by Ambassador+Kosh · · Score: 1

      If this is true I hope the DNC and campaign lost the lawsuit badly. It doesn't matter which political group, non-profit etc does this since it does not change that it is wrong.

      Right now the RNC is supporting this and the DNC has not taken an official position so as far as I am concerned they are both guilty right now.

      The ONLY exception I can think of right now for this would be safety related. If the government needs to warn of an evacuation and can't get you by phone they should be able to leave a voicemail. I was in Boulder when a fire was heading towards the city and got an automatic call to prepare for evacuation, along with a text message, emergency alert, and other things. In that kind of situation leaving a voice mail is also okay.

      --
      Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
    15. Re: New Record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bernie was not a Democrat until he ran for President. Why is it that the Party is supposed to get behind someone like that?

      Because they had the choice. Bernie or Trump...

    16. Re:New Record by jovetoo · · Score: 1

      I thought it was pretty clear they sided with everyone willing to pay?

    17. Re:New Record by Evil+Kerek · · Score: 1

      If you think the Dems aren't also wanting to do this, you're politically blind.

    18. Re: New Record by Evil+Kerek · · Score: 1

      I hope you realize both sides actively engage in this. The only reason it currently favors the Republicans is due to the mount loses the Dems have had in governors and local politicians.

      Or are you one of those people that think your side is only bad because the other side is?

    19. Re: New Record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds good especially if they can't cite proof of their claim.

    20. Re: New Record by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Bernie was not a Democrat until he ran for President. Why is it that the Party is supposed to get behind someone like that?

      Because they had the choice. Bernie or Trump...

      But they knew that under Bernie, the democratic party would have been forced to radically change direction, leaving the "leaders" behind, and they prefer the devil (and campaign donors) they know ...

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    21. Re: New Record by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      So you're claiming the DNC was 2 for 2?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    22. Re: New Record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shamblin v. Obama for America

      It failed class action certification and subsequently was withdrawn, but the facts of voicemail messages were not disputed by the campaign or by the political consultant firm hired to leave the messages.

    23. Re: New Record by Flozzin · · Score: 1
      --
      "Cowardice in a race, as in an individual, is the unpardonable sin." --Teddy Roosevelt
    24. Re:New Record by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      For future reference: Telemarketers have more money than you do, and Republicans always side with the money.

    25. Re: New Record by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Bernie was not a Democrat until he ran for President. Why is it that the Party is supposed to get behind someone like that?

      Why is it Democrats insist on ratfucking Sanders on this when he gave you dumb bastards control of the Senate for two years of the Bush Administration?

    26. Re: New Record by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Sometimes trying to take over a political party to get a nomination just doesn't work out (especially in a country that unfortunately gives people only two party options).

      You mean when the party organization and the media collude to coronate another candidate ahead of the actual voting.

    27. Re: New Record by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Yep. It's nice when the game is carefully rigged and gerrymandered in your favor so you can win even when you're the unpopular party, isn't it?

      Sure it is. Now then, how does gerrymandering help you win Senatorial and Presidential elections again?

    28. Re:New Record by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      The ONLY exception I can think of right now for this would be safety related. If the government needs to warn of an evacuation and can't get you by phone they should be able to leave a voicemail. I was in Boulder when a fire was heading towards the city and got an automatic call to prepare for evacuation, along with a text message, emergency alert, and other things. In that kind of situation leaving a voice mail is also okay.

      If I can't be reached by phone, I probably won't see text or voicemail either. Maybe Emergency Alert, only because that will make a loud noise even if my phone is silenced. But even that would become useless if they tried to use it for non-emergencies.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    29. Re:New Record by Ambassador+Kosh · · Score: 1

      I have had a few times where I could not get phone calls but text messages came through or even a voice mail would appear when the reception was really bad. I am not saying it is likely to work. I am just saying that in an actual emergency they can feel free to notify you with every method possible.

      --
      Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
    30. Re:New Record by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Indeed. The problem with this is not a partisan thing. It's a telemarketer thing.

  13. I can't imagine how this could be abused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Five days after this law is enacted, maybe less, every voice mail box in the country will be filled with the same sort of spam that already clogs e-mail boxes. Services will arise to filter it out. Phone companies will charge extra for them. "Everyone" wins!

    Why would any sane human being at the receiving end want this? The FCC should open the question for public comment and see what happens. And then probably ignore it for the sake of all the businesses that want to line the pockets of politicians to do it anyway.

    1. Re:I can't imagine how this could be abused by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The FCC should open up a voice mail box instead. Just to get a rerun of the most recent blunder.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  14. Who pays when you listen to it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So if the spammers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H telemarketers leave these messages, am I not charged to listen to them? If they count against your minutes, there will be such a huge backlash, it won't be funny. You will have a full mail box every day, and Verizon/AT&T will be billing you for overages just to clear your mailbox. When will these politicians stop taking 'financial incentives' and stand up for their constituents?

    1. Re:Who pays when you listen to it? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      When will these politicians stop taking 'financial incentives' and stand up for their constituents?

      When working becomes more popular than getting money.

      Basically the reason communism didn't work out as planned.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re: Who pays when you listen to it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting money is what makes work popular, this mumbo-jumbo about work being it's own reward only works out I'd you are working for yourself not forsomebody else. Back to the drawing board, Karl Marx.

    3. Re: Who pays when you listen to it? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Work being its own reward and "accidentally" getting enough money from it to make a living off it usually only works for people who happen to have a rare talent, incredibly high skill or good connections.

      For everyone else, if what you want to do for a living is "fun", rest assured someone else is already doing it for free.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Who pays when you listen to it? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      People need money. Getting money is extremely popular. People don't necessarily need to work, and most consider work as a way to get money, so working will never be as popular as getting money.

      In other words, you're saying politicians will never stop taking financial incentives and failing to stand up for their constituents, which seems plausible.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    5. Re:Who pays when you listen to it? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      As a comedian said lately "I need money, not an occupation. I can keep myself occupied just fine, no need to help me there!"

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  15. And I'm sure dems are 10000% against the rule. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    As we all know, robocalls are absolutely a republican-only thing and dems would in no way be happy to see restrictions on them weakened. Furthermore, Trump sucks, Putin Putin Orange Putin Russia Pissage Russia Tiny Hands Hitler Russia Drumpf, and Seth Rich definitely never talked to Assange (but if he did it was because he was working for Russia).

    1. Re: And I'm sure dems are 10000% against the rule. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans, Democrats, denizens of Silicon Valley, all corporate whores.

    2. Re: And I'm sure dems are 10000% against the rule. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what's the best thing about all this? You bitching and moaning about it and you will continue to do so the next 8 years. You see, Donald John Trump won the Presidential Election of 2016. He is the President of the United States. I, on the other hand am very happy over the outcome of the election. I don't waste a lot of time even thinking about you and your butt-hurt, unless I am taking a painful shit and am distracting myself reading the trash info-propa-tainment here on Slashdot and the braying of sheeple such as yourself that flock on over to eat it up. That's one major difference between you and me, with Trump I have a lot of good things to look forward to so I can concentrate on what's at hand. You on the other side have nothing at all to look forward to and you can move yourself and those dark clouds hanging over you back into the basement in your parent's house.

    3. Re: And I'm sure dems are 10000% against the rule. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      I'm very happy with the outcome of the election too. I predicted that it would result in the Republicans self-destructing. Just look at how far they've gone so quickly. Trump has had a worse first 100 days than even the 9th president - and that guy died after a month. This fiasco will force both parties to change.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re: And I'm sure dems are 10000% against the rule. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perfect, the republican party will continue to implode. Hows that muslim ban going? repealing healthcare is on track amiright? Oh what about the crackpot budget he is pushing? That wall is already going up, right?

      Thats right, you keep ignoring your problems, its even funnier that you think your getting what you wanted.

    5. Re: And I'm sure dems are 10000% against the rule. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't waste a lot of time even thinking

      This much is true...

  16. Slydial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to invest in slydial

  17. "Republicans" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are they trying to kill everyone?

    1. Re:"Republicans" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is the way of their kind.

    2. Re: "Republicans" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because ideology and ideology

  18. I think there should be a fee for every phone call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the caller should pay a tax for every phone call that gets made. This tax is for the time a person spends picking up the phone. I'm thinking 5 or 10 cents to make each phone call. If phone calls are dominated by ads, people will stop using the telephone.

  19. Man, that GOP keeps on giving. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First they give us endless wars in the Middle East. Then they give us skyrocketing national debt. Then they gave us Trump.

    Now they want to leave voicemails?

    Fuck it, I'm digging up Zombie Lincoln and telling him to take a goddamn Axe to the lot of them.

    1. Re:Man, that GOP keeps on giving. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No need to go back that far, just dig up Eisenhower. Even as a corpse he's a better prez than anything we had in the past 2 decades.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Man, that GOP keeps on giving. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you considered voting for a party that won't pollute your inbox without permission?
      --
      Friendly Alien

    3. Re:Man, that GOP keeps on giving. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Sure. And I will single-handedly accomplish what hasn't happened for over a century now: A member from anything but The Party (i.e. the DEMGOP) will at least come in second in a prez election.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  20. Opportunity for Democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a golden opportunity for the Democrats to earn a quantum of cred by declaring up front that they will never, ever use this.

    (Yeah, I'm not holding my breath. Anyone that thinks they're not all scum is deluded.)

    1. Re:Opportunity for Democrats by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Even if they did, would you trust them not to change their position in the future? They're politicians - self-interest is their strong suit.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:Opportunity for Democrats by tsqr · · Score: 1

      This is a golden opportunity for the Democrats to earn a quantum of cred by declaring up front that they will never, ever use this.

      (Yeah, I'm not holding my breath. Anyone that thinks they're not all scum is deluded.)

      That horse left the barn years ago -- see the discussion upthread regarding Obama for America.

  21. Only one thing to say by DrLudicrous · · Score: 1

    FUCK THAT SHIT

  22. Phone Calls by tquasar · · Score: 1

    I don't live by my phone. It is currently turned off sitting on my desk. I decide when to check for calls or messages, few things in life cannot wait for an hour or four.

    1. Re:Phone Calls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...and when you need to go back and check and there's 100,000 messages sitting in there offering ways to increase your girth and/or improve her orgasm. The only thing I'm looking for is that one mail from the DMV about where the heck my new tags are. I don't want to dive through a gazillion political messages as well.

      Everyone likes to think that they're not taking up too much of my time: it's one message. The problem is EVERYONE thinks this. Death by a million paper cuts.

  23. How? by Balthisar · · Score: 1

    How do you leave a voicemail without ringing the phone?

    --
    --Jim (me)
    1. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The voicemail resides on the phone company's servers, not on your mobile phone. Presumably this will be a nice revenue stream for said companies, who can then add a second stream by charging customers extra for automatic spam removal.

    2. Re:How? by Jonathan+C.+Patschke · · Score: 4, Informative

      The typical way companies do this is to issue two call simultaneously, and disconnect whichever call connects to the switch first (under a second). The telco will roue the remaining call to voicemail, and this usually happens before the call notification worms its way through the cellular network to the handset.

      The student loan scammers are already doing this. One company was calling-not-calling my phone five times an hour? Not a distraction? It certainly is! My phone still goes vrrt-vrrt, and I still look up from what I'm doing.

      It's an utter waste of the recipient's time and fails the "What if some large number of people did this?" test.

      --
      Pining for the days when The Glorious MEEPT!!! graced SlapDash with his wisdom.
    3. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You call that person mobile phone provider's voicemail access number directly. You can get local numbers by googling. When you call, the prompt will ask you for the phone number mailbox you want to leave a message for. It will also prompt you to login to a mailbox to hear your messages. This allows people to call in to check their voicemail if they don't have access to their own phone. It also allows people to login into your voicemail if you didn't set a passcode for it. That's why you should always set a passcode for your voicemail box.

    4. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      TCPA only allows a select few organization to make autodialed direct to voicemail messages. Debt collectors and political campaigns that have your permission are a couple I can think of off the top of my head.

      captcha is creepy tonite: molest

    5. Re:How? by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Quick! Everybody get a land line!

    6. Re:How? by EETech1 · · Score: 1

      Slydial
      (267) 759-3425
      (267) sly-dial

    7. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is typically done by calling the number of the voicemail server itself. In the case of t-mobile who i use 1-805-637-7243. This is the same number that your phone dials when you press and hold 1 to check voicemail messages. it will prompt you for the phone number you are trying to reach and then play the user's greeting message and let you leave a voicemail without ever ringing the phone. they will get a VM indicator after you are done.

      Note if you dial this number from your phone and you are a tmobile customer you will just be dumped into the menuing system for your VM account. It has to be dialed from a line outside of the tmobile network. Another tip If you call this from a landline, put in your number then press * when you hear your greeting you'll be prompted for your PIN and you can check your messages that way.

    8. Re:How? by Balthisar · · Score: 1

      Ah, thanks for this. Now I understand why I get phantom, dropped calls from fake phone numbers several times per day. Obviously I know they're spammers, but I had no idea what their objective was in dropping calls. They're hoping to get to my voicemail, which I've never activated and refuse to setup.

      It also explains why occasionally those phantom calls are followed up immediately with a spam call. Mystery solved.

      --
      --Jim (me)
    9. Re:How? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      That's not the reason for those (most like) unless you get a voicemail afterward. Scammer telemarketers will ring 5-10 numbers at a time (or more) and disconnect all but the first person who answered. This way operators don't waste time not being on a call.

  24. "Immense opposition from consumer advocates" by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ought to include tarring, feathering, and dragging those responsible out of town on a rail - first in effigy, then on the living, breathing offenders themselves if the measures applied to their effigies don't convince them to do the right thing. It's time for beleaguered citizens to hand these fuckers their asses - literally if necessary.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    1. Re:"Immense opposition from consumer advocates" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say make sure whoever they actually love gets strung up with them. Not all of them are afraid for their own lives.

  25. They do this in Australia by MrKaos · · Score: 4, Informative

    And they send you SMS messages. The best way to describe it is *FUCKING ANNOYING*. You listen to you messages and then you hear some shit "Did you know that such and such is a dick and therefore has no business in politics: Vote Asshole - We're full of shit".

    I did the best I could to familiarize myself with the VM controls so I could delete those messages immediately without listening to them. The worst this is you can't leave a message for them telling them to fuck off.

    Yeah, it's *that* annoying.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:They do this in Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Find out the politician and then the number to his office and his email address. Forward the voicemail to both of them. When enough of us start doing this perhaps they will get the message.

    2. Re:They do this in Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it also commercial advertising, or just political ads?

    3. Re:They do this in Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bernie Sanders campaign used that method. It was called Hustle. The Clinton campaign used a system called Megaphone.

    4. Re:They do this in Australia by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Trump's messages were at least entertaining.

      But then again, I'm a fan of the Three Stooges and their antics, so YMMV.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:They do this in Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That, actually, is the beautiful part. You see, the unlimited black money isn't going to just send you "Please, vote for A", they're going to send you massive spam saying "If you don't vote for A you must be a madman who drowns kittens for a living" thirty or forty times a day until you're so pissed off that you'll vote for B instead -

      Which was the idea all along.
      AC

      Sorta like Fox News and Hillary Clinton, in retrospect.

    6. Re:They do this in Australia by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Is it also commercial advertising, or just political ads?

      There's a difference nowadays?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    7. Re:They do this in Australia by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      In the UK you can get a premium rate number that redirects to your phone. You can then give that to everyone except your trusted friends, so that at least if they do spam you they have to pay you for the privilege.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:They do this in Australia by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Does it matter? They're both of equal value.

    9. Re:They do this in Australia by joemck · · Score: 1

      I'd never heard of such an option in the US, but another way to accomplish the same is to get a Google Voice number and forward it to your real number. As a plus, you can have this as a single number that rings both your cell and landline.

  26. What the Hell, I got karma to burn by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    so I'm gonna say this: Why is it whenever something awful comes up it's always the Republicans front and center. Yeah, yeah, there's some blue dog Dems that'll vote for it, but none of them woulda had the gall (and the balls) to actually put a bill on the floor.

    What I'm saying is this: both sides aren't the same. One is objectively worse. And every year we fail to call them on it they get a little bit worse as they realize they can get away with everything while people shout: "But both sides are bad!".

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:What the Hell, I got karma to burn by CaseCrash · · Score: 4, Interesting

      yeah, I'm all over the conservative/liberal spectrum depending on the issue, but I am getting tired of the GOP's "no matter what happens, party first, everything our guys do is great and we all support it" and the weird adherence they have to lower taxes will lead to more jobs and then higher tax revenues and you don't really need privacy and by that we mean everything you do should be tracked and monetized.

      --
      No, that link you posted to a web comic we've all seen a hundred times is not "obligatory."
    2. Re:What the Hell, I got karma to burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't understand, its the do not CALL list. Leaving a voicemail is totally not the same thing. Same thing as the CANSPAM act. they can spam you now as long as they pretend to remove you if you ask nicely by giving them all your details....

    3. Re:What the Hell, I got karma to burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      LOL. You're so cute thinking that making anti-Republican statements on Slashdot is gonna cost you karma.

      SO ADORABLE!

    4. Re:What the Hell, I got karma to burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad you exist.
      I feel similarly. I consider myself a democrat for many reasons, but I certainly don't agree with my party on everything and feel like it is becoming too extreme. I wouldn't have minded if a less extremist Republican won the election, but Trump and the inhumanity in the house/senate makes me miss Bush.

    5. Re:What the Hell, I got karma to burn by Cyberax · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Because as a rule, when something awful and authoritarian is proposed it's Republicans who are doing it. Usually with a couple of token Democrats, so that clueless idiots can keep repeating: "but both parties are doing it!"

    6. Re:What the Hell, I got karma to burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am only modding you down because you preemptively bitched about downmods.

  27. $200 per month.. by LesserWeevil · · Score: 1

    ..is what I think a fair amount to charge the RNC for the privilege of having me delete their voicemails.

  28. Technical countermeasures by dcavanaugh · · Score: 1

    1. Auto delete any voice mail from numbers that are not in my address book.
    2. Access code required to leave a voice mail message. Unauthenticated senders need not apply.
    3. Voice recognition software screens each voice mail, comparing new messages to a centralized database of spam messages.

    I will do whatever it takes to make sure these crap calls fail. At worst, I'll ditch voice mail altogether.

    There is something to be said for putting the telephone out of its misery. With so many illegal telemarketers ignoring the do not call list, the days of voice telephone service are numbered anyway. A tsunami of crap voice mail would finish it off immediately.

    1. Re:Technical countermeasures by tsqr · · Score: 1

      1. Auto delete any voice mail from numbers that are not in my address book.

      Are your nearby hospitals in your address book? Your kids' schools? All the places where you might have or make appointments?

      2. Access code required to leave a voice mail message. Unauthenticated senders need not apply.

      See above.

      3. Voice recognition software screens each voice mail, comparing new messages to a centralized database of spam messages

      Now, this I can get behind.

    2. Re:Technical countermeasures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is something to be said for putting the telephone out of its misery. With so many illegal telemarketers ignoring the do not call list, the days of voice telephone service are numbered anyway.

      When you grow up, move out of mom's basement and get a real job and life you will realize that most adults in the world use voice calls regularly to interact with each other, companies that they are or wish to do business with, their place of employment and, in the course of their employment.

    3. Re:Technical countermeasures by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Are your nearby hospitals in your address book? Your kids' schools? All the places where you might have or make appointments?

      And further, if they don't use caller ID spoofing you have to have all of their outbound/rollover line numbers.

  29. Look at the flip side by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This would allow anyone to flood Congresscritter's voicemails silently as well; all you need is to get their number and be on the same provider. No hangups, just long missives they would have to go through until they block your number. They would no doubt spoof, use various numbers, or use unavailable as their number Seriously though, how is this a free speech first amendment issue? I have no obligation to provide them with a platform for their speech, and my phone is private property where the first doesn't apply. What is needed is an app that can read VM and auto delete robo calls. Fight stupidity with technology, because fixing stupid is a no win battle.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  30. Sure, it's not a phone call by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    But how is voice message spam any different than text message spam?

    Apart from some people having to pay to check their voice mail and you don't even get the opportunity to know who it is before incurring the charge?
    Unless the carrier sends you a message saying who sent you a voice message. In that case it's both voice and text message spam.

    1. Re:Sure, it's not a phone call by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Is there any cellphone service that does not charge you minutes when you access your voicemail?

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:Sure, it's not a phone call by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Do cellphone carriers still charge by the minute? I thought it was all unlimited calls now.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    3. Re:Sure, it's not a phone call by caferace · · Score: 1

      Most lower cost providers still charge by the minute.

    4. Re:Sure, it's not a phone call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prepaid

    5. Re:Sure, it's not a phone call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most pay as you go do (e.g. Tracfone).

  31. If its not technically a phone call ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... then my phone company technically doesn't have to connect it. Not unless they get a cut of that fundraising.

    ISPs are positively salivating about the impending death of net neutrality and the possibility of 'pay to play' for fundraisers' e-mails and web sites. I'm sure the phone companies will jump at the chance to connect GOP candidates with their constituencies .... for a fee.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  32. Kill them by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Kill anyone who approves or promotes this. Kill them, and make it painful.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:Kill them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why high ping bastard? Why do you care? You fucking millennials don't listen to voicemails or even answer phone calls anyway.

      This is a great idea for you fucktards under 40.

    2. Re:Kill them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are soft on crime.

    3. Re:Kill them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I approve it. It's a great way to reach young voters!

      Now do your worse, Grandpa.

    4. Re:Kill them by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Fail, fail, fail. I'm not a millennial, not by a long shot. Try again, troll.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    5. Re:Kill them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is unacceptable. To propose anything like that is unacceptable. To even think anything like that is totally unacceptable. I'm shocked and disgusted.

      But I do have one quick question: Is it illegal futt-buck a duly elected representative or appointed official until their eyeballs bleed?

    6. Re:Kill them by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But I do have one quick question: Is it illegal futt-buck a duly elected representative or appointed official until their eyeballs bleed?

      Depends mostly on the size of your campaign contribution.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Kill them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't tell if that's a euphemism or not.

    8. Re:Kill them by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No. It's literal. I'm fairly sure that whether you're allowed to sodomize some politician is a matter of money. Whores do it for money, after all.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  33. How do they know who I am? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    The best that I can tell, google thinks I'm a gay and interested in a sex change. Maybe google knows something about me that I don't.

    1. Re:How do they know who I am? by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      heh its creepy, I followed a forum link to a NES classic wanna be knock off cheap shit chineese famiclone, and everything else on the page was dildo's

      now ebay thinks all I want to look at is dildo's, never mind the FUCKING DECADE of NOT looking at dildo's on EBAY (shit that's what amazon is for)

  34. Unbelievable by VikingNation · · Score: 0

    Unacceptable plan to bend the rules

  35. First Amendment right of political groups?! by choovanski · · Score: 1

    > the RNC said it felt the telecom agency should clear the way for organizations — including, apparently, itself — to auto-dial directly to voicemail inboxes with prerecorded pitches. Failing to permit the practice, the RNC warned, could threaten the First Amendment rights of political groups. > “Political organizations like the RNC use all manner of communications to discuss political and governmental issues and to solicit donations — including direct-to-voicemail messages,” the RNC told the FCC. “The Commission should tread carefully so as not to burden constitutionally protected political speech without a compelling interest.” The gall. The fucking GALL of these people...

  36. Is there even one Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is not a cock sucker?

    1. Re:Is there even one Republican by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      If the price is right, they'll even swallow. Like any whore.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  37. Voicemail... by Enter+the+Shoggoth · · Score: 1

    How quaint. I disabled voicemail on my cell phone around five years ago and I've not missed it at all.

    The only people who leave voicemail are either advertising pricks trying to annoy you or your boss wanting to harass you outside of hours.

    If it's important they'll email or text.

    --
    Andy Warhol got it right / Everybody gets the limelight
    Andy Warhol got it wrong / Fifteen minutes is too long.
  38. No, what they really want by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 2

    is to be able to have your phone answer its own calls. If voice mail can be reached without dialing a phone, I can assure you their Muslim Soviet witch hunt (which is just an excuse) team is working on a way to also answer calls for you too via a similar protocol. It can already be done, but I mean in a legal and easier way. To give you an example, they only made it legal for ISP's to sell your web data so that they can buy it off them rather than go through a court system.

    1. Re: No, what they really want by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 1

      And, a lot of us use VoIP already. Any Magic Jack users? Guess what? Those calls are "internet data" as far as your ISP is concerned. Enjoy that thought.

  39. Ineffective by JeffOwl · · Score: 1

    Under current federal law, telemarketers and others, like political groups, aren't allowed to launch robocall campaigns targeting cellphones unless they first obtain a consumer's written consent.

    Really? Huh. Then why do I seem to be getting them?

    1. Re:Ineffective by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 1

      Under current federal law, telemarketers and others, like political groups, aren't allowed to launch robocall campaigns targeting cellphones unless they first obtain a consumer's written consent.

      Really? Huh. Then why do I seem to be getting them?

      Because they don't give a sh*t about what you want, or the regulations.

      You see, if *you* were to violate the regs, the FCC would come after you and fine your ass.
      Because you're not important enough to the political process.

      But if a Corporate Person (corporations are people, too), or a Political Action Committee,
      were to do something like that, well, that's competition and getting their message out, so it's far more important
      than some silly regulations.

      And besides, they donate more money to more elected officials than you do.

  40. How does this affect limits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I can have 3 waiting voicemails on my cellphone (I could pay extra to have more, but I really don't need it). If these scumbags start leaving stealth voicemails on my account, will those voicemails count against my limit?

    1. Re:How does this affect limits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. Do the debt collector's direct to voicemail messages count against your limit?

      Just pay off your student loans will ya bum?.

    2. Re:How does this affect limits? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Then enjoy!

      "I'm sorry boss that you couldn't leave the message that I should come in early today. Damn marketeers."

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  41. How strange by dohzer · · Score: 1

    That's strange, because I want them to NOT leave voice mail, also without calling me. Maybe we can just agree on the "not calling me" part?

    1. Re:How strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only there is a way to announce that you do not wish to receive their calls on a number you specified...

  42. Here's an idea.... by buss_error · · Score: 1

    Let's not, and say we did.

    I don't like my own party anymore, much less the republicans. I don't want to hear from any of the lying scumbags.

    --
    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
  43. I love this idea! by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 1

    Best idea ever!

    --
    Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
  44. Full voicemail inboxes everyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is ultimately a burden on the phone companies who will be forced to store this data.
    People will simply stop using voicemail and allow their inboxes to fill up. I will not listen to one second of their filth.

    1. Re:Full voicemail inboxes everyway by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Then this is a problem that solves itself. Spammers send voicemails without ringing your phone until your voicemail is full. Then the just get "Voicemail is full message", and then realize that nobody is listening to the voicemails. Problem solved.

  45. voicemail phone call to me (which is good) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they are already calling a lot of people that don't want to be called.... It is probably less of a disturbance to get a voicemail instead. (they should not be able to do either but...)

    Also, you used to be able to do just that, I didn't know that it wasn't possible anymore...

  46. Freakin' FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ajit Pai is once again proving that his mouth is only good for being Trump's cock holster.

  47. Who pays my bill? by sgunhouse · · Score: 1

    I use a prepay phone with an old-style plan (25 cent connection fee and 5 cents per minute), I don't use my phone much and that's cheaper than more recent prepay plans (such as $1 for each day you use it on, etc.) Will they reimburse me for the extra cost incurred by checking my voicemail more often? (Come to think of it, it would probably be worse if I were on the $1 for each day you use it on plan ...)

  48. And I want... by Hans+Lehmann · · Score: 1

    I want Republicans to be rounded up an exterminated, every single one of them Tell you what, if I get my wish, I'll give them their wish. Deal?

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    1. Re:And I want... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Why stop at Republicans? Equality now!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  49. On the upside, ... by Picodon · · Score: 1

    ...this kind of parasitic behaviour could give a boost to VoIP, where you can freely manage your phone line and voice-mail, complete with IVR (menu prompts) that help dodge robocalls (“press 5 to leave a message”), and custom filters (e.g., allow the local school to leave robocall messages without prompting, but not others; etc.).

    But, to be honest, I doubt that this has much chance to pass. Not that they care about consumers. But imagine how businesses will react to the prospect of having employee voice-mailboxes filled to the brim with spam?

  50. Politicians are minimally responsive by Beeftopia · · Score: 2

    Politicians are minimally responsive to the general concerns of the population. Seems counterintuitive. But they're able to do this because of:
    1) Gerrymandered districts.
    2) Heavy special interest dollars.

    I mean, even when times are rough, incumbency rates are very high.

    What we also need are term limits. Yes, they have costs and benefits. But they approved term limits for the president, one of 537 federal politicians (100 senators + 435 representatives + president + vice president). The reason was to prevent an imperial presidency. We should implement the same thing for the other 535 federal politicians for the same reason - to prevent an imperial Congress.

    I don't see how politicians would ever be persuaded to limit their power however. The 535 limiting the power of the one (president) - certainly. The 535 limiting their own power - I don't see how it could be done voluntarily.

    Once you give politicians more power, it is extraordinarily difficult to take it away.

    We need politicians that are less development officers (fundraisers) and more focused on policy and governing.

    1. Re:Politicians are minimally responsive by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

      What we also need are term limits.

      When you give politicians the real possibility of having a lifetime career as a politicians, it focuses them on doing everything they possibly can - as a group - to keep their political office. This makes them takes steps to insulate themselves from the electorate, whose whims may not always be kind to them.

      If being a lifetime politician is not an option, they would hold their seat less dearly, and perhaps be persuaded to govern more effectively and responsively, instead of doing everything they can to insulate themselves from the electorate, and focusing on retaining power.

      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason." - Mark Twain

    2. Re:Politicians are minimally responsive by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1

      What we also need are term limits.

      We do...we vote for Representatives every, what, two years, and Senators six years. Their terms are limited to how often we re-elect them. We end their term by voting for somebody else.

      Alas, but despite the dismally low approval rating of Congress, it's always "my Sentator/Representative is fine, it's the rest of them that are worthless crooks!"

      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    3. Re:Politicians are minimally responsive by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      Term limits don't solve the problem though. If anything, they empower the lobbyists, because lobbyists don't get term-limited, and they wind up knowing the issues far better than your 2-3 term congresscritter. Moreover, that congresscritter is probably going to be currying favor with lobbies, if only because they know that in 4-6 years it's time to look for a new job.

      What you're missing is that long term incumbency isn't the problem itself, it's WHY there's so many long term incumbents. Someone who gets reelected 10 times because they do a great job representing the wishes of their constituents, are responsive to the needs of actual citizens and not moneyed special interests? Sure, we could use more of them - a lot more of them. What we don't need are the ones that can give the average citizens the finger, because their reelection is basically guaranteed via gerrymandering and big money donations. THAT is where the problem is.

      And if you just term limit them, then I have some bad news, because there's a long line of asshats waiting to take the place of the gerrymander/money protected incumbent that will vote exactly the same way that the lobbyists/moneyed interests want them to.

    4. Re:Politicians are minimally responsive by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

      We do...we vote for Representatives every, what, two years, and Senators six years. Their terms are limited to how often we re-elect them. We end their term by voting for somebody else.

      We also vote for president every four years. And he is term-limited in order to prevent the warping of the system which could occur, as it does in many countries, with long-serving leaders.

    5. Re:Politicians are minimally responsive by Beeftopia · · Score: 2

      Term limits don't solve the problem though. If anything, they empower the lobbyists, because lobbyists don't get term-limited, and they wind up knowing the issues far better than your 2-3 term congresscritter.

      I strongly suspect most lobbyists know the the details of their pet issues better than any congresscritter. Lobbyists are professional persuaders. If they have to persuade someone new every few years, they would have a more difficult job, which is good.

      What you're missing is that long term incumbency isn't the problem itself, it's WHY there's so many long term incumbents. Someone who gets reelected 10 times because they do a great job representing the wishes of their constituents, are responsive to the needs of actual citizens and not moneyed special interests? Sure, we could use more of them - a lot more of them.

      Same could be said of the president. But there is blowback from having a president serving 30 or 40 years. He and the government are likely to warp the system so he can become El Presidente for life. This is one of the reasons we have gerrymandering in the first place. It's the Congressional level of declaring oneself El Presidente For Life.

      And if you just term limit them, then I have some bad news, because there's a long line of asshats waiting to take the place of the gerrymander/money protected incumbent that will vote exactly the same way that the lobbyists/moneyed interests want them to.

      The lobbyists will have to persuade the next politician. That's what lobbyists do. The politicians are the decision makers. If the lobbyist has to convince multiple people every few years, his case will have to be stronger.

      Also, if the service in political office was a limited tour of duty, it seems to me to be more likely that the politician could focus on the job details, not primarily on maintaining the career.

    6. Re:Politicians are minimally responsive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Politicians are minimally responsive to the general concerns of the population. Seems counterintuitive. But they're able to do this because of:
      >1) Gerrymandered districts.
      >2) Heavy special interest dollars. [opensecrets.org]

      3) Not enough fear of the guillotine

      Oddly, 3) would solve all your other issues.

  51. People still use voicemail? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

    Here all plans come with voicemail service by default, but it must have been nearly a decade since anyone left me a voicemail, or since I left one. Nobody uses it. The last voicemails that I ever got were recorded ads - ads that start playing the moment the line is connected, so the voicemail recording starts somewhere midway the message.

    I should check my phone to see whether I have voicemail even enabled. It probably is. If ever I get a voicemail, I hope the notification includes instructions on how to listen to it because otherwise I wouldn't know - and likely be too lazy to find out. Voicemail is passé, that's what WhatsApp is for nowadays.

  52. Fine with me by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 1

    I use google voice for voicemail and have the voicemail from my cell carrier disabled.

    For my GV setup, all callers except a few direct family and friends get bunted directly to voicemail without it ever ringing anyway. If anyone else wants to get in touch with me, they need to leave a message anyway. If the message doesn't say who they are and what they want, I'll just ignore it. If it does, then I can decide I'm not interested and still ignore it.

    For some reason, so far, most don't want to leave me message and just hang up.

  53. HELL YEAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is spam. People generally don't have unlimited voicemail storage, so the caller is not only inconveniencing the recipient, but actually causing harm by using up a resource allocated by the carrier.

    1. Re:HELL YEAH by johanw · · Score: 1

      Although most providers where I live tend to hide the option, the most usefull thing about voicemail is the off switch. Send me a WhatsApp (the defacto standard here) if you need to contact me while I'm not available. But WhatsApp has an anti-spam policy so that option is not available for scum like marketeers.

    2. Re:HELL YEAH by Sporkinum · · Score: 1

      Isn't whats app facebook?

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    3. Re:HELL YEAH by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't this qualify as a DOS attack and contravene the US equivalent to the UK's Computer Misuse Act?

    4. Re:HELL YEAH by Keith+Henson · · Score: 1

      This kind of spam has been a problem with my cell phone for about a year. I get 2-3 voice mails a day with no ringing. It used to burn minutes to listen to them. Now I log in and delete them. The net value of phones is falling.

      --
      End MGM. Get prospective parents of boys to Google: Men do complain
    5. Re:HELL YEAH by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and after facebook bought it they still haven't really figured out how to monetize it, so I wouldn't be surprised if they specifically allowed this. Remember that they tried to remove its encryption so that they could do marketing analytics, but regulators stopped that from happening because it was part of the deal they agreed to when they bought it.

      Anyways if this voicemail spam becomes reality, it will just mean that voicemail dies in favor of other means of leaving messages. Few people even like voicemail as it is; I personally only occasionally listen to my voicemail, usually just calling the person back instead.

  54. A simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grab whoever came up with this genius plan, and drag them through the street back and forth in front of capitol hill until there's nothing left.

  55. New Block Feature by OppMan29 · · Score: 1

    - block unknown senders voice mails coming soon ...

  56. Politics by OYAHHH · · Score: 0

    Since when did /. become politics everyday?

    --
    Caution: Contents under pressure
  57. Hey, what's the best way... by Sperbels · · Score: 1

    Q: What's the best way to ensure everyone stops using voice mail?
    A: Fill up their call-screening-utility/voice-mail with spam.

    1. Re:Hey, what's the best way... by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      Too late, I stopped even trying to listen to voice messages ages ago. All my friends and family know not to bother.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
  58. sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as their personal numbers including their immediate families are online somewhere.

    It's only fair right

  59. I Hate VoiceMail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yay! I hate VoiceMail and have it disable on every phone I have even at work. So this will not affect me. VoiceMail is the most useless thing now-a-days. A 100 calls of ... Opps we missed each other, hey call me back. By the time I listen to it we have already talked. Or some leaves a stupid long message that takes a billion years to listen to. Hey send an email then I can screen them for importance and reply to the HOT ones right away and when I have the time read the long ones and make sure I respond well.

  60. Oh PLEASE let this come quickly! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    "Sorry, boss, I couldn't get back to you, I didn't get to the voice mail you left me yet"

    And he will just nod and mutter because he knows the problem well himself.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  61. Re:voicemail phone call to me (which is good) by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    It is easier to ignore, I give you that.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  62. A use for obsolete technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    String him up with telephone cord. And pelt him with phone books.

    1. Re:A use for obsolete technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is a phone book?

  63. Just to play devil's advocate here.... by SacredByte · · Score: 1

    Ideally, I would prefer if I didn't get any unsolicited calls on my phone. Short of that though, it might actually be nice if unsolicited callers could leave me voicemails without actually causing my phone to ring: that way I wouldn't be bothered as often with phone calls I'm going to ignore anyway, and I can just delete the messages at my convenience.

    1. Re:Just to play devil's advocate here.... by CAOgdin · · Score: 1

      I SHOULD have a right to privacy, to have my phone number concealed unless I reveal it, to stop all unsolicited calls from "business" numbers (but accept them from cellphones or land-line residential phones), and all other calls to have a unique "ringtone" (for first-time LEGITIMATE callers). If you're not in my "contacts" I PROBABLY don't want to hear from you, but we have to make an exception for "first time" callers, in case their valued friends we haven't yet talked to.

  64. Don't worry! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems the same over here, for anyone paying attention.

    Unfortunately until it gets bad enough that those of us who have trouble finding jobs in the shitty modern economy (or refused to whore what few rights we had left for the opportunity for a shitty job that would lay us off at the first sign of bad financial weather, while talking to us about 'being a family'...) to claim political asylum from the U.S. as persecuted non-racist cis men, or as persecuted non-racist white females and non-white everybody else, we're kind of SOL and stuck here without many options.

    Now you're stuck between Canadian border patrol being hostile because you're American (especially if you're trying to get out...), or exiting via Mexico and hoping you don't run into the Cartel Jihadists who might behead you just to one up the Muslim Jihadists in intimidation factor.

  65. What confuses me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What I don't get is... why the fuck they think somehow I'd listen to such a voicemail.

    "Huh. I have a voicemail... that's odd, I don't have any missed calls..."

    "You have THREE new messages. First message. Hi, this is Ted Cruz, and I'm runni BEEEEP... message deleted. Next message." (moody, scary, minor-key music) "The President is taking Amer BEEEP... message deleted. Next message." (Soaring, upbeat music begi) "BEEEEP. message deleted. You have no more messages."

    Politicians... you're wasting your fucking time.

    1. Re:What confuses me... by Maritz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Politicians... you're wasting your fucking time.

      They're betting that enough bored idiots will listen to enough of them to make it worth while, and they're probably right.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    2. Re:What confuses me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd listen just long enough to figure out who they were backing. And I'd know instantly who to never vote for. Because you don't vote for spammers. Ever. Of course, once they went through the first election cycle and saw how many votes their spamming cost them they would then turn to sending messages backing the other party next time. They you'd never know who they were really backing. And back to just your idea of immediate delete.

    3. Re:What confuses me... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1
      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    4. Re: What confuses me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I went through a mini-MBA bootcamp recently and the marketing segment covered cold robocalls. Apparently, the statistical data shows 1-3% of people actively respond to these stupid calls which is why they continue to plague the rest of us.

      If I don't know the number or don't have prior communication where I may be expecting an unknown number during a specific time, you're going to voicemail everytime. If the voicemail speech-to-text translation looks like spam, you're getting deleted. If you successfully make it this far, you get 3-5 seconds of active listening and if it sounds remotely like spam, deleted. If this crap comes around and I receive voicemails with no missed call, I can assure you those messages would be immediately deleted. Someone should write an app the compares the missed calls to voicemails and deletes all that voicemail that don't have a corresponding missed call. It should be fairly trivial.

    5. Re:What confuses me... by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      Yes, because the rural america would have voted for Hillary if Trump robocalled them....Somehow I don't see that working.

    6. Re:What confuses me... by JohnFen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Politicians... you're wasting your fucking time.

      No, they're wasting your time.

    7. Re:What confuses me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but I don't answer calls from numbers that I don't recognize. Such "ringless" voice mails would be ignored as well. The FCC should NOT allow this BS, and further should make ANY political, advertising, robocalls, or calls from organizations asking for charity (and the same types of text messages) totally illegal! With huge (seven figure) fines and double digit jail sentences per call/text!

      I paid for my phone, and I pay for my phone service, therefore I should be the only one who gets to decide who can call or text me! These republithugs and businesses think that they should have the right to do whatever they want to be able to advertise to people, including stealing private information! This crap has got to be stopped. NOW!

    8. Re:What confuses me... by LetterRip · · Score: 1

      What I don't get is... why the fuck they think somehow I'd listen to such a voicemail.

      Their base is the elderly and the poor - who are both far more likely to listen to such voicemails.

    9. Re:What confuses me... by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      What I don't get is... why the fuck they think somehow I'd listen to such a voicemail.

      "Huh. I have a voicemail... that's odd, I don't have any missed calls..."

      "You have THREE new messages. First message. Hi, this is Ted Cruz, and I'm runni BEEEEP... message deleted. Next message." (moody, scary, minor-key music) "The President is taking Amer BEEEP... message deleted. Next message." (Soaring, upbeat music begi) "BEEEEP. message deleted. You have no more messages."

      Politicians... you're wasting your fucking time.

      who is going to pay for the message storage? Can you send a bill to the Republican party asking for compensation for the time you took and the storage they inappropriately consumed. Is your time worth $100/hr? and the storage $3.00/megabyte day?

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    10. Re: What confuses me... by kenh · · Score: 1

      Their base is the elderly and the poor

      Really? The Republican base includes 'the poor'? That's not what most Democrats claim...

      --
      Ken
    11. Re:What confuses me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My first thought for a countermeasure would be to add the "Voice to text" subscription on my (Verizon) wireless email account, and make a point of deleting everything that wasn't from someone who I'm interested in hearing from. I get very little voicemail any more, but that would obviously change under this plan.

      Of more concern is whether picking up the voicemails would cost minutes for the people on limited plans -- there are still some out there which charge by the minute, usually the pay-as-you-go accounts. They'd need some kind of way to opt out of receiving.

    12. Re: What confuses me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Really? The Republican base includes 'the poor'? That's not what most Democrats claim..."

      You need poor people in order to feel how rich you are. If everybody is a billioner whom are they going to rule over and be admired by?

    13. Re: What confuses me... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, you're not going to win a (fair) election with just the 1% voting for you. Hence the Republicans need to convince about half of the 99% to vote against their best interests* and vote for the guys with the big R next to their name.

      *Not that voting for the Democrats would make much of a difference either, but if enough voted for the right third party they might have a problem.

  66. Cost to phone owner by Tomahawk · · Score: 1

    I've a question - how many mobile phone/cell phone companies in the US charge their customers for checking their voicemail?

    I believe (and I'm not sure about this) that I can dial 171 on my phone and check my voice mail for free (but I need to check - I don't use voice mail and never configured it on my account).

    If there is a cost to the receiver of the message, is that enough to stop this from happening?

  67. Phone spammers will not be tolerated. by jcr · · Score: 1

    If anyone is stupid enough to spam my voicemail and leave me any means at all of figuring out who they are, they will not enjoy the consequences.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  68. The solution? by jandersen · · Score: 1, Informative

    I never use voicemail - it is one of the (mis-)features I always turn off if at all possible; and if not, I simply ignore it and let it fill up. Why? Because I have to actually call a service number to access voice mail messages and then work with an awkward interface; I may even have to pay call time to do so. There are much better alternatives now: instant messaging. My favourite (that is, the first one I tried and found reasonably useful) is WeChat; I know all the criticisms, so don't bother - the point is, there are several like it, that allow you to chat in real time, send pictures and voice messages and even make a call (optionally with video); if you don't check your messages they just hang around until you have time. And you can control who is allowed to contact you. I can't see why I would want voicemail for. The same goes for SMS, in many ways; I think I have only used SMS something like 3 times in the last year.

    1. Re:The solution? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Shut up! "There are much better alternatives now: instant messaging" - do you really want to get 1,000 text messages a month from these idiots? The longer they think that voicemail works, the better. After all, they're already biased to using it because they like the sound of their own voices ... it may not be why they originally became politicians, but it sure factors into why they stay.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:The solution? by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Shut up!

      You're referring to the famed "freedom of speech", am I right?

      do you really want to get 1,000 text messages a month from these idiots?

      I won't, as long as I can control who I allow to send messages - which I can, at least for now, unlike with voice mail.

    3. Re:The solution? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Because I have to actually call a service number to access voice mail messages and then work with an awkward interface; I may even have to pay call time to do so.

      Visual voicemail solved this 10 years ago. I don't know what company you are with, but I almost never dial the voicemail number and instead just look at the list of messages in the app.

      Home voicemail is similar - I've been using Google Voice for years and it is a great way to filter your calls.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re: The solution? by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      I mostly use my phone and voicemail for "official business" where "Hey download this messaging app and hit me up at @Stickmayne89" just doesn't sound professional. Not to mention it flat out is not a valid line of communication for many entities I deal with and they will never use it.

    5. Re:The solution? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      There are much better alternatives now

      Like visual voicemail on both iPhone and Android. And Google Voice too. Transcribed voicemail is easy for the caller to leave, and easy for you to dismiss/ignore.

    6. Re:The solution? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      You're referring to the famed "freedom of speech", am I right?

      Freedom of speech means that people have the freedom to tell you to shut up. They just don't have the right to force you to shut up.

    7. Re:The solution? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Visual voicemail solved this 10 years ago.

      I've honestly never heard of "visual voicemail" until just now. You need to use an app for it? So I assume that it uses your data allowance? If the concern is that these bastards are costing you money, then how does that solve anything?

    8. Re:The solution? by nmr_andrew · · Score: 1

      Visual voicemail solved this 10 years ago.

      I've honestly never heard of "visual voicemail" until just now. You need to use an app for it? So I assume that it uses your data allowance? If the concern is that these bastards are costing you money, then how does that solve anything?

      On my phone, I think the carrier pre-installed voicemail app is really visual voicemail - because if I want to listen to the voicemail, I just hold 1 to quick dial it. I used to regularly get a popup asking if I want to enable visual voicemail which I always declined and I think finally managed to make go away for good.

      I'm not sure about all carriers, but be aware that Verizon charges a monthly fee for the completely automated visual voicemail "service".

    9. Re:The solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On my phone it uses an app called "Phone." It uses a tiny amount of data (as does your messaging app), but your original complaint was that you had to call a service number, deal with an awkward interface, and use up call time. Visual voicemail solves all of those problems for you.

    10. Re:The solution? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      You need to use an app for it?

      Yes, though the app is typically pre-installed if you have a carrier-locked phone.

      So I assume that it uses your data allowance?

      This is entirely dependent on your carrier. It uses data, but can have it's own APN - so some carriers handle it separately. It does not typically work over WiFi.

      If the concern is that these bastards are costing you money, then how does that solve anything?

      Can't help you there - if your carrier is charging you for visual voicemail, you have several options: find a new carrier, pay for the data, call the free voicemail number and use the voice prompts that you hate, or turn off voicemail entirely. I have a 5GB data plan, so I haven't bothered to check if visual voicemail is using my data as it would be trivial.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    11. Re:The solution? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about all carriers, but be aware that Verizon charges a monthly fee for the completely automated visual voicemail "service".

      They discontinued their own-brand visual voicemail. Basic visual voicemail is free: per verizon - "You can also continue to use our free Basic Visual Voicemail service by upgrading your device to a smartphone or compatible phone. "

      Your phone will show a list of messages and there will be a playback button. It should also show up in the dialer under call history. Enable it for your own sanity's sake.

    12. Re:The solution? by nmr_andrew · · Score: 1

      Great, thanks for the updated info. I didn't know, but it's probably why they stopped nagging me to enable visual voicemail.

  69. Finaly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a good thing since it will kill voice messages

  70. Re:I think there should be a fee for every phone c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Flat 50c fee to leave a voicemail. Statutory enforcement.

  71. The permission will be given at the ballot box by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    If the GOP wants to lose next election by double digits then go right ahead. Can't these idiots do something useful once in a while instead of cutting taxes for the rich and annoy the rest of the people to the nth degree?

  72. Re:I think there should be a fee for every phone c by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    Flat 50c fee to leave a voicemail. Statutory enforcement.

    Credited to the account of the recipient of the call.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  73. Never take calls from weird numbers by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Seriously just search the web for any random unknown caller's number and you'll find tons of them.

    You are correct but I don't waste the time. Basically if it's a number I don't recognize or I'm not expecting a call I don't take the call. It goes straight to my voicemail service. Spam calls get flagged as such and blocked so I never get them again. I also subscribe to the "do not call" lists and I don't have a land line. My actual cell number never gets used. I use a voice mail number which forwards to my cell phone so few people have my actual direct line should I need to change it in the future. Makes screening calls much easier.

    1. Re: Never take calls from weird numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That really doesn't stop War dialing... which is probably legal fir politicians to call every phone number in a geographic area.

      My Congresscritter calls with 5 minute long updates on the landline. That would destroy a regular voicemail box.

  74. I could be wrong ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... but alot of countries already have legislation for this? This being spam legislation, stating unsollicited electrionic communication is illegal without prior consent. Doesn't this exist in the US?

    If it does, gl overthrowing that. Any politician thinking this would be a good idea should be auto-enlisted for each and any newsletter there is on the web, without the possibility of opting out.

  75. Aftermath of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by sjbe · · Score: 4, Informative

    Reagan at least was a Democrat for quite a while. Back in the early 1970's, he said that he didn't leave the Democrat party; the Democrat party left him.

    Yes Reagan claimed that exact quote but it was bullshit then as it is now. Basically his brand of politics was more conservative than the bulk of the democrats. Reagan's politics drifted right long before he ever switched parties. His claim is exactly backwards for the most part.

    And if you read the party platforms and public statements of most Dems in the 1950s through the mid-70's, they sound VERY Republican.

    That's because many of them were what we think of republicans to be today. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 caused a huge number of democrats (particularly in the south) to switch party affiliations over the next decade. The south used to vote solidly democrat up until 1964. It was Nixon in 1968 that appealed to scared white voters in the south and started the transition to the solidly republican south we see today.

    Today's Democrats used to be called "Communists", and today's Republicans used to be solidly Democrat.

    SOME of today's republicans used to be democrats. Most democrats were politically to the left of those individuals long before they switched parties, largely over what is clearly racial bias after 1964.

    1. Re:Aftermath of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't the Civil Rights Act that caused the party switching, it was the shift from the Democrats to being a more authoritarian/big government party. Those in the Democrat party who actually did care about small government and the fact democrats were starting to really lose ground as a party and showing who they really were ideologically is what is causing the major shift.

      Democrats are showing exactly what they really are now... neo-feudalists.

  76. Tired meme by sjbe · · Score: 1

    From over here in Europe, what your political system looks like is one religious nutjob party that hates everything non-white and one non-religious nutjob party that hates everything white.

    That's ok. Many ill informed people in America generally see Europe as either a bunch of lazy socialists or nazis. No, that isn't accurate or fair but it's about as ridiculous as your assertion.

    I can't really see anything resembling a political platform in either of them. Mostly because they have pretty much identical stances on everything but religion and whether or not white males are the devil.

    Only if you aren't paying any attention at all. The meme that the republicans and democrats are basically the same is preposterous nonsense and if anything they've been growing further apart over time. The difference is that the US is one country and state level politics aren't so visible to those in Europe. But I assure you that there are differences between US states every bit as large as those between European countries. Greece is as similar to Germany as Hawaii is to Texas.

    1. Re:Tired meme by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Greece is as similar to Germany as Hawaii is to Texas.

      They're both broke but Texas is staying afloat by leeching Hawaii dry while pretending to "save" them?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  77. Nagy devices. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a phone that won't stop going off until you answer the voice mail. It creates notifications that you can't turn off or clear out without calling your voice mail and deleting each message one at a time. They can take this crap and shove it back up their ass where it came from. Not to mention that this would (if allowed) give telemarketers justification to restart their abusive robo call campaigns. If they think public opposition is bad now, wait until that crap starts up again.

  78. This is going to have the opposite effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Each one of those that I receive, will decrease the probability of me ever voting for them. Who wants to help someone who annoys them if they don't have to?

  79. Good test of the new FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to see if they are just plain or extra pure evil.

  80. Won't work by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

    I have an IP phone landline equivalent with an answering machine that won't record a message without an incoming ring signal. And it has a spam screener. I don't give out my cel number, usually have it turned off, and don't ever listen to its voicemail, since anyone who knows me knows I don't listen to it and in fact, won't even have the phone number, since I don't give it out-- I forward or simulring my "landline" to my cel if I want to receive calls when travelling. This plan is stupid and only underscores the Republican's complete disrespect for the voter's interests (which the Democrats also do, in other ways). All politicians working on such a scheme should be voted OUT.

  81. What is reCode[.]net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this real? I ran a google search and can't find any other news sites carrying the story.

  82. Technically, it doesn't qualify as a phone call? by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 1

    How do they access your voicemail?

    Do they place a phone call to do it?

    I have had this happen a couple of times. It's annoying, but I will just disable voicemail and leave a message to text me.
    Still, not a big fan of this attempt to get around the regulations against robocalling cellphones. Not that anyone obeys them in the first place...

  83. Only makes spam tools better by paradexes · · Score: 1

    Well looks like google voice will be bringing it's A game to block more of this crap. Mr Number, Nomorobo, etc will start blocking these almost immediately.

  84. *cough NAFTA *cough NDAA by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Most of the worst policies of the last 30 years have been championed for and signed by Democratic presidents. Not Republicans.

    1. Re:*cough NAFTA *cough NDAA by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      NAFTA is controversial, but the NDAA is the National Defense Authorization Act, which Presidents pretty much have to sign. You're probably thinking of a provision that a Republican Congress put in one for a Democratic President.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    2. Re:*cough NAFTA *cough NDAA by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Pedantry is noted.

      You're probably thinking of a provision that a Republican Congress put in one for a Democratic President.

      No. I'm not. Which I'm sure you knew already. It's because "signing an NDAA which allows the Army to throw you in prison without charge or hearing, indefinitely" is long to put in a subject line. But I'm sure you knew that already, too.

  85. yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who reads voicemails?

    if it is important, send me sms or email?

    how about: yes to silent voicemails, and we switch to caller-pays (and voicemailer-pays).

  86. Finally, it's in BETA! by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    I've always felt that voicemail can always be improved, converted to text, and browsed like a regular Inbox. Instead of waiting sequentially for the right message, we can select one from a list, and listen or read it, even reply-- just like any regular Inbox. Now that I have a political party to back me up on this, maybe crowdfunding this project will be a no-brainer. Then we can work on my next crowdfunded project: a mission to Mars, with Cardassians as crew!

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  87. Who not to vote for by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    Makes it easy to decide who not to vote for. A few election cycles ago I got campaign letters from my state representative that legally had to disclose that my tax money went to producing them.

    Cool, made it easy not to vote for that asshole again. He did not get re-elected.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  88. Not just Republicans - all the telemarketers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOADS of people want to do this.
    You can leave it, IF I can bill you back for my mobile minutes.
    If it costs me to simply delete your crap from my phone, then NO! NO! NO!
    I don't care what you are selling.

  89. Immediate side-effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Republican voicemails get flooded by robocalls and they can't conduct business anymore. If it only affected Republicans then this would be a great thing.

  90. Slydial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd hate it if a politician did this to me but honestly, it's quite handly for an individual to use SlyDial (the free consumer version of this) when you want to make it look like you tried calling someone (e.g., if you have an obnoxious boss at your job) but their phone is broken

  91. Oh Hell No!!!! by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 1

    I wonder if there will be someway to stop this? If somebody has an idea (short of giving up our cell phones) for a project, let us know.

    This is just like getting spam...Who is going to pay for upgrading our voicemail if we can't block it?

  92. Kill Robodialers with SIT Tone by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1

    I got so fed up with the last presidential election and fraudulent telemarketers robo-bombing my phone that I preceded my answering greeting message with the Special Information Tone (SIT) tone to trick the auto-dialers into detecting a disconnected phone number and removing my number from the list. I just downloaded the tone into my mobile device and played it into the mic on the answering machine.

    --
    Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
  93. I predict bipartisan support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think all politicians want to tell you what to think, and in any way they can. Too bad it will get bipartisan support because they all know that land lines are like dinosaurs. But, feel free to pick on your least favorite political party.

  94. What is voicemail? by budsetr · · Score: 0

    Voicemail? What is that? Do they dictate everything to their phone and it types the email for them?

  95. can't you already do this? by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    I don't know about you guys but I'm fairly certain that if I log into my own voicemail, I can send someone a voicemail directly without ever calling them. It's like option #2 or something.

  96. Labels... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like how everyone is just labeling themselves into polarizing groups. Great job making the elitist agenda a walk in the park. As long as they can keep you fighting each other with their fake news networks and token propaganda pieces, they will never have to contend with any actual change occurring to challenge their stranglehold on you.

  97. People still use voicemail? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    Outside of business use, do people really still use voicemail? I know that I ignore mine (mostly because it's all but guaranteed to be a telemarketer).

    I guess if telemarketers get their way, the few remaining voicemail users will have to abandon it as well.

  98. VM EULA Announcement by ehaggis · · Score: 1

    "If you leave me a voicemail - you will be subject to a $1000 annoyance fee. Thank you"

    --
    One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
  99. Again with the political shill stuff by bwanagary · · Score: 1

    Slashdot is now being dragged down into the same parroting of misinformation, disinformation and misleading "news" that is the stape fare of the mainstream media. What a shame. Who proposed the aforementioned bill, and when? Oh, sorry, not mentioned. Which other companies and organizations support the bill? Oh, no mention of that either. This isn't informational. Its an insult to intelligence to post such thinly disguised political agendas in a forum like slashdot. Tch-tch. There goes the neighborhood :-(

  100. Ok that one I'll give you by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    but to be fair Clinton moved the party hard right so he could form an alliance of social liberals and economic Right wingers (I refuse to call them "conservative", there's nothing conservative about the radical changes they propose).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  101. No, thanks. I don't even want your f*cking Vmail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    F*ck off.

  102. I support this. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    If this passes, my voicemail outgoing message will be changed to "If you're a marketer, please waste your time leaving a message. If you're someone I know, text me, email me, call me back, or wait for me to see the missed call; this box never gets checked now that voicemail has become nothing more than an ad platform."

    If this shifts annoying marketing calls, which make our phones ring at inopportune times, to a less obtrusive and more easily ignored medium, we should welcome it.

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    1. Re:I support this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Did you think that up all by yourself, Captain Obvious?

    2. Re:I support this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll harder, douche. The guy has a point and nobody else seems to be talking about it.

  103. I actually have no problem with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish this could be done for all telemarketers and robocalls. The annoying part is that they are ringing my phone at all hours. I predict if this is allowed then there will be apps that will come along and let you bucket your voicemail the same way you can bucket email, if they don't already exist.

  104. Cultural differences by sjbe · · Score: 1

    They're both broke but Texas is staying afloat by leeching Hawaii dry while pretending to "save" them?

    Ha! I actually did laugh out loud. Well done.

    On a serious note, I said they were analogously different, not that the situations were at all the same. Think how different culturally Greeks are from Germans and you'll see a similarly large differential between Texans and Hawaiians or between urban California and rural Mississippi. Their outlook on life is quite different. Americans only seem like a cohesive group if you don't look very carefully, especially when race is involved. In actual fact both the people and the states are nearly as diverse as the various countries in the EU. We just have systems in place that bind these groups together a bit tighter than they might be otherwise.

    1. Re:Cultural differences by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know. I've been to Georgia and California, the only thing they have in common is the crappy weather.

      You will, though, find the same kind of people anywhere provided you're looking for them, what differs is saturation. You will find left leaning liberals in, say, Texas. But they will be far fewer than in, say, Cali.

      Same is true for Europe. Cultural differences ain't what they were 50 years ago. Traditions and old habits change rapidly, especially since people move across the continent freely.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  105. LOL by hackel · · Score: 1

    That's adorable that the GOP buffoons are so out-of-touch that they actually believe people still use voicemail!

  106. Voicmail to text for the win by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

    I'd never listen to even the first few seconds of these -- A quick glance at the results of Google's voice-to-text would tell me all I need to know.

  107. They'll probably claim to be democrats on the call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since this is a quick way to make sure most of us NEVER vote for whomever leaves spam like this on our phones.

  108. Usually you do by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Nobody likes partisan politics. But I think we're past that at this stage. The Republican party isn't even giving their constituents lip service any more. They're openly hostile at the Town Halls (if they're willing to have one at all). It's just crazy.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  109. Rubbish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Failing to permit the practice, the RNC warned, could threaten the First Amendment rights of political groups.

    What a load of crap. Yes, they have the right to set up a soapbox and scream their lies on the street corner. But, I should not be required to stop and listen.

  110. Weather? by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Yes, I know. I've been to Georgia and California, the only thing they have in common is the crappy weather.

    Crappy weather? Did you visit during a hurricane or something? Both those states are known for many things but crappy weather isn't among them. Southern California in particular has a huge population in large part precisely because of its dependably nice weather. Unless you hate heat, Georgia is also quite nice.

    You will, though, find the same kind of people anywhere provided you're looking for them, what differs is saturation. You will find left leaning liberals in, say, Texas. But they will be far fewer than in, say, Cali.

    Certainly. I'm talking in generalities of course.

  111. This is illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a Bill of Rights violation, infringing rights arising under the 9th and 10th Amendments.

    All advertising or solicitation - including political and religious advertising - must be opt-in - and anything available bundled with advertising must also be available without it. Any law to the contrary violates the right to ethical practice of law, an universal and inalienable right. If we are to allow value to the time of lawyers, then we must also allow value to the time of others to be compliant with the right to ethical practice of law - and taking that time for advertising purposes without compensation agreed to in advance violates the value of that time.

    Further, stealing a portion of somebody else's life is morally wrong, and a violation of basic freedoms. It's why we make kidnapping illegal, it's even at the heart of why we make armed robbery illegal.

    In short, this proposed plan violates the highest law in the land. Once again government in the USA demonstrates it's contempt for the rule of law, and it's basic lack of legitimacy.

  112. Visual voice mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Swipe, deleted, swipe deleted. Honestly. I just delete all voicemails without listening to begin with.

  113. Still using Voice Mail? by Sivaraj · · Score: 1

    That is such an ancient and painful technology. Probably this measure will make it unusable and kill it. May be that is the idea.

    In India, we bypassed the voice mail "revolution" altogether.

  114. Oh STFU... by DrStoooopid · · Score: 1

    ...that's not Republicans, that's all people in business. Don't be stupid, don't try to push agenda. Seriously, you're being retarded.

    --
    There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
  115. Voice mail? by richieb · · Score: 1

    People still use voice mail?

    --
    ...richie - It is a good day to code.
  116. Slash guys seem to be fucking democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two headlines in the same daily article that are "Trump does this" or "Trump Administration does that" ... WTF?

    I'm thinking a little (more than a little) bias is playing a part in what is being added here. Kind of sucks that the media (Slashdot included) leans so heavily to the liberal side.

  117. Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice to see our politicians tackling problems we are really concerned about.

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

      Nice to see our politicians tackling problems we are really concerned about.

      You should be concerned, you do realize that if the republicans get the FCC to "redefine a phone call" it means all telephone protection laws (such as the "Do Not Call list", the junk fax laws, etc) also go away. Our phones will become so clogged with garbage as to be useless.

  118. Voice Mail Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to find VM very positive. I could leave a msg detailing my needs, etc and then the person could respond with their reply and neither of us had to talk on the phone. It was good for those people who got that concept.

  119. And the Democrats have no opinion? by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    The summary was oddly silent on the position of the Democrats on this legislation. Maybe if I RTFA I'll find out what their position is, or why they don't have one.

    But that would be wrong.

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  120. Umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No they don't, eh?