Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Yeah, I know; I used the term "compliance desk" ironically. Sorry.

Ah I see. I was just trying to cover my bases to avoid splitting hairs over what compliance desk means and get to the point about these companies probably not being sophisticated enough to comply (or appear to comply).

> I just meant that someone is going to wake up, and realize that it's their problem, personally.

> Or not.

The or not is kind of what concerns me, because this might be the end for a lot of these companies. Rather than just cutting people off, the FCC should take a role kind of like how the Fed does, but for telecom. Take over the carrier, continue operations, assist the legit subscribers with moving onto a compliant carrier and then shut it down. I'm not sure how number portability is affected when a carrier just shuts down, but it might not be pretty.

A lot of people take the "shouldn't have signed up with spammy telco!" stance here as if everyone has the gift of knowing how to vet a carrier. Hopefully not too many people (and ideally no people) get hurt by this sort of enforcement.



> Take over the carrier, continue operations, assist the legit subscribers with moving onto a compliant carrier and then shut it down.

I got the impression that a lot of these firms are overseas. E.g., SIA Tet seems to be Latvian. The FCC can't just direct these companies; but they can "advise" (lean on) domestic carriers not to deliver their traffic.


In that case, there's not much that can be done, and also I think there's a stronger assumption of those numbers being disposable (at least for calling US family members and whatnot, plus just not being used as much to make legit international calls). But as far as US companies, I think the FCC stepping in would be appropriate if the FCC authorizes blocking their traffic.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: