Wow, so now the FCC is guilty because a court overturned an order from the
previous FCC...
Who Kenw?
Regards
Craig
On Mar 22, 2019, at 9:33 PM, Manfredi (US), Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Monty Solomon posted:
John Oliver fights robocalls... by robocalling Ajit Pai and the FCChttps://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/03/john-oliver-fights-robocalls-by-robocalling-ajit-pai-and-the-fcc/
Pai has helped robocallers by failing to issue strict rules, Oliver argues.
"Oliver pointed out that Pai opposed Obama-era FCC anti-robocall rules and
'was extremely happy when they were overturned.' Oliver was referring to a
March 2018 court ruling in which federal judges said a 2015 FCC order
improperly treated every American who owns a smartphone as a potential
robocaller."
It is incumbent upon the FCC to word rulings correctly, which it had done in
2015. Furthermore, to explain to non-technically-savvy lawyers what the
issues are, INSTEAD OF exploiting the ignorance of said non-technical
lawyers, to further the FCC's own crooked agenda.
Best to go back and read what this is all about:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/ajit-pai-celebrates-after-court-strikes-down-obama-era-robocall-rule/
"Under the US law, an autodialer is a device with the 'capacity' to perform
the function of 'storing or producing telephone numbers "using a random or
sequential number generator"' and the capacity of 'dialing those numbers,'
the judges noted."
And the FCC made it clear that software which does dial "random or sequential
numbers" is not permitted. Just as, we each have the "capacity" to pull out a
knife and stab someone. But if we do so, we have to suffer the consequences.
No one is a criminal just because he has the capacity to be one.
"Imagine, for instance, that a person wishes to send an invitation for a
social gathering to a person she recently met for the first time. If she
lacks prior express consent to send the invitation, and if she obtains the
acquaintance's cell phone number from a mutual friend, she ostensibly commits
a violation of federal law by calling or sending a text message from her
smartphone to extend the invitation. And if she sends a group message
inviting 10 people to the gathering, again without securing prior express
consent from any of the recipients, she not only would have infringed the
TCPA 10 distinct times but would also face a minimum damages recovery against
her of $5,000."
The premise is false. So, FCC, why is it difficult to explain that a person
dialing 10 numbers, or for that matter even 100, even without their "prior
consent," as long as she is not dialing RANDOM OR SEQUENTIAL numbers, is not
committing a crime? Could it be that the words "random" and "sequential" are
too technically obscure for some folk? They have a very specific meaning.
It is the FCC's job to understand these concepts, not to pretend they are
dumber than dirt. Or maybe they are?
Jessica Rosenworcel said it right:
"The FCC needs to step up the fight against robocalls, Democratic FCC
Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said.
"One thing is clear in the wake of today's court decision: robocalls will
continue to increase unless the FCC does something about it," Rosenworcel
said Friday. "That means that the same agency that had the audacity to take
away your net neutrality rights is now on the hook for protecting you from
the invasion of annoying robocalls. It's past time for the American public to
get a serious response from the FCC-and a reprieve from the unrelenting
nuisance these calls have become for so many of us."
Sure enough, put a crook in charge, and nuisance robocalls have been on the
rise.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
