FCC says annoyed consumers can say no to robocalls

Under a new plan, phone carriers can block robocalls and automated text messages upon request by customers.

Damian Dovarganes/AP/FILE
Eleanor Blum, 88, solves crossword puzzles, as she lets her phone go unanswered at her in the Sherman Oaks area of Los Angeles.

Phone companies are now a step closer to blocking robocalls.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Thursday adopted a rule giving phone companies the green light to block automatically dialed robocalls and text messages on both landlines and wireless phones.

“In a package of declaratory rulings, the Commission affirmed consumers’ rights to control the calls they receive,” the FCC announced in a statement. “As part of this package, the Commission also made clear that telephone companies face no legal barriers to allowing consumers to choose to use robocall-blocking technology.”

The step was taken after the FCC received a flood of complaints about robocalls, even though for years consumers have been able to put their phone numbers on a nationwide "Do-Not-Call" registry. In 2014, the commission received more than 215,000 complaints, the largest category of complaints.

Under the new rule, consumers can revoke their consent to receive robocalls “in any reasonable way at any time.” Telephone companies can block robocalls and automated text messages upon a consumer’s request, by offering blocking technologies and implementing market-based solutions.

The measure was approved by a three to two vote.

“I detest robocalls. I’m not alone,” Jessica Rosenworcel, one of three Democrats who approved the measure told the Los Angeles Times. “It’s time – long past time – to do something about this.”

Michael O'Reilly and Ajit Pai, two Republican commissioners who voted against the measure agree that robocalls are annoying, but say the new rules would make it difficult for businesses to serve their customers.

Using robocalls to sell something without a phone line owner’s written permission is illegal.

Consumer advocates and some members of Congress believe blocking is the only way to stop them.

CNN reported in February that the non-profit Consumers Union had gathered more than 190,000 signatures to pressure phone companies to take action against robocalls.

But not everyone is happy about this decision. Survey takers believe this measure will jeopardize access to information about public's lives and opinions.

“It’s really going to be a horrible thing potentially for the research profession and potentially for society,” Howard Fienberg, director of government affairs for the Marketing Research Association told the Los Angeles Times ahead of the FCC vote.

Pollster Peter Hart also told the paper that losing the advantage of public opinion polling on issues of the days will have "a profound effect on democracy."

FCC however believes this decision was made because the public has requested it.

“The American public has asked us – repeatedly – to do something about unwanted robocalls,” said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler on Thursday.

“Today, the FCC stands by consumers with its clear message to industry that consumers have the right to control the calls and texts they receive,” said Linda Sherry, director of national priorities at Consumer Action.

Susan Grant, director of Consumer Protection and Privacy at Consumer Federation of America, also said that they “expect companies to act quickly to implement blocking options for their customers.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.