Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

No, Your Phone Didn't Ring. So Why Voice Mail From a Telemarketer? (lifehacker.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the stealthy-marketing dept.

Slashdot reader midwestsilentone tipped us off to a growing problem. Lifehacker reports: New technology allows telemarketers to leave ringless voicemail messages, and it's a method that's gaining traction. While there are laws to regulate businesses when they call consumers, some groups argue that ringless voicemail shouldn't count. The New York Times reports,"ringless voicemail providers and pro-business groups...argue that these messages should not qualify as calls and, therefore, should be exempt from consumer protection laws that ban similar types of telephone marketing"... After receiving a petition from a ringless voicemail provider, the Federal Trade Commission has started to collect public comments on this issue. So what can you do about it? First, you can head here to leave your public comment and if you're getting these voicemails, you can file a complaint with the FCC here.
Presumably that only applies if you're in the U.S. But I'd be curious to hear how many Slashdot readers have experienced this.

133 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now the only form of communication I will check and answer is certified mail. Thanks ass hats!

    1. Re:Good! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Funny, but I have the opposite problem: I get lots of calls that ring, but when I answer there is nobody there. I assume these are mostly poorly programmed predictive dialers.

    2. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Funny, but I have the opposite problem: I get lots of calls that ring, but when I answer there is nobody there. I assume these are mostly poorly programmed predictive dialers.

      Assume instead that they're correctly programmed to verify your phone number is valid. Thanks for answering!

    3. Re:Good! by SpammersAreScum · · Score: 2

      Funny, but I have the opposite problem: I get lots of calls that ring, but when I answer there is nobody there. I assume these are mostly poorly programmed predictive dialers.

      Poorly programmed only in the sense that they sometimes get more hits than they have available scammers to connect. So sometimes when you pick up you are denied the opportunity to waste their time. That disappoints me, anyway.

    4. Re:Good! by vlueboy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Funny, but I have the opposite problem: I get lots of calls that ring, but when I answer there is nobody there. I assume these are mostly poorly programmed predictive dialers

      These too are on purpose. There are numbers from unique area codes that consistently, if not always, result in dead air when you do pick up. Once / twice would be considered a programming bug or a bad product. ALWAYS? nope.

      Not many businesses would keep a botched product for first-contact, considering calls are more noticeable than junk mail and spam. After all, with a call you ALWAYS know when the mark is "live" as soon as they pick up. It's similar to sending email you expect to bounce because you're not sure of a spelling, just to see if an address is inactive or not.

      My money here is on "surveillance", the sort you might get from debt collection agencies or cheap scouters finding potential marks for future spammers. You say "hello?" and hang up a second later?
      Too late! "They" know the number works now. They now also know if you're male, female, young or old. For scouters, this is the equivalent of saying they have one more mark in a list of "100,000 VERIFIED email addresses for YOU to spam at the low, low price of X dollars per thousand"?

      Debt collectors also don't care you say X fake name has nothing to do with you or your family at your house number. They swear they'll remove you from the list, only to call again a day later and promise the same, sometimes by the same phone rep. They poll to see what times you're picking up the phone, and they sometimes mention details of who they're targeting. They use fake caller ID numbers that start with a local area code + 3 digits that match your own phone's to incite familiarity AND evade code blocks. The last 4 digits are never repeated, defeating the purpose of your using cheap landline blocking hardware or cheap non-programmable smartphone call-rejection features.

      I wish I had a homebased PBX system without the hassle of actually having to buy servers to do VOIP. That way, I could program responses and direct all unknown numbers to a honeypot like I've seen Google Voice users do.

    5. Re:Good! by unixisc · · Score: 2

      I get those calls that pretend to be a real person, saying, 'Oh, sorry, I was just talking to my husband', and then go on about a proposed Royal Caribbean Cruise off FL. They won't stop when I say I'm not interested - it's obviously an automated call.

      Far better than those Ed McMahon/Dick Clark ads in the 90s that told you that you were a winner, when you weren't! A lot of poor old saps fell for that one: those 2 should have been executed

    6. Re:Good! by LordKronos · · Score: 2

      LOL. I think you've got your tin foil hat on a bit too tight. Loosen it up and let the blood flow to your brain.

      What sort of effective surveillance would they get merely from a hello? Determining age and sex? Good luck with that. For some reason a human operator can't even get my sex correct after talking to me for 2 minutes (yeah, I don't have a deep "manly" voice, but it's not girly either). And polling to know what times you are available? I doubt home buglers are that sophisticated.

      You want to know why you get dead phone calls? It's because even poorly paid telemarketers are wasting money when they're sitting there not doing anything but waiting for you to answer your phone. The autodialers are designed to call multiple phone numbers at a time and take the first one that answer, then either hang up on the others or try to keep them on the line long enough for the next telemarketer to be ready for a new call (which is why even when you do get a person, there is a long pause before they are there).

      You are absolutely right though about why they use the same area code, and more recently also the same first 3 digits. It prevents you from manually "blocking" their calls. Though ironically I found their tactics more effective when they were ONLY matching the area code. I get legit calls from my own area code often, but I've NEVER had a legit call from a number with the same first 3 digits. So when they do that, it's now easy for me to just ignore it.

    7. Re:Good! by starblazer · · Score: 1

      I wish more carriers integrated directly with GV. I know Sprint does/used to. That way you HAD to go thru GV and there wasn't a way around it. The best you can do is get a number that nobody knows and forward it and never make an outbound call using the native dialer and give out the GV number for everything. Now only if I could get a cell phone with an inbound SIP address at the carriers main switch. That way I can get the reliability of a normal voice call once its passed to the cell carrier and the extreme difficulty for the general public to call the phone directly. I doubt many spammers are going to directly hit DklJvbLKJDFb3hjlskdfjj2@sip.mycellphonecompany.com. Yes, it introduces a failure point of my SIP server but damnit, it will save my sanity as I'll be able to whitelist/blacklist as needed

    8. Re:Good! by ChrisC1234 · · Score: 1

      Have you looked at Project Fi, Google's MVNO service provider? It's got all of the same features as Google Voice, and depending on data usage, can be pretty cheap too.

    9. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You haven't signed up for Google Secretary yet?

    10. Re:Good! by starblazer · · Score: 1

      Yes, I tried it. Networking switching did not work as well as it should have, plus I use T-mo's music freedom/binge on quite a bit during the day so I'd be paying out the nose for data charges if I were to go back to Fi. No Wifi where I'm at either, so that negates that idea.

  2. I'm sure the FCC would care... by DewDude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    considering they're probably going to allow this for politicans...and the current head of the FCC has done a wonderful job of giving the public the middle finger; letting them know he does *NOT* work for them and does not care about their opinions...even going as far as to MOCK the American Public. All you can expect from the FCC is a reply mocking you for not wanting a company to do business...no matter how much of a harassment it is.

    1. Re:I'm sure the FCC would care... by sfled · · Score: 1

      Do the spammer a favor, and post their number on /b/ :-) Helpful

      --
      I'm not really a web designer, I just play one on the Internet.
    2. Re:I'm sure the FCC would care... by DewDude · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes...and then due to the fact the FCC now hates Americans (and America); they would probably use that as an excuse to ramp up surveillance so they can prosecute beyond the extent of the law those who are "harassing" the telemarketers. You have to remember...once something is deemed legal; it's game over. Any retaliation you take will be either invalid (like filing a compliant) or criminal (doing just about anything else). IT will be of the opinion of the government that the company has done nothing wrong; and that you're the one in the wrong for wanting to refuse to listen to them. The government is not our new overlords; it's the corporations. Afterall, you can have smaller government and still screw/control people through corporate interests. It's called capitalism...or at least they call it that.

    3. Re:I'm sure the FCC would care... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Is there a list somewhere of companies and politicians that use robo-calls and slydial?
      It would be great if their behavior could be publicised so we can boycott and vote against the offenders.

  3. Kinda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    But I'd be curious to hear how many Slashdot readers have experienced this.

    Not lately nor from telemarketers. But we used to do this back in the late 90s and early 00's

    Our circle of friends consisted by the vast majority of "night owls" forced to work first shift jobs.
    If it was after midnight and we wanted to get a message to someone or perhaps talk on the phone, we would leave a message directly on the voicemail server without calling their phone.

    If they were awake and saw the voicemail indicator, they could call back.
    If they were asleep, you'd either not get a call back or get it the next day or something, but safe in the knowledge you didn't wake anyone up.

    It just involved swapping carrier voicemail system numbers along with your phone number.
    This was before such info was online, or at least easy to find, but you can always call in and get the number for your own voicemail server, since its entire purpose of existing was so you can check your voicemail from someone elses phone.

    I am however greatly saddened to see such a useful thing abused in this way.

    1. Re:Kinda by The+Rizz · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's not what is going on here. This is telemarketers attempting to glitch your cell phones into not ringing, and then leaving voicemail for you.

      One big problem is that this doesn't always work. Every single day I get at least 1-2 one-ring-then-hang-up calls, often 3-4 of them within 5 seconds of each other, followed by a voicemail. And those voicemail notifiers still chime, still distract me from what I'm doing, and it still takes time to listen to the voicemail before I determine that it's not really something for me.

      And that brings up the reason this is often even more annoying and inconvenient than normal telemarketer calls: People have gotten good at identifying those within 2-3 seconds as pre-recorded crap. These new ones are made to sound like a normal voicemail, so it takes longer to identify it as spam.

    2. Re:Kinda by thechemic · · Score: 1

      It is exactly what's going on here. The ability to call a voicemail platform system and leave a voicemail for any subscriber contained within it, without ringing their cell phone, has existed for years. This is not new technology wherein the telemarketer is "glitching" your phone.

      ...and before you go spouting off some self-proclaimed facts, please know that I worked for AT&T for a decade.

      --
      Let's make like a bird... and get the flock outta here.
    3. Re:Kinda by The+Rizz · · Score: 1

      It is exactly what's going on here. The ability to call a voicemail platform system and leave a voicemail for any subscriber contained within it, without ringing their cell phone, has existed for years. This is not new technology wherein the telemarketer is "glitching" your phone.

      Well, the multiple calls a week I've received from these companies that are trying but failing to go straight to voicemail says that either it doesn't work on all platforms, or they're using a different method than the one you're familiar with.

      With the current method I've seen numbers often dial my phone 5+ times in under 3 seconds (sometimes causing it to ring, sometimes not), so I'd say they are not going through some standard straight-to-voicemail method, but are indeed trying to glitch the system with rapid fire dial-and-hangups. My guess is that they're using the rapid redials to cause the system to think your phone is already on a call and drop a subsequent call to voicemail.

  4. I should have the right to call-spam back by Sebby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If they have the right to fill up my voicemail with message I don't want, I should have the same right to continually call them, tying up their phone line. Sounds fair, right?

    --

    AC comments get piped to /dev/null
    1. Re:I should have the right to call-spam back by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      I used to do that when I still had a fax machine. Any time I got fax spam (selling steel buildings, roofing, furnace cleaning services, work clothes, whatever) I would call the contact number on the fax and very politely work my way up as far as I could through their company or ordering people. After I got to a shift supervisor or the manager or someone else who thought I was extremely interested in buying a large quantity of their product, I would suddenly switch to very loudly yelling at them for sending me an unsolicited fax and demand that they take my number off of their list immediately.

      Sometimes I would do that to a fax spammer three or four times in a row over the course of an afternoon.

      I don't know if it really cut down on the fax spam that I received, but it certainly shocked some of the folks that were sending it.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    2. Re: I should have the right to call-spam back by Izuzan · · Score: 2

      Send a fax back. Black piece of paper taped together at both ends.

    3. Re:I should have the right to call-spam back by The+Rizz · · Score: 3, Informative

      If they have the right to fill up my voicemail with message I don't want, I should have the same right to continually call them, tying up their phone line. Sounds fair, right?

      You absolutely can do that. The problem is that it doesn't do shit. If you call back the number, you get a pre-recorded message. All you're really doing is wasting your own time. Even if you do get their direct line and call in, it's a bank of minimum-wage call center idiots who just hang up on you when they figure out you don't want to buy anything.

    4. Re:I should have the right to call-spam back by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      I should have the same right to continually call them, tying up their phone line. Sounds fair, right?

      Even better, you should do this to the politicians that have the power to ban this, and the power to require the telcos to fix the technology that makes abusive behavior possible in the first place. The politicians are the root of the problem. Focus on them.

    5. Re:I should have the right to call-spam back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you have an T1 line, you can use a script to call them 23 times every 40 milliseconds and really screw up their lines.

    6. Re:I should have the right to call-spam back by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Just send a stack of black sheets from early Saturday through Sunday night. It usually gets the message across.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:I should have the right to call-spam back by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Speed redial is quick to do and annoys the next CC agent.

      What? You put me on your black list for doing that?

      Well, mission accomplished.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:I should have the right to call-spam back by The+Rizz · · Score: 1

      In that case, if I had a T1 line, I'd be doing this 24/7 to some of these fuckers.

      If they're calling us illegally, are we OK in getting a few thousand of us DDoSing their phone numbers with recordings of obscene phone calls? If so, I'd be totally in.

    9. Re:I should have the right to call-spam back by The+Rizz · · Score: 1

      Speed redial is quick to do and annoys the next CC agent.

      What? You put me on your black list for doing that?

      Well, mission accomplished.

      I did once get a company to stop calling by calling them back repeatedly over a 2 hour timeframe. Every time I called, I pretended to be a different person, and ran the gamut from pissed off, to crying uncontrollably, to just telling the fucker on the other end over and over "make the world a better place. Kill yourself." (The latter I wouldn't do to a normal telemarketer, but I was pissed at these guys because it was a verified scam from overseas trying to steal your credit cards.)

      They never actually blocked me that I know of (I just stopped calling after a few hours when I had to head to work), but I never did get another call from them.

    10. Re:I should have the right to call-spam back by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You probably got blacklisted. I managed to get this feat accomplished with a few scammers, and it seems that such lists get traded around, there's been a decline in annoying asshole calls in the more recent past, I guess my "weird old stupid geezer who wastes our time" skit finally bears fruit.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:I should have the right to call-spam back by The+Rizz · · Score: 1

      I still get 15-20 calls a day. I guess I have to make myself a much bigger pain in their asses to get on the global blacklist, then.

      Maybe calling up, talking softly, then suddenly screaming as loud as I can will do the trick. :)

    12. Re:I should have the right to call-spam back by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No. Just sound like you're some confused, crazy old geezer. Keep asking the same questions over and over, ask them to say it again because "you're not hearing so well anymore" and berate them ("kids these days") if they somehow start to get impatient with you.

      Keep them running in a circle and eventually they will be frustrated enough to just be really pissed at you for wasting their time. They might call again if the agent is a bastard and tries to waste some coworker's time as well, but so far I haven't had more than 3 calls from the same scammer group.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:I should have the right to call-spam back by DavidRawling · · Score: 2

      It was better when fax machines used thermal paper on a roll - you'd print 2 - 4 black sheets (depending on the size of your own fax machine), tape them together into a long single black sheet and send to their fax; once the leading edge exits the fax, tape it to the trailing edge.

      Now you have an infinite black fax that not only ties up their fax machine, it consumes all their paper so they lose other faxes.

      Bonus points for working out a way to autodial with the loop fax after ten minutes disconnected.

    14. Re: I should have the right to call-spam back by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      If you could find the right number to fax back to.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    15. Re:I should have the right to call-spam back by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I tell them the story of how I had an onion tied to my belt, which was the style at that time.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re:I should have the right to call-spam back by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      If they have the right to fill up my voicemail with message I don't want, I should have the same right to continually call them, tying up their phone line. Sounds fair, right?

      You absolutely can do that. The problem is that it doesn't do shit. If you call back the number, you get a pre-recorded message. All you're really doing is wasting your own time. Even if you do get their direct line and call in, it's a bank of minimum-wage call center idiots who just hang up on you when they figure out you don't want to buy anything.

      That's quite possibly the best definition of political call centers I've ever heard.

  5. Don't have voice mail. Ha ha! by Spazmania · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I had my cell phone carrier remove the voice mail feature from my phone. Take that suckers!

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    1. Re:Don't have voice mail. Ha ha! by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      I don't have voicemail on my landline as I have an answering machine, but there is an voicemail indicator on my phone that still goes on.

    2. Re:Don't have voice mail. Ha ha! by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      My Centurylink LAND LINE has a built-in voicemail service that overrides my local answering machine. Any idea how I can disable the Centurylink one?

    3. Re:Don't have voice mail. Ha ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have century link, I called them and had it disabled.

    4. Re:Don't have voice mail. Ha ha! by DewDude · · Score: 1

      Plot twist: New FCC rules will require voicemail service on all phones.

    5. Re:Don't have voice mail. Ha ha! by argee · · Score: 1

      The problem with voice mail is that people leave messages. Carriers have it backwards. What I want is
      an OUTGOING message: "I am vacationing in Tehran until June 22, please call back after that." Then,
      click, hang up. But no carrier has OGM service, only tied with incoming. What I ended up doing is have
      the carrier disable voice mail. You call, it rings and rings if I am not around to answer.

      The other problem with Voice Mail is that it frustrates the caller:
      "You have reached the voice mail service of TWO ... ONE ... TWO ... NINE ... FOUR ... SEVEN ... FIVE ... FIVE
      TWO ... EIGHT, the person is not in right now. You may leave a message after the tone, or select the following
      options .... " AD NAUSEAM. In many cases that baloney precedes what you want to say, and no way to
      disable it. I used to have "Leave message." (nothing else), but again, see paragraph above. Then the carrier
      started adding that crap, so it reinforced my desire to cancel voice mail.

    6. Re:Don't have voice mail. Ha ha! by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      You can still do this. Just keep repeating your message until the outbound message timer runs out, usually two minutes with most voicemail systems.

      "I am vacationing in Tehran until June 22, please call back after that. This machine does not take messages. *short pause* I am vacationing in Tehran until June 22, please call back after that. This machine does not take messages. *short pause*..." continue until the outbound message timer runs out.

      Anyone calling will hear that message repeated and figure that it's on an infinite loop and hang up before the end of the message.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    7. Re:Don't have voice mail. Ha ha! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But of course I have voice mail. I just don't listen to it and never return calls. But it keeps people who want to annoy me busy, thinking that I will return the call.

      People who know me know that they have to keep calling. People who don't think that the voice mail will eventually entitle them to being called by me and don't go on my nerve calling constantly.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Don't have voice mail. Ha ha! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So what?

      It's like with the first amendment caveat: You may talk all you want, but you can't force me to listen.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Don't have voice mail. Ha ha! by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      You can still do this. Just keep repeating your message until the outbound message timer runs out, usually two minutes with most voicemail systems.

      I fill mine with the theme music from the original Batman. "Na na na na na na nana, BATMAN!"

      Works like a charm. I've tried other stuff in the past (air raid sirens, or the opening of The Prisoner, or Curly repeatedly going, "Nyuk Nyuk Nyuck, Soitenly!", etc)

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    10. Re:Don't have voice mail. Ha ha! by PPNSteve · · Score: 1

      same here.. just wondering how that'd work for the spammers.. will their calls just go through or ???

      --
      PPN
    11. Re:Don't have voice mail. Ha ha! by antdude · · Score: 1

      I wished there was a to disable Google Voice's VM. My number isn't tied to any phones too. I asked and was told there wasn't a way. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    12. Re: Don't have voice mail. Ha ha! by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Please wait while your call is traced and a complaint is filed to the correct police department."

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    13. Re:Don't have voice mail. Ha ha! by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Do you happen to have a microsoft phone? If you do, it'll come back. Just like their software that you intentionally remove, update it and it's back because they know you really wanted it.

      This really sucks. I have a cisco phone that pulls this BS. No ring, yet while watching it I suddenly have a message.

  6. circular file by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First, you can head here to leave your public comment and if you're getting these voicemails, you can file a complaint with the FCC here.

    It's adorable that you think a complaint to Trump's FCC is going to have any effect.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:circular file by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"It's adorable that you think a complaint to Trump's FCC is going to have any effect."

      And it is equally adorable if you think by saying nothing, one's voice would ever be heard. So don't bother complaining here if you are not willing to complain there first (hopefully you have). And yes, I HAVE complained there myself.

    2. Re:circular file by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      It's adorable that you think a complaint to Trump's FCC is going to have any effect.

      You should at least leave a ringerless voice mail to their cell phone and to their office phone. Automating it and doing it once a month should do the trick (after all, you don't want to be accused of doing a denial of service attack). Plus, you should do the same for all your local legislators.

      And since it's a political message, you can let the phone ring if you want, it doesn't matter. Political messages are exempt from robocalls and telemarketing regulations. Just make sure to call between 8 AM and 9 PM for the politician you're calling and double-check with any local political campaign laws (so you don't accidentally run afoul of them).

  7. Who uses voicemail by jmccue · · Score: 1

    I remember hearing very few people listen to voicemail on the phone. I know I never do. I just look at the call log and call people I know should I miss the call.

    Have fun filling up my voicemail. BTW if the phone starts ringing for telemarketers or if telemarketers start texting me, into the river the phone will go.

    1. Re: Who uses voicemail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You havent received unsolicited texts from businesses? Luck you.

    2. Re: Who uses voicemail by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Luck Me? No, man. Luck *YOU*!

      Lucker...

    3. Re: Who uses voicemail by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Just have two mobile pjone numbers. One that's public and always off that you use for forms and crap, another that's secret that you give out to friends.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  8. Not new tech, just a new low for telemarketers by angryargus · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's always been the case that the voicemail systems for cell phones have a generic number that can be used to access the system itself (at which point the system prompts for which phone number you want to use for leaving or accessing a message). Generally there's a known mapping for region or phone prefix to VM number (e.g., an example or two) though I think at least AT&T uses one system and number for all iphones. The only thing that's new is telemarketers realizing they might be able to workaround the restrictions by using this route.

  9. Which technology ? by willamowius · · Score: 1

    Which "technology" do they use to leave the voice mail ? I'm pretty sure we can block that in our phones.

    1. Re: Which technology ? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      But what if we just don't have that?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re: Which technology ? by SpammersAreScum · · Score: 1

      It's really difficult to determine whether this would use the voicemail service of your provider, or the voicemail on your phone. I found a WaPo article https://www.washingtonpost.com... which quotes the RNC as saying it's the latter: '"[D]irect-to-voicemail technology permits a voice message to go directly to the intended recipient’s mobile voicemail via a server-to-server communication, without a call being made to the recipient’s telephone number and without a charge," wrote the RNC.' Note the "mobile voicemail".

  10. I hate voicemail by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't kind of hate voicemail but I really really hate it. With my provider I can't turn it off. So I have a voicemail saying, "Don't leave a voice mail." I got rid of a phone where I couldn't turn off the voicemail notifications.

    Quite simply there should be a do not bother me law. Mail, phone, voicemail, or pretty much any government regulated resource that I have should not be available for people to market their crap. That includes charities and politicians.

    I don't even want warnings. I turned on the weather warning texts that my local government offered and they basically spammed me with "Be prepared" or "There is a weather warning in a place so far away that I will never ever go there, ever." messages. I turned it off a day later. So if there is an alien invasion where they have guns that fire tornadoes, I still don't want a text or voicemail.

    1. Re:I hate voicemail by Charcharodon · · Score: 2
      We got that garbage a few years ago in the military. You would get all kinds of crazy notices that had nothing to do with anything at all hours of the day or night. After the first week of that, most of us changed our contact numbers to various people we disliked. The commander's secretary's phone would ring off the hook every time there was a warning.

      Same goes for University of South Florida that auto signed you up when took classes. Thankfully it only took a few minutes to find the "fuck off and die" setting on the website to remove my number from that jackassery.

      The latest are the amber alerts that pop up on the phone as part of the 911 system. I pretty much have every kind of audible notification on my phone disabled now. My girlfriend was upset with me at first, until what ever computer system figured out she lived down here to a month later and started blowing up her phone with weather warnings and amber alerts.

      Can you imagine how stupid this would get once phones are nothing more than medical implants? Pretty sure I'd have to dig it back out, after a week of gov't and marketing "important" information, with a dull knife.

    2. Re:I hate voicemail by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

      How about change the voice mail to say "By leaving a voice mail message on this voice mailbox, I certify that I will pay $1,000 per call and beat myself about the face and neck with a baseball bat."

    3. Re: I hate voicemail by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      That's the big problem with SMS government-issued warnings -- the inevitable growth of StupidWarnings, like "flash flood" alerts in South Florida (asteroid-strike tsunami notwithstanding, a genuinely life-threatening rapid surge of raging floodwater is basically impossible in South Florida... but that doesn't stop them from sending the warnings just because a major road a few miles away got flooded due to a clogged storm drain). Or "hurricane warnings" sent at 6:30am two days before predicted landfall (hint: unless you're a literal shut-in without windows and no TV, you'll know a tropical storm system is approaching DAYS beforehand. The visibly-rotating clouds
      across hundreds of miles are *unmistakable*). Oh, and "forest fire" warnings due to Everglades brush fires 15 miles away.

      These aren't hypothetical... I've gotten "urgent" warnings for all three. I mean, fuck, of COURSE I want to know about active tornadoes confirmed to be nearby (or *overwhelmingly* likely to touch down fewer than 3 miles away within the next 8 minutes), but quit wasting my time with stupid warnings for things that aren't literal life-and-death emergencies. And that includes warnings for tornadoes more that 15 miles away. NWS also seems to treat a tornado ANYWHERE in the same county as a county-wide emergency, even though they can supposedly send SMS warnings with cell-tower granularity.

    4. Re:I hate voicemail by Tuxedo+Jack · · Score: 1

      That's why you root, S-OFF, and flash a custom ROM. Modified SMS programs can completely disable all alerts, even Presidential Alerts, and you can tell your carrier to disable voicemail.

      --

      Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
    5. Re:I hate voicemail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Make sure to include a clause saying that all disputes must be resolved through arbitration.

    6. Re: I hate voicemail by starblazer · · Score: 1

      NWS also seems to treat a tornado ANYWHERE in the same county as a county-wide emergency, even though they can supposedly send SMS warnings with cell-tower granularity.

      I would rather have them blanket the county with the warning vs trying to pinpoint it. Why? Couple points.

      1) Tornadoes are unpredictable at times plus the local NWS office is busier than snot during severe weather.
      2) When theres one there is a possibility for more.
      3) They don't want to have someone transitioning from a non-alerted tower and miss the alert because they registered three seconds too late.

    7. Re:I hate voicemail by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Back in the old answering machine days I had recorded a message of the SIT tones and the phone company recording of "I'm sorry the number you have dialed is disconnected..."

      My friends knew to let it play through twice and then they could leave a message, got me off of a lot of telemarketer lists.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    8. Re: I hate voicemail by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It only took them a few months to convince me to turn off "Amber Alerts." If an alert goes out or not depends entirely on if the family has direct access to the police chief, it has nothing to do with the utility in the particular case of informing the public.

      I'd love a "real emergencies only, no false positives, false negatives accepted" weather radio, though. No storm watches, and put the ocean weather on a separate channel. I really don't care what type of small craft advisory has been issued. I also don't need seasonal advisories about the first warm or cold day or the first fall rain storm.

  11. Who uses voice mail by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
    The joke is on them. I never check voice mail or even bother to set it up

    You want to talk to me or leave me a message that is what texting is for. For telemarketers that what is the blocking/ignore function is for.

    1. Re:Who uses voice mail by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      People screening their calls use voicemail. I don't answer the phone unless it is a number that I know or I am expecting a call from someone else.

      Texting is no better because it is still an interrupt. Voicemail, like email, will wait until I poll it.

  12. Marketeers by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

    Marketeers should all die.
    Tele-marketeers first of all.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:Marketeers by vandamme · · Score: 1

      Scammers first! "Legitimate" telemarketers second. Politicians next. Then the charities. All can rot in hell.

    2. Re:Marketeers by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And I'm honestly surprised that it's still illegal to hunt them for sport. You know, in a working democracy, the majority gets their way...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Marketeers by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I disagree entirely. That is barbaric. Just hang them and be done with it, jeeze.

      Like Churchill may or may not have said, "If you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite."

      Give him a last meal. Let him say some last words. And then just pull the lever and be done.

    4. Re:Marketeers by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Selling things is not the same as scamming you into buying things by manipulation and lying..

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    5. Re:Marketeers by scdeimos · · Score: 1

      Well, ... the charities will rot in heaven.

      Unlikely. Most charities are scams charging outrageous "administration fees" that get redirected to the accounts of a few select ass-hats. If you actually want to help people out the best thing you can do is assist them directly - donate your time/money/wares in person.

    6. Re:Marketeers by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The very last thing I want is to let a marketeer say a few last word. Because you know how they are, they ask you for a minute of your time and before you know it an hour is gone.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  13. Alternative Classification by radarskiy · · Score: 2

    "argue that these messages should not qualify as calls and, therefore, should be exempt from consumer protection laws that ban similar types of telephone marketing"

    Correct, they should be classified as harassment. And since it's done over the telephone and likely come from out of state, the FBI has jurisdiction.

    1. Re:Alternative Classification by vlueboy · · Score: 2

      "argue that these messages should not qualify as calls and, therefore, should be exempt from consumer protection laws that ban similar types of telephone marketing"

      Correct, they should be classified as harassment. And since it's done over the telephone and likely come from out of state, the FBI has jurisdiction.

      Isn't it vexing how lawmakers and marketers claim exemption from "consumer" protection laws AND prevent us from claiming exemption from being classed as "consumer" in the first place?
      It used to be that to consume something, you had to "hear" about it by passive means and willingly seek it out. Marketers turned that into "cram it down his throat by any means necessary and ask questions later... we can't be sued, so at worst, he won't buy the product! #win-win"

  14. Spam. They discovered how to send Voicemail Spam. by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

    Spam. They discovered how to send Voicemail Spam. I can't even be mad, that's impressive.

  15. Voicemail? by swilver · · Score: 1

    People still use voicemail? It's the first thing I disable at any provider. Call me again if it was important.

    1. Re:Voicemail? by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Your mother wants to know why you never call her back.

  16. Telcos are going to love this by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The telcos will charge the spammers for direct access to voicemail and will offer consumers a service (at additional cost) that will block voicemails from spammers.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:Telcos are going to love this by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      The telcos will charge the spammers for direct access to voicemail and will offer consumers a service (at additional cost) that will block voicemails from spammers.

      That will be very profitable. It is time to buy telco stock.

    2. Re: Telcos are going to love this by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      It should cost $5 to leave a voicemail message.

      That way only important messages goes in there.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    3. Re:Telcos are going to love this by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      If they wanted/cared to do that, they'd already have that "feature" for spoofed Caller ID's. Maybe even some tool to block mass-dailers that aren't specifically registered somewhere (like political campaigns *should* be).

      Truth is, they don't give a shit. Every time you pick up that phone, be it for a call or voicemail, you are accessing their network and making them money. Why exactly would they care to stop that if it adds a few dimes per customer to their income?

  17. Comment period expired? by david.emery · · Score: 1

    If I'm reading this (a 'petition' filed with the FCC) correctly, commenting expired a week ago: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub... However, the link in the original post shows new comments.

    Has anyone figured out if it's possible to add a comment? If so, what are you using for the "proceedings" field here:
    https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filin...

    1. Re:Comment period expired? by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 1

      Put in 02-278 and it should fill in the text portion of the proceeding name and show the proceeding name in a suggest box. Click on that. Hit enter (you have to hit enter after every entry). Email is optional, but you have to enter it if you want them to email you a confirmation of your submission. Fill out the required boxes and put your comment in the bottom box. Click the "Continue to Review Screen" button, submit.

      Thanks for helping.

    2. Re:Comment period expired? by david.emery · · Score: 1

      Thanks, my comment submitted.

  18. Out of service SIT tone by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I recorded the out of service SIT tone (the three rising beeps that you hear when you dial an out of service phone number) as the first thing on my outbound voicemail message. So my outbound message is "beep beep beep Hello this is me etc. etc.")

    Most robodialers are programmed to hang up and remove the number from their dialing lists when they hear those three beeps.

    Real people can still leave you a message, but it works amazingly well to keep spammers off of your voicemail.

    You can download the sit tone from several places; just run the phrase "sit tone" through google and you'll find it.

    --
    If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    1. Re:Out of service SIT tone by Nethead · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You too! I did that back in '85 with a Code-a-Phone. Mostly because I was using the TelTone chip to detect SIT for the telemarketing machines we were making. (Wygant Scientific) Our first systems were using a hacked version of Commodore BASIC on a 65C02P4. TelTone had a nice set of chips that would detect call progress tones (ring, busy, etc.), DTMF and SIT. Lots of fun to play with.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
  19. Your voicemail is full, please buy more space by amigabill · · Score: 1

    My cell provider seems to have reduced the number of vocemails that I am allowed to store. I have deleted 15 messages, and it is still full.

    If I want more space, I need to pay more.

    So, this will keep my voicemail full, no matter how many times I buy more voicemail slots.

    My family, coworkers, customers, suppliers will not be able to leave messages if I can' answer the phone just then. Great...

    This is a boon to the voicemail services who will rake in more cash for more space, but the consumer will only have downsides to this.

    1. Re:Your voicemail is full, please buy more space by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So it's full. What exactly seems to be the problem? That they can't load more spam into my voice trash can?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Your voicemail is full, please buy more space by DavidRawling · · Score: 1

      Nor can a legitimate caller. Or your mother.

  20. put down 1-215-739-8255 as your number! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    put down 1-215-739-8255 as your number! and then they will get billed.

    1. Re:put down 1-215-739-8255 as your number! by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 1

      for those outside the USA, is there some significance to that number?

      --
      I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
  21. The Proud Inventors of Ringless Voicemail by laughingskeptic · · Score: 1

    At least we know who to thank: http://straticsnetworks.com/ri...

    1. Re:The Proud Inventors of Ringless Voicemail by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      In my world, it would be legal to use them as aiming tools for mortar target practice.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  22. Even MORE annoying by markdavis · · Score: 1

    >"While there are laws to regulate businesses when they call consumers, some groups argue that ringless voicemail shouldn't count.

    Are you kidding me? Voicemail is even MORE annoying than calls. I will get pestered by repeating notifications and have to stop what I am doing and "log into" it just to delete them. So instead of a few second annoyance, this equates to a many seconds annoyance.

    I am already pissed that I have no way of rejecting a call AND that rejects their ability to leave a voicemail (I would actually prefer it send them to an announcement-only that says something like "your call is rejected, please remove this number from any and all lists"). And in Android, Google is trying to be so helpful by labeling those incoming calls as "SPAM" and yet there is no setting to have it automatically BLOCK such calls.

    Consumers have woefully little control on who annoys us. Why should we weaken what little control there already is?

    1. Re:Even MORE annoying by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      You very likely can block the call through your provider. I know Verizon allows you to block up to five numbers completely free. And it is a true block for calls. If they call you they get a message basically saying that you've been blocked.

      Correct. I too have received the somewhat ambiguous "The subscriber is not accepting calls from this number." The way it's phrased, you'd not suspect "THIS" means "YOUR" rather than "theirs" until you have ugly situations and see the hints that this acquaintance is no longer interested in you. Subtle ambiguity at its best!
      Something similar happens with blocking texts. I have an inkling that my own smartphone is doing just that when user the stock app to "reject" a new SMS spammer's number. I feel that these notices are a disservice, because granting too much information about a *block* leaves you at a disadvantage security-wise than just silently rejecting a blockee. I mean, it's perfectly reasonable for infosec folks to burn us regularly with their practice of coding sites to say "bad password" when a more helpful "there's no account registered under that email address (pssst, you *typo'd* it to go along with your perfectly-entered password)" would have been good.
      Somehow the contexts always hurt us consumers with bad decisions that cause unwanted side-effects.

      I've gone on Android's Quiet mode by mistake and missed calls, resulting in queries about hearing a telco notification that I was in some special state (and even triggering some kind of option to SMS me immediately). I'd rather the telco silently provide the wait-for-10-rings-and-voicemail that my being unavailable would have resulted in.

      But I'm venting. At least we have the comfort that the GP's desire to block voicemail is already a reality. The blocking messages completely remove your option to appeal the block and/or leave an urgent voicemail when regular calls are impaired by the process. I'm sure many-a-teenager have estranged their parents thanks to such means without ever having to even ditch their old contact number.

    2. Re:Even MORE annoying by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Wow! 5 numbers!

      That kinda reminds me of the 10 free AOL hours.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re: Even MORE annoying by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      I run an Asterisk server and have a blacklist of over 2000 numbers by now.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    4. Re:Even MORE annoying by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It is probably better for your mental health not to tell that story, just let it go and forget it happened. Acquaintances are over-rated anyways.

  23. Re:Am I still billed for the "call"? by DewDude · · Score: 1

    No. Because the argument will be "you don't have to be pay-as-you-go."

    Kind of like how they're saying "if you don't like the idea of internet fast lanes and a lack of neutrality; just remember you choose to use the internet." That's kind of like saying "you choose to drink water so you have to buy it from us"...no, I have to drink water; you own all the water around me and charge me for it.

  24. Meanwhile, here in the UK... by Angeret · · Score: 1

    ...I'm rather glad we don't have to deal with the FCC. I don't get telemarketing on my mobile and I certainly don't use voicemail, although whenever I change SIM my provider thoughtfully makes it the default option, swiftly disabled. The first thing I do after disabling it is to reset my voicemail number to my home - which has built-in storage for a lot more messages than my mobile service could handle. My wife's phone does the same - number of telemarketing messages received in the last 10 years or so = NONE. I'm quite happy with that and will remain happy unless some asshole goes and changes the system. If that happens, I'll be looking into how number spoofing works and dealing with the spammers accordingly.

  25. Fire your wireless provider/carrier by mrsam · · Score: 1

    After thinking about it, I just don't see a way for someone to place a call to your phone number and have it automatically routed to your telephone provider's voicemail without your telephone provider's cooperation.

    When an incoming call is routed to your telephone provider, your telephone provider is going to ring your phone, and will not connect the call to your voice mail unless the phone rejects the call (for cell calls), or the phone rings for a prescribed period of time.

    This kind of harassment requires your telephone provider's cooperation. Where this is going, is that if this practice is blessed by FCCs, the telemarketers will offer money to telephone providers to allow them to call directly their customers' voicemails.

    This needs to be publicized: should this actually happen, and one finds themselves on the receiving end of voicemail spam: complain to your telephone provider. If they play stupid, and they refuse to block the voicespam, fire them, and make sure explain to them why you are firing them.

    1. Re:Fire your wireless provider/carrier by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      After thinking about it, I just don't see a way for someone to place a call to your phone number and have it automatically routed to your telephone provider's voicemail without your telephone provider's cooperation.
       
      Make two calls at once, one-half second apart. Hang up the first call before it starts ringing the phone. The second call will see that the line is engaged by the first call and go to voicemail.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
  26. Caller ID is usually fake by nerdonamotorcycle · · Score: 1

    Telemarketers, at least the ones willing to break the law by calling people on the Do Not Call list, typically spoof caller ID, making it useless for return-call spamming. Sometimes, the spoofed number belongs to some innocent, unsuspecting third party, as with the "lower your electric bill!" scammer who called me a couple of hours ago. So at best, return call spamming would be useless and at worst you'd be harassing some innocent victim who got joe-jobbed.

    1. Re:Caller ID is usually fake by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's why I usually insist that I call back first to have the negotiation talk. You know, there's so many scammers out there and while I do think you sound really honest and your offer is more than welcome to me, I am also sure a honest businessman like you understands.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  27. Maybe by Whooty+McWhooface · · Score: 1

    I hate this idea, but it is probably going to happen considering the government we have right now.

    But if it's gonna happen, I'd like them to fix what is working against us with the caller ID system--spoofing.

    Telemarketers use a bogus Caller ID number (on top of calling me despite my repeated requests of "remove me your list" and "Do not call me". It's a joke and the law has no teeth. How about the systems that enable them to do this be set up to only work for registered businesses that registered and verified all of their information, including the callback number on the voicemail match a legitimate customer service number for the company. The TELCO's will charge them up the ying-yang for this "convenient service" which gives them this type of access. The cost needs to be high to keep companies from registering dummy accounts and just skipping on to the next dummy corporation to keep ahead of the authorities.

    The company needs to provide legit CID number where the voicemail was transmitted. This will also serve as a callback number if they want to sign up for it, but also as something they can add to a personal blacklist. Anytime I get a call from a telemarketer on my cell phone, I add the number to a contact with does not ring or vibrate (a silent MP3 is still a ringtone), so I never have to deal with this again.

    Maybe, the phone company (or cell phone/phone app) can launch a service a voicemail spam filter on all numbers flagged by their customers X number of times get blacklisted. They could make a few bucks to get this working (until a free version comes along).

    If we get the right features in place while the put this service is, we can have the pieces of the puzzle in place to ignore all of it, later on.

  28. This also mean? by heson · · Score: 1

    This also mean it is perfectly legal to put a bag of dogpoop on a telemarketers porch if you do not ring the door bell. But you can not put it on fire, and therefore you can omit the paper bag.

    1. Re:This also mean? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Why should I put the telemarketer on his porch, that lazy bastard can go there himself!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:This also mean? by vlad30 · · Score: 1

      Is there a list somewhere that tells you who works in telemarketing and where they live. Sounds like a good web site to make. Make it undesirable to work in the industry and if not the telemarketer the people who use them

      --
      Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
  29. Such controversial topics deserve national debates by Picodon · · Score: 1

    the Federal Trade Commission has started to collect public comments on this issue

    Sure, because this thorny problem is likely to generate many conflicting opinions. For example, there will be those who adamantly oppose voice mail spamming. Then, there will be those who instead express disgust and outrage at the prospect of voice mail spamming. Those opinions will be countered by yet others who will choose to say that voice mail spamming is merely a gross abuse of private resources. Oh, yes, and then, there will be the dead people, the bots and the spammers themselves.

    It doesn’t matter that in 1991, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (signed by President George H. W. Bush), reinforced in 2005 by the Junk Fax Prevention Act, had outlawed junk faxes, which are essentially the same thing as junk voice mail, only differing in the medium used (printed page versus computer memory). Noooooo, this is clearly all different, and we obviously need a national reflection on this delicate and quite novel topic.

    Because, you never know... We may well find that the prevailing majority of opinions came from the bots.

  30. Wasn't this on here already? by Mindscrew · · Score: 1

    https://politics.slashdot.org/...

    1. Re:Wasn't this on here already? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Yes. But you didn't reply to the last one. So we posted it again.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  31. Dump voicemail and use an answering machine. by rpresser · · Score: 1

    NT$

  32. Sneaky way around mobile phone prohibition by IHTFISP · · Score: 1

    Telemarketers cannot lawfully call mobile phones.
    Yet I get unsolicited telemarketer texts almost monthly.
    So now they've found a slimy way to leave voicemail too?

    I hope they get shut down entirely: simply change the law to say they cannot “contact” mobile phones. Period.

    --
    Error: NSE - No Signature Error
  33. Something I see again and again by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    There's lots of pro-Trump folks on /., especially when they were staring down the barrel of a Hilary presidency. Sony Music CD DRM is more popular on /. than Hilary was/is.

    But all the folks seem to go missing whenever a story about privacy or Net Neutrality crops up. Yeah, yeah, I know. You can agree with Trump on some things and disagree with him on others. All I'm saying is, you made this bed, dragged the rest of us into it. Now you're damn well gonna sleep in it too. And I'll be damned if you're gonna lie there and pretend you're not getting eaten alive by bed bugs.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  34. Google Voice by oic0 · · Score: 1

    You can let google handle your voicemail for you and then you can manage them like emails in your inbox. I don't like the idea of google sifting through all of my voice communications, but better than me having to sift through them.

  35. Hey, politicians? Here's a promise by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Whoever makes it legal to shoot these bastards on sight has my vote!

    Go get it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  36. Jokes on them, I don't listen to voicemail anymore by Nyder · · Score: 1

    I haven't listened to my voice mail in at least 5 years. No point when people tend to text or email shit anyways.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  37. Re:use their tools against them. by PPH · · Score: 1

    leave ring-less voice-mail drops for politicians

    "Hello. This is Lenny."

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  38. I've had one or two of these by portwojc · · Score: 1

    I checked my phone and I had voicemail. Confused and wondering how on earth someone did that I checked and it was a call about student loans that I have and how I can improve my savings. Weird because I never had a student loan.

    Let's really call what ringless voicemail are. Another revenue stream for the Telcos. They could easily end that service. Start there first and fix the problem at the source.

  39. Ditto. by antdude · · Score: 1

    I wished there was a to disable Google Voice's VM. My number isn't tied to any phones too. I asked and was told there wasn't a way.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  40. Answer machines? by antdude · · Score: 1

    What about answer machines? Can they still do that too?

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  41. Less is More by vlad30 · · Score: 1

    I s a lessen advertisers should learn. In the early days of TV 12 minutes per hour now its 18-20, in Newspapers decent comprehensive article with a few ads is replaced now with a page of ads with click bait headline. translated to the web, even articles are often nothing more than advertising, I remember when the telemarketer call was rare and they offered something in return and a few weeks later a small free gift would arrive in the mail. Even Billboards now not only everywhere but distracting moving pictures. This is either making us immune or looking for ways to block or avoid them. Adblockers, downloading shows etc all to avoid the overload of ads

    --
    Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
  42. Don't give me credit for a submission by midwestsilentone · · Score: 1

    If you're going to take my submission, completely rewrite it with credit to someone else and show at it as "midwestsilentone tipped us off", don't bother mentioning me, its not my submission.

  43. Voicemail? by Moskit · · Score: 1

    This could be an interesting move to just let spammers use voicemail that nobody listens to, as a kind of a spam trap.

    It might not work in USA, where voicemal is still surprisingly popular. In Europe and Asia especially introduction of GSM has killed voicemail for private use - most people (over 50%, depending on country/study) do not enable it or if it was enabled by default just never bother listening to messages (some have a greeting that says "This is XX voicemail that will never get listened to, please send SMS"). I can't remember when I've last heard anybody say "Hi, please call me back when you hear this message" or similar - except as for a dramatic effect in USA movies/series.
    Voicemail is too linear and too slow for modern times, just wasting your time ("please press zero to return to main menu, please press seven to ..."), even if it still has cultural (and probably legal, like fax) implications in some countries. It's so much simpler and more convenient to use SMS.

    On the other hand it's not a good idea to cede anything to the spammers.

  44. WHY? by iq145 · · Score: 1

    Why is this even allowed? Who else could it benefit but THEM? How do they get away with it? Are they bribing the FCC?

  45. Astroturf Comments by MHPanruka · · Score: 1

    Oh how generous of the FCC to allow for public comments on this issue, when they deem astroturf comments to be as legitimate as actual human comments.