In our opinion: New FCC rules for robocalls should make life a little quieter

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • WeThePeople Sandy, UT
    June 12, 2019 1:40 a.m.

    @Mike Richards:

    The Constitution doesn't say anything about telephone calls. If the Founding Fathers meant to regulate telephones, they would have mentioned them in the Constitution.

  • Zabilde Riverdale, UT
    June 11, 2019 6:22 a.m.

    It should be simple to regulate these, Europe doesn't have this problem. Require all phone calls to come from a registered number. If a call is spoofed, the carriers should be able to detect that number A is not the actual source of this call, thus it gets blocked.

    Block spoofing and require caller ID for any and all businesses, government agencies, political parties and campaigns and charities. If you want to do business with me, my phone should display who is calling me, and I need to be able to trust the name shown is accurate.

    Implement these simple fixes (simple to describe implementation may not be simple but they are all possible) and robo-calls will be a thing of the past. Though like Hutterite I too will miss the opportunity to mess with the IRS Scammers with thick eastern european accents who are threatening that the Sheriff is only minutes away from executing an arrest warrant on me. Or the new one telling me I need to restructure and pay the overdue student loans that I never even took out.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 10, 2019 6:37 p.m.

    I don't mind that they get rid of robocalls; it's a good thing. Just leave us the calls from the 'IRS' threatening our imminent imprisonment unless we pay all kinds of taxes with Itunes cards. I have a lot of fun with those.

  • drvinneyboombahtz Kaysville, UT
    June 10, 2019 2:39 p.m.

    The do not call list that the government came up years ago is a great civic lesson to those who are still advocating the government prevents drugs, gun violence, homelessness, provides health care, etc. It is one thing to make a law, it is quite another thing to enforce it. Seinfeld's reservations rant can be applied to the government; "you know how to take the reservation, but you don't know how to keep the reservation, and keeping the reservation is really the most important part of the reservation".

    Allowing businesses to profit by coming up with an idea to stop robocalls might actually create incentive enough to create a robust product to stop it. Don't be tricked into believing that government will stop these calls.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, UT
    June 10, 2019 1:52 p.m.

    @WeThePeople - Sandy, UT
    June 10, 2019 9:57 a.m.,

    The Constitution clearly and explicitly gives the Federal Goverment to regulate robocalls because they are a form of commerce that crosses State and National borders.

    Article I, Section 8:

    "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,"

  • Weston Jurney West Jordan, UT
    June 10, 2019 1:48 p.m.

    I would LOVE to stop getting robocalls. I would love it so much, that I might actually decide to keep my land line!

  • BillRands Syracuse, UT
    June 10, 2019 1:25 p.m.

    I wish that it will work. Providers like Verizon should provide the service free. We get so many spam calls it has become a nuisance and we no longer answer our home phone. Verizon will be out our monthly fee if we cancel our home phone. Isn't that their job to provide customer service and allow us to enjoy our phone service?

  • Bountiful Guy Bountiful, UT
    June 10, 2019 12:07 p.m.

    I'm skeptical because Utah continues to license Informed Electorate LLC, who is one of the biggest offenders on planet earth. Given the numerous complaints, one would think Utah could act; yet they don't. I doubt that they won't require phone providers to anything either, since phones are the business of phone providers. So once again, unless I get really surprised, it'll be business as usual. If the news providers would tell us which phone providers block robocalls, perhaps the marketplace will drive the competition to follow suit. Let's not require AOC to solve this. That would be an expensive disaster.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    June 10, 2019 11:21 a.m.

    @Say no to BO

    "And the government does nothing about it."

    I thought you were all about small government and limited government regulation and keeping the government out of our lives?

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    June 10, 2019 10:36 a.m.

    There is no control. Think about it. Companies call, claiming to be Microsoft or my credit card company. And the government does nothing about it.

    Gmail forwards to me spam from people who falsely claim to be Google. They can't even protect their own brand.

    The government is going to have to get tough with fraudulent companies first. Legitmate companies can be regulated but con men cannot. They need stiffer punishments. That means ruffling some feathers in India and Nigeria. Based on their take on Mexico, the left will go nuts over that.

  • WeThePeople Sandy, UT
    June 10, 2019 9:57 a.m.

    Where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have the power to restrict telephone calls? We need to respect Our Founding Father's vision of Small Government, rather than asking Big Brother to solve our every problem!

  • NeifyT Salt Lake City, UT
    June 10, 2019 9:48 a.m.

    Call me skeptical!

    While I applaud this new ruling, I doubt it will do anything. Years ago (thinking about 20 now); the FCC created a National Do Not Call Registry; with explicit rules that no sales calls. The only problem is that phone sales persons never cared about the rules. And the rules only "allowed" the FCC to litigate; and they refused to even "investigate" unless millions of people had lost money to the sales (scam) calls. And then of course there were dozens of loopholes, like if a person is asking for money but claiming they are not selling anything in the guise of "charity" or political calls (which almost always were asking for money as well--thus selling politicians).

    The only thing that the Do Not Call Registry did; was INCREASE the phone calls; and encourage scammers to use automated calling. Then they ruled that there had to be a live person available and fewer "dropped calls" but that hasn't changed still get dozens of those every day.

    As for scams, already today in the first 20 minutes of work got one claiming to be an officer from Social Security; but clearly a computer.

    I suspect that this new rule won't have one bit of effect on the scam calls.

  • WallE Walla Walla, WA
    June 10, 2019 9:25 a.m.

    Most important, it will reduce the cost to our citizens from ID theft and the cost to our Government responding to phishing schemes and similar nefarious activity. (At $10 per complaint it says they aren't doing much, but it adds up.)

    A month ago I got a call the caller ID said was the US Government with a number that matched the Social Security fraud line. I was quickly able to determine the call was a ruse and hung up, but I'm quite certain my Grandmother would have fallen for the call and had her identity stolen in the process.

    Making robo calls more difficult should have been done many years ago, and more needs to be done to protect US citizens from this organized crime.

  • Den Den West Jordan, UT
    June 10, 2019 8:43 a.m.

    I get up to 10 of these a day and they are masked by local phone #'s.

    I can risk not getting a phone call from someone. If it's where I get my haircut or a Dr's office, I have the appt in my calendar. They send me texts and email reminding me anyway.

    I welcome this, it's long over due.

  • Third try screen name Mapleton, UT
    June 10, 2019 8:08 a.m.

    Did I read that right? The technology can't tell the difference between an automated call from my doctor and a sales call? And that if Discover is calling to clear a transaction, that's a robocall?

    If it doesn't know the difference, it's no solution at all.

    Keep trying, guys. This idea is not ready for prime time.

    PS- Political robocalls are NOT a gray area. They are not welcome either. Why do these guys want to carve out special rules for themselves?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, UT
    June 10, 2019 6:55 a.m.

    This is a "slippery slope" item. No one likes robocalls. I get them all the time. My solution is to never answer my cell phone unless the caller I.D. identifies the caller. I assume that if the caller is serious and not on in my list that he/she will leave a message.

    I would prefer that the carriers charge robocallers a fee per call. Let the robocallers pay at least $0.75 per call, basically the same price as buying a stamp, envelope and sheet of paper to send a letter. Charging the abuser instead of the abused would end robocalls immediately.

  • imsmarterthanyou Salt Lake City, UT
    June 10, 2019 6:39 a.m.

    It's about time. I get these calls every day. Sometimes more than one in a day. Sick of it.