Ajit Pai Celebrates After Court Strikes Down Obama-Era Robocall Rule (arstechnica.com) 185
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Federal judges have struck down an anti-robocall rule, saying that the Federal Communications Commission improperly treated every American who owns a smartphone as a potential robocaller. The FCC won't be appealing the court decision, as Chairman Ajit Pai opposed the rule changes when they were implemented by the commission's then-Democratic majority in 2015. Pai issued a statement praising the judges for the decision Friday, calling the now-vacated rule "yet another example of the prior FCC's disregard for the law and regulatory overreach." The FCC's 2015 decision said that a device meets the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) definition of an "autodialer" if it can be modified to make robocalls, even if the smartphone user hasn't actually downloaded an autodialing app. That interpretation treats all smartphones as autodialers because any smartphone has the capability of downloading an autodialing app, judges ruled. Since any call made by an autodialer could violate anti-robocall rules, this led to a troubling conclusion: judges said that an unwanted call from a smartphone could violate anti-robocall rules even if the smartphone user hasn't downloaded an autodialing app.
"The Commission's understanding would appear to subject ordinary calls from any conventional smartphone to the Act's coverage, an unreasonably expansive interpretation of the statute," a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said in a unanimous ruling Friday. The ruling came in a case filed against the FCC by the Association of Credit and Collection Professionals, which says it represents "third-party collection agencies, law firms, asset buying companies, creditors, and vendor affiliates." Judges also invalidated an FCC rule that helped protect consumers from robocalls to reassigned phone numbers.
"The Commission's understanding would appear to subject ordinary calls from any conventional smartphone to the Act's coverage, an unreasonably expansive interpretation of the statute," a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said in a unanimous ruling Friday. The ruling came in a case filed against the FCC by the Association of Credit and Collection Professionals, which says it represents "third-party collection agencies, law firms, asset buying companies, creditors, and vendor affiliates." Judges also invalidated an FCC rule that helped protect consumers from robocalls to reassigned phone numbers.
The Headline is Negative (Score:1, Insightful)
But I for one am happy I can't be hit with robocall fines and prosecution for simply dialing the wrong number.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Did I miss something about a party? I said no such thing.
If these assholes were actually anything other than disingenuous, overpaid lickspittles, they'd do something about Caller ID spoofing. Fix that and ALL the motherfucking tele-spam would STOP the next day, if the originators could be easily found and held accountable for the many, many violations of the law and human decency standards.
Fuck Them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Were Obama-era's FCC-members "disingenuous, overpaid lickspittles" because they've done nothing about that for eight years either?
And just what would you have them do about it? E-mail spammers still spam with fake From-headers in e-mails — despite various attempts to legislate against it [wikipedia.org]. And I mean, properly legislate — as in "write a law, pass it through both chambers, have it signed by the President", not the unelected FCC's u
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You seem to forget, that FCC Commissionaires are appointed by the President [wikipedia.org], which makes you entire comment irrelevant to the discussion.
Re: (Score:1)
Democrats controlled both houses for SIX MONTHS
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The same can be said about e-mail headers and e-mail carriers — indeed, the problems are very similar in the digital age.
Re:The Headline is Negative (Score:5, Informative)
If these assholes were actually anything other than disingenuous, overpaid lickspittles, they'd do something about Caller ID spoofing.
Um, they did exactly that last November. [engadget.com] And even before they issued the new rules, they cracked down on two spoofing robocallers last year to the tune of $82 million and $120 million.
Maybe you would have known that had you spent just a bit more time actually reading up on the subject and a bit less time throwing around inflammatory rhetoric.
Re: (Score:1)
Then how is it that I manage to get 8 or more fucking asshole tele-SPAM fuck calls a DAY? Despite being on the so-called "do not call" lists, which the tele-SPAM fucks use as a "call list" of "potential hostile customers".
I hope they die in a fire and I hope all the apologists for them do too.
Re: (Score:2)
Headline is wrong [Re:The Headline is Negative] (Score:2)
Did I miss something about a party? I said no such thing.
Yes, apparently you did: the headline.
The headline said "Ajit Pai Celebrates". No celebration was mentioned in the article.
Anybody got this buffoon's phone number? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Scum Dog Millionaire... (Score:1)
...Strikes again.
Re: (Score:1)
Only an AC could make such a baseless, blatantly fucking stupid allegation. Nice try. Now go back to blowing your dog or if you're tired of that, whatever else it is you do for fun.
My phone is my property (Score:3, Insightful)
Why isn't it considered trespassing when someone uses my property to sell me something or to deliver a political spiel?
Re:My phone is my property (Score:4, Informative)
Because it isn't trespassing. Other users are not using your property. They are transmitting signals to a network. You have voluntarily allowed your phone to connect to the network. You are receiving other people's calls because you have specifically allowed this action when you signed your phone contract. The problem is that some folks are abusing this, and are doing so in a way that will specifically impede your attempt to stop it (caller ID spoofing etc.).
It's abuse, it may even be harassment. But it is not trespassing.
Re: (Score:1)
Absolutely and if I get a call from a number I haven't whitelisted, then I answer the phone, say "hello" and set it down as I continue to do other things if I do not recognize the number. Often while I listen to a video with people talking on youtube. I usually have the volume turned down these days because some of them were foul-mouthed.
I also record numbers as spam and activated the auto-reject of spam numbers.
Obviously we need some form of 'real id' for phones to correct modern abuse.
But we won't be ge
Re: (Score:2)
My ex-boss used to get tons of robo faxes, which certainly used his property in the form of fax paper. I'm not familiar with FCC regulations or phone company rules with regards to fax machines, but I suppose there must have been some kind of BS that prevented him from doing something about it, because in the couple years I worked at that job, it just kept happening.
Re: (Score:1)
There is such a thing as trespass to chattels, but if you listen to the EFF, they've pointed out that if we revived that rule, it'd end up criminalizing a lot of things that shouldn't be, too.
So (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:1)
Trolling stalkers are lame.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest Corporations not be allowed to make any campaign contributions of any kind.
Fine, whatever (Score:2, Interesting)
Lets be honest, any laws against robo-dialers wasn't working or couldn't being enforced anyway. Any call I get from a number that's not in my contacts goes straight to voicemail, which is then translated into a text message. In fact, I rarely get a phone call from someone in my contacts as most personal interaction has moved to text messages.
Re:Fine, whatever (Score:4, Insightful)
As I say, if they can't leave a voicemail, I'm not going to answer. Technology may have made this irrelevant anyway, not that I like it.
Besides that, all these rules should be made in congress, and not the FCC. That's the real takeaway here, a do-nothing congress that really is the problem. Not an a-hole FCC chairman.
So we have 8 years (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We're wiping out Republicans in deep red states.
Lol, so? (Score:5, Insightful)
We're supposed to believe that the ruling reduced robocalls? And that they might pick up in volume?
I don't know if anyone has noticed, but robocalls from spoofed numbers have been out of control for years. Neither this rule, nor any other rules are doing anything about them.
Robocallers Can Use Any Number (Score:2)
Many robo calls are using arbitrary numbers now. They can do that if they have a particular type of service. I know this for sure because I have received calls from myself!
Then again, I guess it wasn't my smart phone that really initiated the call.
Re:Robocallers Can Use Any Number (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, they just spoof the first 6 digits of your number and add a random 4 digits on the end, to make you think it's one of your neighbors calling.
I came to that conclusion myself in this past six months. The robodialers had been trying to find a way to disguise their numbers because people have started to use online spam-alert websites like 800notes.com, and some services, like my Pixel 2, automatically flag an incoming call as "spam" if it's been reported as such. I've learned that if a call comes from the first six digits of my own phone number, it's spam. Someone using my prefix is not going to be a neighbor, in the age of cell phones, a prefix no
Not the biggest problem (Score:2)
Intent (Score:2)
How many arrests? (Score:2)
Whew. Way to go, FCC. Obviously this is a huge problem. Huge. The courts must be packed with heinous cell phone users who have been arrested for violating this law. Does anyone have any numbers of how many people have been convicted and fined the $500 for this? Or gone to trial? Maybe arrested? Hello? Anyone? Come on. The DC Circuit US C of A has a solid, real-life, blood & guts example:
. Errrr.
Ok. So Mr Pai is diligently saving all Americans from a fate worse than ponies [twitter.com]. IANAL, but the
Another reason why Dems lost (Score:2)
Stupid regulations. I am not a libertarian and I am all for government regulation. It's just the government regulation is an extremely complicated domain of technology. I wish that instead of fighting for votes of imbecile constituents bright minds from both parties were thinking together on how to regulate the unfathomable complexity of modern economy better.
And this particular one is an example of that.
Government regulation needs to be applied quickly in reaction to ever-going fight with the entropy of gr
Just here for the cognitive disssonance (Score:1)
and I was not disappointed! Plenty of people did not read article and bashed Pai for endorsing a good decision. Because 'bad' people can never do 'good' things.
Re: (Score:2)
Sweet! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Does this mean we can robocall the absolute shit out of Ajit and the FCC?
Not a big fan of reading TFS/TFA, huh?
Can't fucking wait to attack and spew vitriol and hate, can you?
Nothing has been done that makes robocalling legal. It just means you can't be prosecuted for dialing a wrong number on your smartphone.
See, before this if Trump or Pai wanted to have your as thrown in prison because you posted something that pissed them off, they could have your phone records examined for any mis-dialed calls and use that to throw your SJW ass in with your new cellmate/boyfriend.
I think yo
Like so many other rules and regulations (Score:2)
This one was totally useless in defeating robocallers like so many other government regulations that are simply feel-good, do-something-NOW, vote-getters.
it has already begun (Score:3)
Anyone know Ajit's numbers? (Score:2)
Re:No Like (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I'm no fan of Pai, but on its face, this ruling looks reasonable. From TFS, I gather that until now, a smartphone could be considered an autodialer even if it was not configured to be one. Now, if I read this correctly, you have to install autodialing software on your phone for it to be considered an autodialer.
Re:No Like (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry for self-replying. TFA, and another poster, point out that this rule has been vacated (not just modified) so now there may be no legal restrictions on robocall devices.
Unless, of course, the current board passes a new regulation. [*crickets*]
Re:No Like (Score:5, Informative)
TFA, and another poster, point out that this rule has been vacated (not just modified) so now there may be no legal restrictions on robocall devices.
Unless, of course, the current board passes a new regulation. [*crickets*]
TFA and the other poster clearly didn't read the opinion [fcc.gov]. The TCPA as a whole remains intact -- the only nuances that were rolled back were (1) the FCC's prior interpretation that smartphones constituted automated telephone dialing systems, and (2) the FCC's prior interpretation that companies using automatic dialers could be held liable for calling a phone number that used to be owned by someone who had given the company consent to call them, but then was (unbeknownst to the caller) transferred to someone else.
Meanwhile, as was all over the news at the time, the FCC actually issued MORE rules clamping down MORE on actual robocallers back [fcc.gov] in [engadget.com] November [cnet.com]. Crickets indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't even get robocalls. In a very recent election I got one from a local politician, just talking at me no manners, no greeting, I promptly sent of an email letting them know the rudeness, the impropriety, it is not the politician who talks at me, I don't have to listen to me, I talk at the politician and it is the politician who has to listen to me, not only would I not vote for them but I would campaign against them. Robocall away and I will remember which to loathe and become active against, as suits
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Pure robocalls really aren't the battlefront these days. The TCPA also applies to automated dialing systems that dial numbers until they find someone who picks up, and then connects the call to a human (the "hello?" . . . CLICK . . . pause . . . "Hello, am I speaking with [name]" routine). Companies that have legitimate reasons to call you want to use systems like this because they're a lot more efficient than having a human dial number after number trying to find people who are home/can pick up. The num
Re: (Score:2)
Pure robocalls really aren't the battlefront these days. The TCPA also applies to automated dialing systems that dial numbers until they find someone who picks up, and then connects the call to a human (the "hello?" . . . CLICK . . . pause . . . "Hello, am I speaking with [name]" routine).
I think you have it backwards. Autodialers that connect you to a human when you pick up were the 20th century way of doing spam calls. The 21st century way to do it is to have no humans involved at all.
The higher-quality robots even have some ability to respond to what you say.
Robots are taking our jobs, even the below-minimum-wage spam caller jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
I got a call from one of my potential general-election opponents like that, although he was nice. He rambled a lot about how the Government killed his wife and stuff about Vietnam. I think he's going to lose to William T. Newton.
Newton is insane, which is dangerous: he can actually win if not taken seriously. He came within a few hundred votes of beating long-standing Republican candidate Corrogan Vaughn in the 2016 primary. Difficulty: Newton was a write-in candidate.
My district is solidly Democ
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
you probably missed this part of Pai's statement:
Instead of sweeping into a regulatory dragnet the hundreds of millions of American consumers who place calls or send text messages from smartphones, the FCC should be targeting bad actors who bombard Americans with unlawful robocalls. That’s why I’m pleased today’s ruling does not impact (and, in fact, acknowledges) the current FCC’s efforts to combat illegal robocalls and spoofing. We will continue to pursue consumer-friendly policies on this issue, from reducing robocalls to reassigned numbers to call authentication to blocking illegal robocalls. And we’ll maintain our strong approach to enforcement against spoofers and scammers, including the over $200 million in fines that we proposed last year.
Re: (Score:3)
... the current FCC’s efforts to combat illegal robocalls and spoofing.
I don't know the current legal definition of an illegal rebocall, but I know what it SHOULD be. ANY robocall placed without the recipient's prior and ongoing consent, should be punishable by a fine of $10K per call for the first offense, $50K per call for the second offense, and loss of corporate, charitable, or party status for the third offense. In short, with VERY FEW exceptions, (public safety, life-or-death, and the like), ALL robocalls should be illegal, and violations of the laws forbidding them ough
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
That's what we get for allowing collectives to be treated as 'persons before the law'.
So tell us, how would you fix that problem, without getting rid of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances [wikipedia.org]? I am all for limiting the rights of corps like Apple, Ford, and Coke, but it needs to be done in such a way that the First Amendment rights of the NRA, the EFF, and even PETA are not trampled. Regardless of how many of the second 3 you support (I figure most /.ers will support at least 1), you cannot deny that they are fundamentally d
Re:No Like (Score:5, Informative)
so now there may be no legal restrictions on robocall devices.
Sure there are. The FTC already regulates robocallers (and the Do Not Call list) separately from the FCC.
https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/f... [ftc.gov]
As much as I don’t like Pai, this ruling, at least on its face, isn’t necessarily the horrible thing it’s being made out to be, since the FTC has been providing better regulation on this issue for far longer, and has been enlisting technology companies to provide solutions to the issue as well.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be reading quite a bit into what I said. I neither said the FCC’s rules were bad nor suggested there was a problem with them, so feel free to keep using ad hominem to attack that straw man you built out of things I never said.
Rather, I pointed out that the GP was factually incorrect about their central claim and then went on to suggest that the FCC’s rules were more or less redundant on account of existing regulations already being successfully enforced.
Would I prefer that the rules
Re: (Score:2)
Uh huh. Feel free to provide links, AC. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet you gracefully allow the removal of yet another consumer protection law.
It was not a consumer-protection law. It was a single anti-consumer section inside a consumer protection law, which itself still stands.
But someone mentioned that douchebag Ajit Pai and everyone freaks out and suddenly discussion is over.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you disagree with Obama that made the decision to appoint him to the FCC? You should revisit your position against Obama.
Obama had no choice but to appoint Pai to the FCC board. A Republican seat was open. The Republicans nominated Pai.
It was Trump who appointed Pai to the chair of that board. I think it's that appointment that the GP was talking about.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Making it political is the only way to ensure people like Pai get in there. Otherwise you run the risk of things like 'scientists' or old IT professionals being appointed because of disgusting left-wing things like "experience working with these things" or "not owned by the industry he's supposed to regulate". These are hideously uncorrupt ideas and they will not stand with any industry.
Re: (Score:2)
How about this: for these appointments, we have a national vote. The big ones. The FCC, USDA, FDA, DEA, FBI, SCOTUS, the important stuff. The stuff Trump swept aside when he came in; the stuff Obama got to right away.
You have a party in Congress? You get to vote. There are a bunch of Democrats, a bunch of Republicans, a bunch of Independents, and that one Green? Hoo boy, those Independents. What would we ever do with a House Majority of Independents? Speaker of the frigging House there's no part
Re: (Score:2)
How about this: for these appointments, we have a national vote. The big ones. The FCC, USDA, FDA, DEA, FBI, SCOTUS, the important stuff.
We already do. It's called the Presidential Election.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a proportional representative. Just over 50% of the votes go to one person who then fills multiple seats with his own people. Why, when half of the votes say D and the other half say R, should six Supreme Court judges all be selected from the pool of political philosophy representing only one set of these voters? Why should it not be half and half? If it's 2/3 and 1/3, why not 4 of one and 2 of the other?
Why don't we do away with Congress and just make the President our glorious leader dict
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you disagree with Obama that made the decision to appoint him to the FCC?
If what you say is true then I like Obama and dislike Pai. What was your point even supposed to be? That's just a stupid non-argument , I don't even think you're a real person but your shit logic was just so bad
You should revisit your position against Obama.
This English is so clunky.
Re:No Like (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read the court's opinion [fcc.gov] (or even the summary), it clearly says the FCC's overreach was considering "ordinary calls from any conventional smartphone" to fall under robocall regulation. Putting aside your obvious dislike of Pai, do you honestly believe they should?
Re: (Score:1)
If you read the court's opinion [fcc.gov] (or even the summary), it clearly says the FCC's overreach was considering "ordinary calls from any conventional smartphone" to fall under robocall regulation. Putting aside your obvious dislike of Pai, do you honestly believe they should?
I'm curious, how many innocent cell-phone owners were indicted under this (clearly crazy) interpretation of the law?
If it was a lot, then cool, the FCC got something right. I'll be surprised, but very happy and will admit that I am wrong. Though rather than throwing the rules out, the FCC should amend it to do the right thing.
If it was none, then wow, conservatives are the most gullible idiots on this planet. How can you complain about a rule which does useful things (stop annoying robo-callers) but whic
Re: (Score:1)
If you read the court's opinion [fcc.gov] (or even the summary), it clearly says the FCC's overreach was considering "ordinary calls from any conventional smartphone" to fall under robocall regulation. Putting aside your obvious dislike of Pai, do you honestly believe they should?
I'm curious, how many innocent cell-phone owners were indicted under this (clearly crazy) interpretation of the law?
If it was a lot, then cool, the FCC got something right.
I never imagined I would be defending an action of that right-wing-asshole sock puppet Pai, but any overly broad interpretation of a law allowing reasonable and proper activities to be prosecuted at the whim of some random official is a threat to liberty and the rule of law. E.g., the confiscation. without due process, of monies/properties suspected by whatever random backwoods sheriff to be the result of drug activity.
Re: (Score:2)
You have it backwards, it is narrow abd contrived interpretations that are a threat to the rule of law.
No, the law should always be interpreted narrowly.
For example, a backcountry sheriff that insists he did right by putting some troublesome outsiders in jail for disturbing the peace.
That's an overbroad interpretation of disturbing the peace, not a narrow one.
Narrow vs broad interpretation also has nothing to do with with whether something should be enforced or prosecuted.
Re:No Like (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm probably wasting my keystrokes since your post suggests you're more into trying to score cheap partisan points rather than actually understanding the issues, but one of the primary issues with overbroad laws with harsh penalties and one of the primary reasons courts strike them down (you realize this was a federal district court decision, not the FCC, right?) is the chilling effect they have on legitimate behavior.
Using smaller words, when the FCC states an intent to levy fines of $500 per "uninvited call" from a cell phone, a small business with no land line would have to feel exquisitely lucky to call someone from a cell phone who didn't call them first. The amount of explicit enforcement action says nothing about how many people simply forego behavior that everyone agrees should be lawful out of fear that they'll be one of the first examples.
Re: (Score:1)
>a small business with no land line would have to feel exquisitely lucky to call someone from a cell phone who didn't call them first
And you know what? I'm fine with that.
I don't care if someone really wishes I were their customer. I don't want ANY uninvited calls. Chilling effect? Bring it the fuck on.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
so...you despise smartphones? (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you READ the article, or are you an illiterate millenial moron who's been "triggered"?
Seriously! WTF is wrong with you Trump haters? The Obama FCC passed a rule classifying any device that could be made capable of robo-dialing (which incluses ALL smartphones, since they can insstall auto-dial apps) as being a robo-dialer and thus ANYBODY making an unwanted phone call with one (including YOU calling your mom/boyfriend/girlfriend etc at an inconvemient moment) into a criminal. And beacuase Trump's FCC guy
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reservations by fax, or, because it's actually the 21st century, take reservations online like Yosemite does as well.
Re: (Score:2)
iSeriously! WTF is wrong with you Trump haters?
A corrupt, greedy, authoritarian, treasonous man-child is in charge of my country. What the fuck is wrong with you, that you don't have a problem with that?
The Obama FCC passed a rule classifying any device that could be made capable of robo-dialing (which incluses ALL smartphones, since they can insstall auto-dial apps) as being a robo-dialer and thus ANYBODY making an unwanted phone call with one (including YOU calling your mom/boyfriend/girlfriend etc at an inconvemient moment) into a criminal.
And I'm sure Ajit Pai will get right to coming up with a rule that does not have this problem, along about the time the cows come home, Fox Propaganda starts reporting the truth and Stormy Daniels joins a convent. This ruling was about protecting robocallers and you know it.
Re: (Score:2)
The Obama FCC passed a rule classifying any device that could be made capable of robo-dialing (which incluses ALL smartphones, since they can insstall auto-dial apps) as being a robo-dialer and thus ANYBODY making an unwanted phone call with one
You started out so well...
Trump's FCC guy opposed your beloved "net neutrality" scam (also known as the "help Apple/Facebook/Netflix get richer at the expense of telcos" rule)
And then you veer off in such a fucking STUPID manner.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Because he isn't challenging a ruling that blocks you from being made liable to be fined for robocalling every time you dialled a wrong number on your smartphone?
Trump derangement syndrome really does make people say the weirdest things.
Re: (Score:3)
All this, and i still don't like the asshole. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No Like (Score:4, Informative)
There are a large number of people who assume that any set of federal rules are bad by the mere fact that they are rules coming from the federal government. At the moment several of those people hold important positions of power in the US.
Re: (Score:1)
the worst evil since slavery.
huh??
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the HHGTTG summed it up best:
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy defines the Federal Communications Commission as “a bunch of mindless jerks who’ll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes,” with a footnote to the effect that the editors would welcome applications from anyone interested in taking over the post of robotics correspondent. Curiously enough, an edition of the Encyclopedia Galactica that had the good fortune to fall through a time warp from a tho
Re: (Score:2)
Someone kill this fucking asshole.
Remember how popular the Do Not Call list implementation was when it was first implemented? When a technical glitch in the way the legislation was written threatened to delay implementation of the law, Congress took the unusual step of convening on a Sunday, as it did after Pearl Harbor, to make a fix and pass it.
For several years, Do Not Call gave the public blessed relief from junk solicitations - until the robocalls started, a new tech that Do Not Call was unable to address. Since then we have been despe
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If today's decision brings an even bigger flood of robocalls into the homes of Trump's base, it will very quickly no longer be Trump's base.
Do you believe that Trump supporters will connect an event in reality with Trump? Well, I suppose there is a first time for everything, no matter how unlikely.
Re: Ajit Pai needs to die (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
History disagrees with you [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
In implementation, both have lead to the suffering of millions.
See Venezuela for the most recent example.
So you should get yourself an education. It's free up to grade 12 (and no, that's not socialism).
Re: (Score:2)
Meh.
If a number isn't in my Contacts, it gets ignored.
If they don't leave a message, it gets blocked.
If it's an automated message, it gets blocked.
If I can't find the number in Google, it gets blocked.
It doesn't take much time or effort.
To clarify, blocked means it goes directly to VM and I don't even know they called. If you have long VM instructions, they typically don't even bother to leave a message or it fucks with their automated systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Your approach mostly works on cellular, but the Trump base has landlines.
Re: (Score:3)