U.S. Senate Passes Bill to Cut Down on Robocalling

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, May 23, 2019.

  1. az431 macrumors 65816

    az431

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #51
    Your argument is devoid of any logic.

    Did gas prices go up because BP, Shell, and Exxon were fined billions of dollars? No. They couldn't pass on those costs because it would make it impossible to compete. If Verizon is fined $10 billion for violating robocall laws, it can't simply jack up rates because everyone would switch to another carrier.

    Not only would it be cheaper to comply (rather than "pass on costs" under your absurd theory), but protecting consumers by complying with the law would play a lot better in advertising.
    --- Post Merged, May 23, 2019 ---
    No. Easy to solve. Use your real number or the call is blocked.
     
  2. hermes16 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2019
    #52
    i'm surprised they were able to agree on anything anymore.
     
  3. az431 macrumors 65816

    az431

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #53
    Exactly. It's not in the best interest of carriers to ban these kinds of calls because it costs them money, and hence the reason why Congress passed a weak law that will not encourage or force carriers to change anything.
     
  4. scoobydoo99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Location:
    so cal
    #54
    EXACT same calls here. The Chinese scam has been calling me for months. The SSN one just started last week - about 3-5 times a day. And the robo-voice claims to be from the "Department of Social Security Administration". LOL. Hopefully most people realize that there is no such thing as "suspending your SSN" "because we found some suspicious activity", but I'm sure some are duped. These predators are scum!
     
  5. SharksFan22 macrumors regular

    SharksFan22

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    #55
    Interesting idea, but that may create a new, unintended problem which is holding a carrier liable for the actions of their subscribers. If that was the case, could you imagine and "acceptable use policy" imposed by the carriers stating how you communicate using your phone?

    And the carriers in the US spend a ton on lobbying, so there's that.....
     
  6. konqerror macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2013
    #56
    As I said, legit carriers already have policies that require average phone call lengths to be a certain duration, or else pay a fine. The services that sell to robocallers are trivial to find. Google "short duration termination" and "dialer termination". While there are some legit uses (2-factor authentication calls), most of this traffic is spam. They often use a network of resellers and middlemen to mix their traffic in with legit calls to make it hard to trace and block.
     
  7. SharksFan22 macrumors regular

    SharksFan22

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    #57
    I would disagree somewhat here. Sure, there would be people that would move, but there's some awfully complicated pricing analysis models that big companies use and they'll get those fines back over time. Might take months or years, but we the consumers usually end up paying those fines either in terms of actual money or limited services.
     
  8. Alan Wynn macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2017
    #58
    Ron Paul, Libertarian. Have not read his reason, but he was the only no vote (I found).
     
  9. SharksFan22 macrumors regular

    SharksFan22

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    #59
    True - I agree with you that traffic isn't terribly difficult to identify. Enforcing a law (that apparently doesn't have a whole lot of teeth) is a different problem.
     
  10. Alan Wynn macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2017
    #60
    Primarily because we do not have caller pays on cell phones. Better for many other reasons, but bad in this case.
     
  11. britboyj, May 23, 2019
    Last edited by a moderator: May 24, 2019

    britboyj macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    #61
    This will do nothing to stop the foreign robocallers spoofing US numbers. That needs to be stopped at the carrier level. They need to be incentivized by fines to put a stop to it together.
     
  12. SeattleMoose macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Location:
    Der Wald
    #62
    I get "local calls" with someone speaking Chinese at least once a day.
    How many times have we seen legislation to stop some invasive practice that has no real teeth?
    Until individuals start going to jail and companies that enable these calls get large fines...it is just grandstanding.
     
  13. paulcons macrumors member

    paulcons

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2017
    Location:
    New York City
    #63
    Even though I have the NOMOROBO service, this does NOT slow them down. Yes I get 1-2 blocked calls around every 2 days or so, but far more each day that I duly report to them. The latest scam they have is most of the calls originate from your local exchange. Even MORE insidious, I am now getting calls from... me. The caller is MY phone number. Worse yet, my phone can speak the caller... it rings and in it's robotic voice says "paulcons calling" well, except with my real name.
     
  14. JosephAW macrumors 68020

    JosephAW

    Joined:
    May 14, 2012
    #64
    If passed our phone bills will increase with another fee to provide this service. Thanks. ;)
     
  15. WonderMut macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 23, 2019
    #65
    Because like the last law that was passed, the government will write themselves out of this, so they may continue to call and text you. So you are correct, it will not stop robocalls.
     
  16. DaveP macrumors 6502

    DaveP

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    #66
    I agree that finding and extraditing the calling source is nearly impossible. So who exactly are we putting in prison?
     
  17. Alan Wynn macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2017
    #67
    Nope. It is just an annoyance. They should be fined.

    People who commit fraud should go to jail.
     
  18. BasicGreatGuy Contributor

    BasicGreatGuy

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Location:
    In the middle of several books.
    #68
    This is nothing but eye candy. It will be as meaningful as the enforcement of the DNC list.
     
  19. richpjr macrumors 68040

    richpjr

    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    #69
    Kind of skeptical that it will do anything, but it's long overdue.
     
  20. RudySnow Suspended

    RudySnow

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2016
    Location:
    Tyler, TX
    #70
    Your apples-to-oranges comparison here is ridiculous. No one is harmed by robocalls, just annoyed. A major environmental disaster? More than an annoyance. Bigger deal. And if you think when we go to the pump and are only paying for the price of a refined barrel of oil at the current speculative prices, you’re crazy.

    Do you assume that these telecoms just woke up today and heard that robocalls are a big problem for their customers? What rock do you think they’ve been living under? As the article stated, carriers are already implementing procedures to slow these down. Why pre-emptively fine a company for what you perceive they will or will not do?

    Wow, genius idea. Show me the software you created to just identify “real numbers,” and crisis averted. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
     
  21. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #71
    Don't know about everywhere else, but here in NY, we are getting robo called like crazy by some Chinese group.
     
  22. MauiPa macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2018
    #72
    yay! I say the consumer should get the $10,000/call, put the incentive in the free market!
     
  23. Shanghaichica macrumors G4

    Shanghaichica

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2013
    Location:
    UK
    #73
    Is google Duplex classed as a robo call.
     
  24. davidjmarks macrumors newbie

    davidjmarks

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Location:
    Trappe, PA
    #74
    Why not implement caller name ID? That way I can properly screen my calls. Right now with AT&T I only get the number if it isn't in my contacts list. That means not answering any call not in my contacts and hope they leave a voicemail. Of course, this needs to be coupled with stringent network infrastructure that enforces sending the name of the individual or entity responsible for the calling number. That infrastructure needs to be setup to not allow spoofing.
     
  25. BootsWalking macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2014
    #75
    By your logic the government should never regulate or penalize any of our already regulated industries for fear the costs would be passed on to customers. Stockholm syndrome much?
     

Share This Page