FCC Plays Whack-a-Mole With Telcos Accused of Profiting From Robocalls (arstechnica.com) 58
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A suspicious phone company is on the verge of having all its calls blocked by US-based telcos after being accused of ignoring orders to investigate and block robocalls. One Owl Telecom is a US-based gateway provider that routes phone calls from outside the U.S. to consumer phone companies such as Verizon. "Robocalls on One Owl's network apparently bombarded consumers without their consent with prerecorded messages about fictitious orders," the Federal Communications Commission said yesterday.
On August 1, the FCC sent One Owl a Notification of Suspected Illegal Robocall Traffic (PDF) ordering it to investigate robocall traffic identified by USTelecom's Industry Traceback Group, block all of the identified traffic within 14 days, and "continue to block the identified gateway traffic as well as substantially similar traffic on an ongoing basis." One Owl apparently hasn't taken any of the required steps, the FCC said yesterday. "One Owl never responded, and the [FCC Enforcement] Bureau is not aware of any measures One Owl has taken to comply with the Notice," an FCC order said.
Blocking robocall traffic from companies like One Owl is a bit like playing whack-a-mole. The FCC said it previously took enforcement actions "against two other entities to whom One Owl is closely related: Illum Telecommunication Limited and One Eye LLC. While operating under different corporate names, these entities have shared personnel, IP addresses, customers, and a penchant for disregarding FCC rules." If One Owl doesn't provide an adequate response within 14 days, all phone companies receiving calls from it "will then be required to block and cease accepting all traffic received from One Owl beginning 30 days after release of the Final Determination Order," the FCC said. "One Owl faces a simple choice -- comply or lose access to U.S. communications networks," FCC Enforcement Bureau Chief Loyaan Egal said in a press release.
On August 1, the FCC sent One Owl a Notification of Suspected Illegal Robocall Traffic (PDF) ordering it to investigate robocall traffic identified by USTelecom's Industry Traceback Group, block all of the identified traffic within 14 days, and "continue to block the identified gateway traffic as well as substantially similar traffic on an ongoing basis." One Owl apparently hasn't taken any of the required steps, the FCC said yesterday. "One Owl never responded, and the [FCC Enforcement] Bureau is not aware of any measures One Owl has taken to comply with the Notice," an FCC order said.
Blocking robocall traffic from companies like One Owl is a bit like playing whack-a-mole. The FCC said it previously took enforcement actions "against two other entities to whom One Owl is closely related: Illum Telecommunication Limited and One Eye LLC. While operating under different corporate names, these entities have shared personnel, IP addresses, customers, and a penchant for disregarding FCC rules." If One Owl doesn't provide an adequate response within 14 days, all phone companies receiving calls from it "will then be required to block and cease accepting all traffic received from One Owl beginning 30 days after release of the Final Determination Order," the FCC said. "One Owl faces a simple choice -- comply or lose access to U.S. communications networks," FCC Enforcement Bureau Chief Loyaan Egal said in a press release.
Baidaid on the dam? (Score:2)
Is this too little too late, or will this actually help cut down on all the stupid dead air, fake medicare, car warranty, et al nonsense?
Re: Baidaid on the dam? (Score:5, Informative)
They can just start another shell company, which this company is. A quick search in international business databases finds at least a dozen or so companies related to their âCEOâ(TM) where he holds positions in companies from India to Dubai in subsidiaries of subsidiaries from entities like Tata Telecom.
The FCC will keep sending angry letters to whatever LLC is started next.
Re: Baidaid on the dam? (Score:5, Insightful)
This becomes a good case for piercing the corporate veil and taking action directly against the owners and operators of the companies. If you can find this information with a quick search, so can the fcc attorneys.
Re: (Score:2)
taking action directly against the owners and operators of the companies.
May I suggest Agent 47, John Wick, and Bun-Bun(sluggy freelance)? Maybe even CIA black bag operations?
The latest twist I remember hearing is that some of these places are "stocking" their call centers via human trafficking, with all the usual dirtiness involved in that.
As for a way to fix it? Maybe require a hefty deposit that will, on average, exceed the profits from fraud stuff they can pull off before being shut down.
Re: Baidaid on the dam? (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose... if you want to be stupid, ya could do something like that.
Or the US federal government could just hold the listed owners and officers of the companies personally financially liable (that is what piercing the corporate veil usually means...) and seize their bank accounts. Assuming that they have bank accounts with any banks that use the US financial system (almost every bank in the world), the money can be frozen instantly by US government order.
Re: (Score:2)
Or the US federal government could just hold the listed owners and officers of the companies personally financially liable (that is what piercing the corporate veil usually means...) and seize their bank accounts. Assuming that they have bank accounts with any banks that use the US financial system (almost every bank in the world), the money can be frozen instantly by US government order.
And if the listed owners and officers aren't US citizens, not in countries particularly friendly with the USA, and are deliberately using banks that aren't tied to the US financial system? I'm sure there's a lot of banks out there where the US government can't get it frozen "instantly", or arbitrarily(which instantly would require, because that means not reviewing it to make sure it meets standards), etc...
Also, as a hint, the first line(which I assume is what you're targeting) was a joke. The last line i
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact: shell banks used to be a thing but gone with the stroke of a pen. We could do without shell corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
And now like 70% of all banks are 'not banks' but 'fintech' that uses a bank in the back end.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, no shell companies and sooooo many problems go away. Please let the world have just this one thing! Please Santa, I'll donate blood for the rest of my life, PLEASE!
Re: (Score:2)
Or they could simply act faster on what they're already doing?
The other options being mentioned (going after the owners legally, sending a hitman, freezing bank accounts, trade embargos) would certainly only be applied after the warning message was sent, and then the time for reply expired, and then issuing the final determination order, then waiting 30 days more for it). IMO, that's wait is enough of problem all on its own.
I think the 14 days is more than enough. No reply, block them. They'll either reply
Re: (Score:2)
You are the effin' US of A. Blackmail the country harboring them. Extradite that bastard! You don't want to? Aww, no more international trade for you.
Re: Baidaid on the dam? (Score:2)
Lol, you would stop trade with India and UAE over a phone call. Russia invaded Ukraine and the US administration negotiated with India and Iran to circumvent their own purported trade restriction.
Block first, ask questions later (Score:2)
Is this too little too late
Yes, until and unless the FCC gets the authority (or puts the policies in place if it already has the authority) to block the perps first and ask questions later. They should also be able to seize the equipment a telco uses if they can't justify their behaviour. Until that's done, we'll keep seeing the same people operating the same equipment on the same fly-by-night basis and just shifting the ownership on paper faster than than the FCC can go through its tortuous 14 day question and 30 day block procedu
Re: (Score:1)
AT-5000 Auto-dialer (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
As a very well known precedent shows it's trivially easy, even for a total idiot, to disable that feature.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with these auto-dialers is that they have the ability to deploy wheeled legs that can evade authorities and return to their creators before they're confiscated.
Auto-returning to its creator might not be a good design, since the angry mob following behind it could have an effect on life expectancy.
Words can't hurt? Tell that to the poor nerd being beaten to the death with an auto-dialer.
The Game is Clear (Score:2)
After doing the same thing on 2 previous companies with the same players, it's clear the FCC isn't setup to play this game.
Any bets on when the One Owl owners begin their paperwork for Two Owl Communications, LLC?
Re: (Score:2)
Any bets on when the One Owl owners begin their paperwork for Two Owl Communications, LLC?
Obviously, it would be Two Owls ... :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Any bets on when the One Owl owners begin their paperwork for Two Owl Communications, LLC?
Obviously, it would be Two Owls ... :-)
Less work to change it to "One Owls Communications, LLS", and I like the ring of that.
Bomb Them (Score:2)
We've bombed for less.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn right, A 50 megaton nuke should do it I recon.
Re: (Score:2)
30,000 year half-life ensures no one sets up shop there again. Win-Win.
Re: (Score:2)
Easily fixed with a tiny fine (Score:5, Insightful)
An easy fix for unwanted is to apply a tiny fine for each nuisance call, payable by the last telco who forwarded the message (but each may demand a refund from the previous sender). You'd be amazed at how quickly they'll be able to spot robocallers, telemarketers, and scammers.
Re: (Score:2)
Companies that pull these shenanigans, don't bother to pay fines or fees either. When their creditors come calling, they just shut down that shell company and start a new one.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I suggested that the last one pays (that would be your own telco -- and the only one you could be sure such a law would apply to anyways, and has income in your country). They can eat the cost or pass it up the chain to a telco closer to the asshole, eg via contracts.
Not realistic unfortunately (Score:3)
You're suggesting punishing a Telco for passing on a nuisance call. How are they to know it's a nuisance call? If you allow them to refuse calls from any other entity they don't like, you give them the power to block their competitors / people they don't approve of. Giving that power to a monopoly is a bad idea; I feel confident they will abuse it!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm suggesting punishing the asshole making the nuisance call. And the one to punish them is their telco (probably also an asshole), the one who knows who they are. And the one to punish that telco is the intermediary telco. The last telco, your telco, the one your laws could affect, will punish the second to last. And any telco who doesn't punish the previous asshole, can eat the fine themselves.
Won't fly (Score:2)
All we'll get is a series of bad actor telcos in foreign countries being the source of nuisance calls. The local telco gets fined, but because the foreign telco will just shut down and restart, the innocent party gets hit by the fine. That would be unjust.
I get your point; I just don't think it's a legitimate approach. Which is a pity!
Re: (Score:3)
Thus supporting the monopoly telco over there (Score:2)
Every competitor has to start somewhere. How do you decide whether it's a serious contender or a fly by night? I agree that there's the possibility of creating a central database for identifying miscreants - but that still gives power to the incumbents, which is seldom good!
Re: (Score:2)
No need for trust nor risk. They can pay a deposit, and sign a contract to re-imburse any penalties from nuisance calls they generate. They can fly by night all they like, they will lose money, and their service will be cancelled. The point isn't to put them in jail, it's to make nuisance calls unprofitable.
Could be effective (Score:2)
Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more extreme. I suggest we end the telephone system entirely. Does anyone actually get useful phone calls? I communicate with most people over text, chat, or sometimes telephony that is IP based such as facetime or telegram. If verizon sold a data only service for iphones I'd be 100% in. Who needs a phone number? If a company demands it, make one up or give them the 867-5309.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's just end IP telephony altogether. Keep the phone system as is.
After all, all these spam calls are coming in via VoIP gateway
Re: (Score:2)
By IP telephony I mean just telegram/facetime/signal/etc. No more phone numbers or carriers (besides data carriers).
Re: (Score:2)
"You're suggesting punishing a Telco for passing on a nuisance call."
So make it a completion charge on all calls, which for non-nuisance callers nets out to approximately zero.
"If you allow them to refuse calls from any other entity they don't like"
No, it's allowing them to refuse calls from entities that refuse to pay legitimate charges that have been logged and documented, which prevents the scenario of refusing calls because of an unrelated business disagreement. Would you force a company to continue to
Interesting, thank you (Score:2)
A better way forward.
Re: (Score:2)
And who defines "nuisance call"? Does your telco just have to take your word for it? There *are* plenty of customers who would be happy to lie to collect these fees you suggest, and might even set up schemes to get their friends to call them so they could report the calls as nuisances.
Re: (Score:2)
The recipient decides that the call is a nuisance. The telco would be required to track the complaints accurately (dial *38 to report the last received call as spam). The government collects the fines, not the call recipient.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My only criticism is the word 'tiny'
Re: (Score:2)
Not a fine. Just a fee. It'll cost anyone $0.05 to ring my number.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the way.
I have made the same suggestion several times before. It is simple, and effective. Thus it will never happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe go back to the old days so that they'd have to pay a price per phone call. Sure the old days had nuisance calls but they were rarer and it cost money to do the calling. Now the price is so pitifully low that they can afford to call literally everyone in a voting district many times a day.
The problem is bad enough that it essentially is what caused most people to finally give up their land line. Sure, the mobile phone helped but the last straw I think was the realization that it was futile to answer
Re: (Score:2)
Also, Telcos should be _required_ to have the actual origin listed in the calls. You can get some Telcos to list if a number is verified or that it's suspected spam, but it's always an opt-in. Rather than being opt-in it should be mandatory. Thus no more pretending to be from a local area code and prefix to you even though the call originates on the other side of the world.
Mandate an option to disconnect non-SHAKEN calls (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This makes good sense. Add to this a per-call fine on Telcos for passing along calls that are non-SHAKEN to numbers that have moved to block such calls....
Wonder if they are the ones responsible for... (Score:2)
Explain to me... (Score:2)
Why it's possible to a) provide a false number to the receiver, and b) why anonymous calls are available to anyone (other than possibly the police).
Re: (Score:2)
Because regulatory capture. It benefits some "legitimate" companies who are also nevertheless scumbags.
RoboCallers are evil (Score:1)