[zackmorris]

This is a classic example of an unintended consequence of deregulation.

Normally we could petition our elected officials and get something done about it. But lobbyists have come to so completely dominate our legislative process that whole industries have effectively coopted the government through regulatory capture.

On top of that, they've hoodwinked half the population into thinking that regulation bad.

At this point, we can all remain hypervigilant and snoop on our grandparents and get sucked into various private industry scams like identity insurance. We can play games with switching carriers within the duopolies in our areas when they let scammers steal from us. We can project loudly on social media when someone across the world steals right from out of our bank accounts, and haggle with our credit card companies to charge it back and rip off some merchant so that we don't have to pay. This is how scams metastasize into protection rackets and authoritarianism.

Or we could like, make this all illegal and charge carriers directly when it happens. But that would cost rich people money. So rich people run propaganda campaigns to convince us that fines just get passed on to consumers. Which doesn't make any sense in a free market, where we could switch to a cheaper carrier that didn't get fined.

Once we see this from that meta level (that political controversy is rooted in misdirection and lies) it just gets so tiring to watch the same debates over and over. Maybe we need some rich people to step up and call out this nonsense (dragons give up their loot so easily). Maybe we need to organize and start some consumer unions that dictate to vendors how much we'll pay for their services until they shape up. Maybe we should get back to our geek roots and start a free peer to peer wireless network.

Huh, writing out this rant, I just had a thought. Where's the keystone in this? Political progress can't be hacked, so none of our instincts around quick fixes work. In other words, the half of the population that has the working solution has to somehow convince the other half to go along with it. That can be a long and painful process spanning decades.

So what does the other half want? What concession to them would result in getting legislation passed to solve this?

[nostromo]

Telcos are one of the most regulated industries in existence.

And as I point out in my sibling comment, bad regulation is the reason this problem exists: because telcos are not legally able to block most spam calls. If not for this regulation, telcos would have solved spam callers long ago by blocking suspected sources of spam. (Instead, they do work-arounds like labeling them "scam likely.")

[supertrope]

The FCC gave the green light to blocking spam in June 2019. https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/blog/2019/06/05/beating-back.... This resolved AT&T's concern/excuse that their legal obligation to connect all calls included spam.

[Nifty3929]

I gave you an upvote even though I'm going to disagree with you. In general, I'm very open-market and low-regulation - however in this particular case you're touching on the idea of a "common carrier," which is an important idea.

When you have one (or a small number of) providers, in a high-barrier-to-entry industry, that provides a critical service - this gives these providers enormous power over us if they were to refuse to do business with us or charge us higher rates. Think water, electric, shipping/postal, internet access, telco, etc.

What if the postal service decided to stop doing business with you, perhaps because of the offensive content of the letters you want to send? Or nobody will ship your merchandise because they don't approve of it? Or your internet provider cancels you? And what if there are a small number of them that collude on these bans, so now you can't even switch providers?

By designating certain industries as "common carriers" it prohibits them from denying service to anyone for any reason, except for particularly obvious, egregious and illegal reasons.

If you want to send out Nazi propaganda newsletters to people who have requested them - the US Postal Service will (and should, I believe) deliver them for you.

We should not allow telcos to decide who's calls to put through. This is a job for legislators and law enforcement, however imperfect those solutions are.

[chinabot]

Scam calls are already criminal what more regulation is required?

[zackmorris]

That sounds plausible, I can understand that carriers shouldn't filter traffic, because that goes against net neutrality. So it sounds like carriers can't block traffic at their level, but can attach metadata that the end user can block. I did a quick search on how that would work and found this info from Robokiller (no affiliation):

https://www.robokiller.com/robocall-blocking-technology

Under the Governmental backing turndown arrow:

We’re fighting behind the scenes to get government support for better fighting robocalls. The FCC’s TRACED Act is just one piece of legislation we’re behind that will increase penalties for robocallers–but there’s far more work that needs to be done.

I realized a TL;DR of my rant after writing it:

Organized crime is stealing from members of the community and the police rarely succeed in returning stolen property. The mayor claims to be trying to help, but mostly works at reelection. Half the community wants to pass a law to fine a middleman who sees crime occurring but does little to stop it. The other half claims that the law itself facilitates the crime and wants to cancel more laws. Some people hire a watchdog to prevent the crime, and that seems to work. Others feel that if the crime affects the whole community, then a solution should be part of the commons, because vulnerable and/or impoverished members of the community would be left defenseless otherwise.

I'm in that second camp. I feel that a conservative argument here is: if I have to be bothered by every little thing because the government can't do its job to defend the community and the security of its property, then that's not a republic, it's anarchy.

[Diesel555]

Anyone claiming “deregulation” for the names sake is speaking rhetoric without knowledge. Both conservative and liberal economists agree with regulation. The most conservative of economists understand the concept of externalities. Call centers bear a clear externality. The business transaction between the telecom Company and the caller bears a negative externality on the callee who is not a member of that transaction. Conservative economists would also agree with regulation to at least impose a cost on the transaction to reflect that externality. The problem is with policy and lobbying as you stated - write your member of congress.

To comment on a now deleted post to this comment: I’m not arguing that bad regulation doesn’t exist which can perpetuate and help continue market failures. I’m arguing that good regulation is the fix to known market failures and economists on both sides recognize that.

[mschuster91]

> The most conservative of economists understand the concept of externalities.

Even conservative economists (and for that matter, also other experts) usually aren't dumb, but I've never seen one of them act on their knowledge appropriately. They all prioritize their ideology and their donors, some of them even refuse to listen to science and facts when people die by the masses.

[WalterBright]

> I've never seen one of them act on their knowledge appropriately

Milton Friedman

[Diesel555]

You are confusing economists with politicians. I can point you to many conservative economists who recommend good policy - whether or not that is implemented is a different story. Economists are advisors, not decision makers, in this context.