Can Congress Stop Robocalls?

Wouldn’t you like to see people who profit from robocallcalls die horrible deaths? 50 billion calls a year! 60% of all complaints to the FCC are about robocalls. And they’re not all done by firms in Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Among the top 10 robocallers in the U.S. are Capital One, Fingerhut, Comcast, Wells Fargo and Santander. Theguilty parties regularly ignore the Do Not Call List. I live in California, where my state prohibits any robocall unless there is an existing relationship— and on average get around between a dozen and two-dozen robocalls a day. In May there were almost 5 billion robocalls made to phones across the country. The House Energy and Commerce Committee to the rescue? Maybe. Can instinctual corruptionists like Frank Pauline and Greg Walden do anything right? The problem in so pervasive that when I googled "robocalls," this ad to create your own cheap robocall program immediately popped up:

At least Congress can be bipartisan in a search for a solution. Washington Post reporter Tony Romm on Thursday: “House Democrats and Republicans unveiled the so-called Stopping Bad Robocalls Act at a moment when Washington is under heavy fire for failing to swiftly stem the tide of unwanted spam calls. The nearly 5 billion robocalls that targeted Americans’ mobile devices last month is roughly double the amount from the same period two years ago, according to YouMail, which offers a smartphone call-blocking app. Such disruptions have become more than a mere annoyance. They result in the theft of Americans’ personal information each year, and they threaten to overwhelm the country’s most critical communications lines, including at hospitals, which recently have reported a significant uptick in robocalls targeting administrators, doctors and patients.” The chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Frank Pauline (D-NJ) and the GOP Ranking Member, Grge Walden (R-OR) must have watched that John Oliver segment 3 months ago. They have a bill about to be voted on.

Their legislation would require the Federal Communications Commission to update the definition of what qualifies as a robocall, a move that could subject a wider array of companies to requirements they obtain consent before calling a consumer. The FCC also would have to ensure it outlaws any attempts to circumvent its rules using new or different robocall technology.

Margot Saunders, senior counsel at the National Consumer Law Center, pointed to a lawsuit that her organization has supported against Hilton Grand Vacations Company. Advocates charge that Hilton designed its system in such a way that it narrowly avoided the government’s definition of a robocall— by having a human worker essentially just click a button. As a result, they say Hilton never obtained the consent of the consumers it called. Hilton has denied it violated the law.

“We think this bill is a significant step toward stopping unwanted robocalls,” she said.

The bill also would start the clock on telecom giants such as AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile, requiring them to implement new technology to authenticate if calls are real or spam a year and a half at most after such the proposal becomes law.

Those carriers for months have promised to implement one such standard, known as STIR/SHAKEN, that will alert consumers whenever they’re receiving a call from a dubious source or potentially block it outright, though the government so far hasn’t mandated it. In addition, lawmakers would task the FCC to figure out alternate options for rural carriers that can’t adopt the technology due to cost or technical limitations.

And the bill would make it easier for federal officials to investigate, then enforce, the country’s anti-robocall rules, removing some of the hurdles that currently limit the time that law enforcement may investigate or the manner by which they issue fines.

The House’s newly bipartisan proposal comes almost a month after the Senate adopted its own legislation, known as the TRACED Act, almost unanimously. The Senate’s anti-robocall measure differs from the House in some ways: It does not, for example, require the FCC to rethink what counts as a robocall or how consumers give and withdraw their consent to real businesses that auto-dial them for payment or prescription reminders.

At the same time, the FCC has forged ahead with some improvements of its own, including an order in June that allows wireless carriers to enable, by default, services that automatically block suspected spam calls on behalf of consumers. The agency, however, opted against requiring that AT&T, Verizon and other carriers offer those services without charge. House lawmakers have proposed prohibiting companies from imposing fees for such services.

Engadget.com explained the differences between the Senate bill and the House bill. “The [House] measure would require that carriers authenticate calls and offer opt-out blocking at no extra charge, with transparency to make sure you don't miss an important conversation. The FCC, meanwhile, would be granted extended statutes of limitations on robocall offenses. In return, the regulator would have to issue rules protecting against unwanted calls (including the option to withdraw consent), clamp down on abuse of robocall exemptions and submit a report on its implementation of the reassigned numbers database. The Senate bill doesn't require the new FCC rules. The Act is due for a panel vote next week. Whether or not it makes it to the President's desk as-is could be another story. While both sides of Congress are clearly in favor of stricter regulation of robocalls, they'll have to reconcile bill differences-- it's possible that the finished legislation will be watered down. Between this and the FCC's block-by-default initiative, though, you'll see at least some kind of improved enforcement against automated calls.”