FCC wants powers to punish international robocallers and texters

Posted:
in General Discussion
A new FCC proposal would extend previous anti-robocall legislation and allow the Commission to include calls, text messages and other communications from international scammers.

Spammers regularly spoof calls to appear to be coming from trusted numbers.
Spammers regularly spoof calls to appear to be coming from trusted numbers.


The Federal Communications Commission is proposing a series of new rules to the Truth in Caller ID Act, which would enable it to pursue international scammers who make robocalls, text messages or other communications. The proposal was made by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and comes after over 40 state attorneys general asked the Commission to protect consumers against robocalls.

"Scammers often robocall us from overseas, and when they do, they typically spoof their numbers to try and trick consumers," Pai said in a statement. "Call center fraudsters often pretend to be calling from trusted organizations and use pressure tactics to steal from Americans."

The FCC reports that so far in 2019, it has received in excess of 35,000 complaints about caller ID spoofing.

"We must attack this problem with every tool we have," continued Pai. "With these new rules, we'll close the loopholes that hamstring law enforcement when they try to pursue international scammers and scammers using text messaging."

The FCC's authority from the existing Truth in Caller ID Act was already increased last year with the passage of Ray Baum's Act. This took the original Act's law against robocalling and number spoofing, and applied it to callers and text message senders from overseas.

The new FCC proposal would give the Commission rules by which it could now implement the law. It would also mean that the banning of malicious caller ID spoofing would extend to other types of calls, such as ones using Skype-like VoIP systems.

The Commission will vote on whether to accept the new proposals at its next meeting on August 1.

Ajit Pai's proposals are part of a larger series of efforts to prevent robocallers, including the TRACED Act, which is pressuring US carriers to introduce call authentication systems in order to cut down on malicious calls. The US Senate voted to move forward with the TRACED Act in May, while the US House introduced the "Stopping Bad Robocalls Act" in June.

There are other efforts being carried out to cut down the number of unwanted calls being made to mobile users, such as apps for blocking and reporting spam calls. Changes are also being made at a carrier level, as T-Mobile revealed in April it is working with Apple to bring a new anti-robocall technology to iPhones using a "STIR" and "SHAKEN" call standard.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 12
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,166member
    "We must attack this problem with every tool we have," continued Pai. "With these new rules, we'll close the loopholes that hamstring law enforcement when they try to pursue international scammers and scammers using text messaging."
    The main tool under consideration is bitch slapping, but failing congressional approval of that measure, Pai is sure a Strongly Worded Letter will also be effective.
    edited July 2019
  • Reply 2 of 12
    seanismorrisseanismorris Posts: 1,624member
    Apple seems to have upped their efforts recently (2019).  I haven’t had a robocall that hasn’t been flagged in a while.

    This is either an on-again/off-again effort, or there are just some years the robocallers are winning...

    I do have T-Mobile so maybe that joint effort (with Apple) is baring fruit...
    edited July 2019
  • Reply 3 of 12
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,877member
    My carrier is AT&T, which has their Call Protect app that somehow screens calls. Using it has reduced the number of robocalls, but has not eliminated them, as I still get one every day or two. 

    It also unfortunately blocks things it shouldn't block, like Apple's tech support dialer, my bank's, etc. There is no effective way to flag such false-positives in Call Protect because it sucks.
  • Reply 4 of 12
    eriamjheriamjh Posts: 1,642member
    Has anyone considered that call spoofing could be a form of wire-fraud?   
    jeffharriskestral
  • Reply 5 of 12
    davgregdavgreg Posts: 1,037member
    Has anyone else seen the occasional call that displays no number and is titled Unknown on an iPhone?

    I have seen that once or twice, that has to be some kind of nefarious thing.
  • Reply 6 of 12
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,727member
    I honestly don't think this can be stopped via law enforcement.  Most of these calls/texts are coming from countries where there is no political will or resources to go after these organizations.  The best thing that can be done is finding a way to filter it out so that it never reaches anyone.
    edited July 2019 racerhomie3
  • Reply 7 of 12
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,093member
    I'm not quite sure what's going on right now but something positive seems to be happening.  I'm on AT&T and use Call-Protect.  Up until a few weeks ago, I was still bombarded by Robocalls, but now Call-Protect seems to be more pro-active in informing me/blocking spam calls.  I still get a few that get through, but it's substantially less now.

    The best deterrence I could hope for is some sort of capital punishment for these miscreants.
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 8 of 12
    jimh2jimh2 Posts: 617member
    davgreg said:
    Has anyone else seen the occasional call that displays no number and is titled Unknown on an iPhone?

    I have seen that once or twice, that has to be some kind of nefarious thing.
    Yes and I have also seen my iPhone caller ID showing my iPhone number as the one calling me. Same for home number.

    I'm not confident there is anyway to stop it completely. They will figure out a way to get around it. 
    racerhomie3
  • Reply 9 of 12
    tylersdadtylersdad Posts: 310member
    entropys said:
    "We must attack this problem with every tool we have," continued Pai. "With these new rules, we'll close the loopholes that hamstring law enforcement when they try to pursue international scammers and scammers using text messaging."
    The main tool under consideration is bitch slapping, but failing congressional approval of that measure, Pai is sure a Strongly Worded Letter will also be effective.
    At least this one is actually trying to do something about the problem...or at least pay lip service to it...unlike the last FCC Chairman who seemed to care only about giving away free internet to people who can't afford it. 
    command_f
  • Reply 10 of 12
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,913member
    Just Do It. Punish them financially as well prison time. I hate any and all Robo callers from the bottom of my heart.
    command_f
  • Reply 11 of 12
    ralphieralphie Posts: 104member
    Apple seems to have upped their efforts recently (2019).  I haven’t had a robocall that hasn’t been flagged in a while.
    Apple isn’t doing anything proactively. It’s still up to you to manually block calls. T-mobile on the other hand might be actively blocking known calls with thleir Scam ID and Scam Block feature.
    edited July 2019
  • Reply 12 of 12
    jcs2305jcs2305 Posts: 1,337member
    ralphie said:
    Apple seems to have upped their efforts recently (2019).  I haven’t had a robocall that hasn’t been flagged in a while.
    Apple isn’t doing anything proactively. It’s still up to you to manually block calls. T-mobile on the other hand might be actively blocking known calls with thleir Scam ID and Scam Block feature.
    Giving the scam likely message has nothing to do with blocking a caller? I would say identifying and alerting you to a call that is likely a scam and a waste of time is a bit proactive?  Honestly I don't think all of the calls will ever be able to be stopped.  An outside company that my company does business with recently changed the 800 # that they use to be reached by external customers. We run call campaigns for this company and got reports back for days that people were getting the scam likely message when they received a call from this new # ?  So I am not sure it is a great idea to allow the phone manufacturer or provider to handle blocking a # permanently. It may not necessarily be a scammer or robo dialer..

    I also recently had my direct work # changed to a 484 exchange. Verizon wireless saw it as a non working # when calling it,and as scam likely when called from that #.  TMobile on the other hand had no problem calling or receiving calls with the #? 


Sign In or Register to comment.