France to ban unsolicited telemarketing calls
France’s move to ban unsolicited commercial telemarketing calls is widely welcomed as a response to years of pervasive phone spam and scams that have made many people stop answering unknown numbers altogether. Commenters compare the new law to largely ineffective “do not call” registries elsewhere, arguing that enforcement, telco liability, and technical measures against caller ID spoofing will determine whether it actually reduces abuse. Others worry about edge cases—like legitimate B2B sales, charities, or overseas call centers dependent on French clients—and see the change as part of a broader struggle to reclaim communication channels from aggressive marketing.
Overall reaction to France’s ban
- Many welcome it as overdue; some say telemarketing has “ruined” phone calls, especially for elderly and vulnerable people.
- Others doubt impact: previous opt‑out systems (e.g., Bloctel in France) reduced legitimate marketing but not scams, which already ignore laws.
- Some see it as mainly helping landline users and retirees; skeptics call it symbolic unless paired with real enforcement and telco obligations.
Telemarketing vs scams
- Repeated distinction: the law targets commercial telemarketing, not outright scams or political/charity calls.
- Several note in practice most unsolicited calls they get are now scams (loan offers, fake banks, “Microsoft support”, fake delivery, etc.).
- Concern that banning telemarketing may just leave the criminal layer, which already violates existing law.
Technical and protocol constraints
- Caller‑ID spoofing is central: legacy phone protocols (SS7, TDM) trust caller‑provided numbers, making spoofing easy.
- STIR/SHAKEN and similar authentication exist but are limited, especially across borders and with roaming.
- Some countries (Finland, parts of Spain, Norway/Sweden) now block or flag international calls that present local numbers, which users report sharply reduced scam calls.
- Others argue telcos profit from high‑volume calling and have little incentive to tighten authentication without regulation.
Opt‑out lists and enforcement
- Many countries have do‑not‑call registries (Spain’s Lista Robinson, Sweden’s NIX, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, US/Canada, Italy, etc.).
- Reported effectiveness varies widely: from “almost no spam” (Nordic, Spain for some) to “useless, totally ignored” (US, Canada, parts of Italy, Netherlands).
- Common pattern: they constrain “sorta legal” marketers but not criminal operations, especially offshore. Enforcement capacity is a recurring concern.
Personal defenses & apps
- Widespread coping strategies: never answer unknown numbers, use “contacts only” or call‑screening features, rely on voicemail/text, or use apps with shared spam lists (Saracroche, Truecaller, Should I Answer, carrier apps).
- Some use whitelist/blacklist by prefix; in France, specific telemarketing prefixes already existed and apps exploit them.
Broader ethical and economic debates
- Many view cold calls as harassment akin to other unwanted intrusions; others defend B2B cold calling as a crucial channel for small firms and sales training.
- Debate over religious/charity door‑to‑door or calls: some equate them with marketing; others invoke freedom of religion/charity as distinct.
- Concerns about jobs in offshore call centers (e.g., Morocco) vs. the right not to be hassled.
- Several propose economic solutions: per‑call charges to callers, consumer “review fees”, or making phone contracts formed via unsolicited calls legally void.