Why tech giants are ganging up on robocalls

The FCC is calling for an industry 'strike force' to tackle the rise of the robocalls. The 33 companies set an Oct. 19 deadline to produce solutions. 

Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP/File
FCC chair Tom Wheeler, center, joins hands with FCC Commissioners Mignon Clyburn (l.) and Jessica Rosenworcel before the start of a February hearing. On Friday, the FCC oversaw the creation of an industry 'strike force' to tackle the rise of the robocalls.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) convened a meeting in Washington on Friday, where all the biggest names in telecommunications gathered to talk about stopping unwanted messages.

Laws against persistent "robocalls" date back to 1991 but in light of their dramatic increase, the FCC has gathered the industry's leading players to fight back.

Enter the Robocall Strike Force.

Friday's gathering was an unprecedented sign that 33 companies, including Google, Apple, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Microsoft, can combine forces against robocalls, a collaborative model that may ultimately yield solutions for other problems. 

The meeting comes amid an uptick in robocalls that has run parallel to the explosion of communications technology.

The Federal Trade Commission received 3.5 million complaints about robocalls in 2015, nearly half from consumers who had already asked to join a "do not call" list, according to the Consumers Union, the activist division of Consumer Reports. Complaints about rising robocalls violating the Do Not Call registry doubled between 2010 and 2015.  

AT&T chief executive officer Randall Stephenson, who chairs the taskforce, emphasized the need to create new anti-robocall standards, find technical solutions to enforce them, and evaluate the logistics of a "Do Not Originate" list to protect certain government or bank phone numbers. 

“We have to come out of this with a comprehensive playbook for all of us to go execute,” said Mr. Stephenson. “We have calls that are perfectly legal, but unwanted, like telemarketers and public opinion surveyors. At the other end of the spectrum, we have millions of calls that are blatantly illegal.”

This explains only in part the warlike language of the fight against automated telemarketing. Perhaps it is, as the Android Authority suggests, "tongue-in-cheek;" perhaps someone at the FCC has been watching "The Avengers."

"The bad guys are beating the good guys with technology,” said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, “due in large part to industry inaction.”

The meeting was bipartisan, including speeches from both Republican Commissioner Ajit Pai and Democratic Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, according to Politico, and the whole effort suggested that the "good guys" were ready to put aside differences over net neutrality, operating system, and the like to free consumers from what Mr. Pai called a "scourge on civilization." 

“The commission has a long history of prohibiting abusive or anticompetitive use of call-blocking technology, but consumers want real relief, and I am optimistic that beginning with today’s conversation, we will be able to deliver to consumers the change they are clamoring for,” Ms. Clyburn said.

The Consumers Union counted the meeting a partial victory already, having petitioned AT&T, CenturyLink, and Verizon to release anti-robocall technology last year. 

“The plan unveiled by the Strike Force today represents an important initial victory for consumers and a sign that the phone companies are taking more serious steps to protect their customers from unwanted calls," said Tim Marvin, manager of Consumers Union’s End Robocalls campaign, in a press release. "We’ll be monitoring the work of the Strike Force closely in the next 60 days to make sure they deliver on these promises.”

The meeting yielded an Oct. 19 deadline for companies to develop solutions and policy recommendations for the robocall problem.

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.