Re:FCC hits robocaller with agency's largest-ever fine of $120M
by nsb1 on Saturday June 24, 2017 @07:59AM
(#14625301)
IMHO, the way to stop robocalling is to go after the services that employ them. If they're asking people to buy something, follow the money and slap a fine on the seller instead of the robocalling service. Robo calling profits ought to dry up as vendors become wary of using them.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:FCC hits robocaller with agency's largest-ever fine of $120M
by CaptSpify on Saturday June 24, 2017 @12:26PM
(#14626117)
The problem I see with this is:
If a business wants to damage their competitor, they can just start making robocalls on their behalf.
I like your idea and would like it to happen for pretty much all advertising, but it seems like it can be easily abused.
Re:FCC hits robocaller with agency's largest-ever fine of $120M
by zo1 on Saturday June 24, 2017 @06:21PM
(#14627718)
Of course you won't just follow the "product". You'll follow the money, too. And that will probably very clearly not lead to the target product that you're trying to damage.
Re:FCC hits robocaller with agency's largest-ever fine of $120M
by djrogers on Saturday June 24, 2017 @10:50AM
(#14625773)
In this case the entity using the robocalls was foreign, so no FCC fine there.
Re:FCC hits robocaller with agency's largest-ever fine of $120M
by rhizome on Saturday June 24, 2017 @02:23PM
(#14626767)
And how do you go after the seller when scam voicemails don't disclose the name of the company, and when you get a human they hang up as soon as you ask?
Re:FCC hits robocaller with agency's largest-ever fine of $120M
by mikeash on Saturday June 24, 2017 @03:10PM
(#14626995)
They have to collect payment from you at some point, unless they're running as some sort of weird anti-charity. Make a payment, and then follow it.