back to article Robocallers who phoned the FCC pretending to be from the FCC land telco in trouble

In its first enforcement action of the Trump presidency, the FCC has voted to propose fining Telnyx $4,492,500 – after scammers pretending to be the watchdog's staff started calling actual FCC staffers via the VoIP telco. The FCC was alerted to the issue on February 6 last year when several staff, and some of their family …

  1. Homo.Sapien.Floridanus

    will it ever end???

    Data: Captain, I'm receiving a sub space signal from 'scam likely'.

    Speaker: [Ferengi Accent] Greetings, I am hoo-man like you, calling from Starship Registration division on Earth planet. Your starship is past registration date and needs to be paid. Do you have access to to your gift card wallet to make payment?

    Q: [appears, smiling at Picard] Let me take this mon capitaine...

  2. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
    Joke

    Reduced tariff

    Fine reduced to half if paid within 14 days, in Trump coin

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Reduced tariff

      I heard the FCC was sending all the gift cards to Hunter Biden.

      1. Paul Herber Silver badge

        Re: Reduced tariff

        What else do the voices in your head say to you?

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Please please

    Can someone come up with an AI speaking bot that mirrors Trump’s voice and crazy demeanour.

    Point it at scam calls and record for great amusement.

    1. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: Please please

      O2 should open source their AI granny. Or if not, make it a paid service, because I'd pay for it.

      1. Strahd Ivarius Silver badge
        Devil

        Re: Please please

        Expect robocalls asking you to pay for that service using gift cards

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Please please

      I started on one, but with the infusion of AI it actually sounded reasonable and I thought that it was too dangerous to continue the project.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    > and the two sides will have to work out a compromise. Typically the agency will reach a no-fault settlement rather than taking the matter to court;

    It's well past time that "no fault" settlements ceased. Yeah you can admit fault, pay, and avoid legal costs, and even more reputational damage.

    But you are paying the fine because you are guilty.

    And the evidence goes in the public record...

  5. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

    Microsoft blocking new government payment (/s)ystem

    Instead of Google gift cards the US government should be selling their own directly. I tried searching to see if they had a system in place under their new name (X). All I got were links to Xbox gift cards. Microsoft introduced the brand in late 2001 over two years after x.com was founded. Clearly Microsoft should cease and desist from using the name to make it easier for US citizens to hand their money over to Musk. Wikipedia is currently a little ahead of events as it lists x.com as a "defunct online bank". As far as I know, the US government is still trading.

  6. JoeCool Silver badge

    not sure how to read this

    "Providers are required to know their customers and secure their networks to deter fraudulent and malicious calls," said Patrick Webre, acting chief of the FCC's Enforcement Bureau."

    is that a reasonable statement, or a populist appeasing rant ?

    i mean, is webre a trump appointee ?

    1. lglethal Silver badge
      Mushroom

      Re: not sure how to read this

      It should be a reasonable statement. If you're giving access to your phone network, you should know the customers name, address, probably have access to an ID, etc. Simply having a credit card number should not be enough.

      But naturally the Telcos don't want that, because then they wouldn't be able to accept so much scam traffic. Dodgy traffic pays, too hell with the real customers...

      1. rcxb Silver badge

        Re: not sure how to read this

        you should know the customers name, address, probably have access to an ID, etc.

        That applies to the originating telcom, but not necessarily any subsequent telcoms that just transmit the traffic through their networks.

        At the bottom of this article, Telnyx says they are the later:

        "Telnyx [...] did not originate"

    2. rcxb Silver badge

      Re: not sure how to read this

      is that a reasonable statement, or a populist appeasing rant ?

      That's been an accurate statement since the implementation of STIR/SHAKEN protocols, procedures, and the laws like TRACED Act that mandated their use:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIR/SHAKEN

      "The FCC also requires all providers—regardless of whether they have a STIR/SHAKEN implementation obligation—to institute robocall mitigation programs to ensure that they are not originating or transmitting illegal robocalls."

      https://www.fcc.gov/call-authentication

      Circa 2021-2022, carriers were required to stop allowing customers to spoof CallerID of whatever source phone # they wanted, and get proof that the customer owned any phone # they would be allowed to spoof. But there probably is some legal wiggle-room in how aggressively telcoms are expected to respond to block transmition of spoofed calls from less-scrupulous small (usually foreign) telcoms.

      And yes, the SHAKEN acronym is rather tortured. An accurate initialism would be something long the lines of: STIR/SHAIT

  7. O'Reg Inalsin

    Is the call originating network and country known? Surely this is a job for Hesgeth - secure the digital borders and blow up the terrorphonists.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Is the call originating network and country known? Surely this is a job for Hesgeth - secure the digital borders and blow up the terrorphonists.

      Oh, sweet summer child.....

  8. MachDiamond Silver badge

    Assurng that

    The comment about the company not finding facilitating these scam calls is in their best interest is a hoot. The phone companies get paid to carry the traffic so anything done that reduces traffic is NOT in their interest. If the telcos were losing money on scammer calls, they implement aggressive ways to shut them down.

  9. Lazlo Woodbine Silver badge

    If the scammers were more believable, they may be more successful

    Recently I've had several text messages from His Majesty's Revenue & Customs, many of them are from overseas phone numbers, and they all want payment in Apple gift cards...

    1. Filippo Silver badge

      It's a filter.

      Same as any other business, robocalls are cheap, but human labor isn't. Scammers want their human personnel to only interact with marks that are highly likely to buy the scam. Therefore, the phishing robocalls or spam emails are crafted in such a way that only the extremely gullible will fall for them.

      They could make extremely plausible phishing attempts. It's not that difficult. But then they would have to talk to thousands of people, only a handful of which are actually dumb enough to pay in the end. It's much more efficient to phish for the dumb ones directly.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I received an email purporting to be from one of my contacts. When asked to send an image of the gift card, I sent them a copy of hello.jpg* which I had lying around.

      *Yes, that one.

    3. MachDiamond Silver badge

      "If the scammers were more believable, they may be more successful"

      Maybe they've worked out that it's easier to scam people willing to fall for a whopper for a mint over trying to get lots of people to cough up £10.

  10. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    Robocallers getting punished always pleases me

    I just hope they don't squirm out of paying the fine . . .

  11. Pete 2 Silver badge

    Daisy

    It sounds like the FCC could use an AI that keeps them occupied, so they can't bother other people

    1. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: Daisy

      "It sounds like the FCC could use an AI that keeps them occupied, so they can't bother other people"

      Finally something useful for AI to do that doesn't dis-employee thousands of people.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Daisy

        In the USA, it would dis-employ all the grannies that still have to work because there is no retirement benefits from the State...

  12. Marty McFly Silver badge
    Go

    I'm with the abstaining Republican...

    A jury trial should be required before any fine can be levied by the government that is paid to the same government. It is an inherent conflict of interest.

    1. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: I'm with the abstaining Republican...

      "A jury trial should be required before any fine can be levied by the government that is paid to the same government. It is an inherent conflict of interest."

      You are more than welcome to challenge the fine if you like. Since they aren't criminal proceedings, a court trial isn't required for a duly constituted agency to asses a fine. Something like a traffic ticket in that sense. You can pay the ticket or challenge it by asking to appear before a judge. A fine can be negotiated down as well.

      If regulatory fines all had to be heard in a court before a jury, too many jurists would be required for one thing. There would need to be many more courthouses constructed and judges/staff hired to be in them. Violations are typically very cut and dry when it comes to this sort of thing. Evidence is to hand and the accused knows they've been caught.

      1. Strahd Ivarius Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: I'm with the abstaining Republican...

        And then you have full employment, and need to allow bloody foreigners to enter your country because you still don't have enough lawyers/judges/staff...

        A Republican(*) nightmare...

        (*) for the current brand of Republican

  13. Rycat
    Happy

    New scam call abatement strategy...

    ...forward all scam calls to the FCC

  14. bjsvec

    Ridiculous

    So dumb and will never stand up in court. Telnyx stated exactly what the FCC has required- to know your customer and take action when fraud is reported. Unless they can be shown to be lying for some reason this seems like a big overreach and even kind of personal because the calls were directed at the FCC what about the millions of other calls directed at citizens?

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

Other stories you might like