Wall Street Journal, Sarah Crass, FCC discussed on This Morning with Gordon Deal


As does congress. So this all dates back to changes under the Obama administration FCC that sort of defined an auto dialer fairly broadly court said, you know what you need to go back to the drawing board and clarify this in a in a more specific way that it had overreached and determined at the time. And so. Final decision from court was over a year ago. So this is a question that hasn't been answered for quite some time. In the meantime, there's a fairly large body of consumer lawsuits, and class action suits, that have bubbled up. In the meantime, you talk about that the challenges a view were put on a no call list and you still got calls. Does that show that that's not really working well? That's a little bit of a different conversation. Like if you're, if you're on the national do not call registry, and company calls you that as a legal violation of that telephone consumer protection. People challenged this robocall situation, through that or, or in a different way. Yeah. So consumers have brought a thousands of, of lawsuits for violations of the, the main lava telephone consumer Protection Act that's meant to protect customers from telemarketing abuses, and companies can be find anywhere from five hundred dollars to fifteen hundred dollars per violation of that. So there have been some pretty hefty settlements that have resulted from those consumer claims businesses say, you know, there's different court rulings on this. It's hard to know exactly what is acceptable and processes to use for this, and they want to clarity. We're speaking with Sarah crass of the Wall Street Journal Sara where do the carrier stand in this whole dispute. The carriers are a little outside of this piece of it. They were given power last week by the SEC analyze their network traffic. So the calls crossing their network to block what they consider to be unwanted, or a legal robocalls. So where previously customers to opt into that type of service. Now carriers are allowed to offer that by default. And so they are sort of charged at this point, or they're giving the power at this point to weed out what they consider suspicious activity. So company, does not want to be considered a robo caller, what kind of a step can they take? Under under what the FCC did last week. You know, it's sort of up to the carriers and businesses have an issue with it. They would need to appeal to a carrier and say, hey, I'm a legitimate caller, and I think you're blocking by calls, but is a carrier by carrier difference in terms of what they provide to says for flagging that issue is there, a specific type of company that does not want to be considered a robocaller. I mean, most legitimate businesses that want to be able to, you know, quickly and at scale contact their customers want to be able to use some sort of automated dialing system, just because it's cheaper and more efficient, what businesses advocate for is. Hey, if we're making an automated call, but we're timing it so that human is available when you answer that shouldn't classify as an illegal robocall, that should be fine. But that's where you get into the difference of opinion is admittedly, like a pretty wonky corner. In terms of. Does the technology you're using randomly or sequentially generate a number and the call without human venture. There's all these sort of very nitty gritty thresholds that the different interested parties are advocating for her against here. The bottom line is, it's pretty confusing, and it probably will not be cleared up for a while. That's correct. Thank Sarah's aircraft of the Wall Street Journal. It's twelve minutes before the.

Coming up next