Reply to post: Re: Can we have some collection statistics?

Nuisance call blocking firms fined £170,000 ... for making nuisance calls


Re: Can we have some collection statistics?

Well said, VRH!

Here in the US the FTC touts "billions in judgements" and gets annual budgets of--if memory serves--upwards of 100 million taxpayer dollars for an activity that, as near as I can tell does not have real capability or legal authority to actually do anything to stop or deter SPAM and violations of the no not call registry.

It's been a couple of years since I waded through the legalese, but the last time I looked, the net effect of the language of the laws and implementing regulations is to ensure that no one has both capability and responsibility for final action. This is a windmill that I used to tilt at occasionally. The only success I ever had was with one SPAMMER who was inept enough to allow me to get at an actual physical address in a state that made sending SPAM a criminal offense and had a group dedicated to enforcement.

The simple solution to this is to put a miniscule surtax on all outgoing transmissions. A half cent or two per phone call would be lost in the noise, but would be a significant cost for a robocalling operation. The Telco's may not know who is using their networks. But they damned well know who and where they send the monthly bills for use of the numbers to.

As to the claim that the numbers are fake, and there is no way to pin them down. . . If that is so, then we have serious national security vulnerabilities and all the assurances from our governments about their ability to protect citizens against terrorism are so much smoke and mirrors.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019