Bill Overview
Title: Robocall Trace Back Enhancement Act
Description: This bill provides liability protection for specified information-sharing activities undertaken to trace the origins of unlawful robocalls. Specifically, the bill protects a designated consortium that conducts private-led efforts to trace unlawful robocalls from liability for receiving, sharing, or publishing information about illegal calls, including their origin or source. The bill also applies liability protection to a voice service provider (i.e., a provider of any service that enables real-time, two-way voice communications) or other entity or person that shares information with the consortium.
Sponsors: Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH-5]
Target Audience
Population: Phone users impacted by robocalls
Estimated Size: 330000000
- Unlawful robocalls affect individuals across all demographics who use phone services.
- Robocalls are a significant concern globally, affecting billions of phone users.
- Regulations that enhance tracing of robocalls can impact the entire telecommunication ecosystem, including both individuals and businesses.
Reasoning
- The budget limits the scope and scale of the policy's implementation. With $2,000,000 USD in year 1, only a fraction of the 330 million Americans potentially affected can be directly reached through campaign and tracing initiatives.
- The indirect benefit to self-reported wellbeing comes from the potential decrease in robocalls, leading to fewer disturbances and possibly lower anxiety or stress related to phone scams.
- We should also expect varying impacts based on demographic factors, such as age and comfort with technology, which influence how robocalls are perceived.
- Given these considerations, we'll simulate various individuals and their experiences or anticipations around this policy change, focusing on diversity in age, location, and occupation.
Simulated Interviews
retiree (Florida)
Age: 68 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I really hope this policy helps reduce the number of annoying calls I get every day.
- I feel stressed picking up calls because they might be scams.
- If these robocalls reduce, it will make my day-to-day better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
software engineer (California)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Robocalls are annoying but not disruptive for me.
- I'm less worried about them thanks to technology that blocks most robocalls.
- I'm curious to see if this policy will make a noticeable difference.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
small business owner (New York)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Robocalls affect my business productivity significantly.
- The policy could save me time and reduce stress associated with phone scams.
- If the policy works as intended, I can focus more on my business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
customer service representative (Illinois)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm skeptical but hopeful that the policy will lessen robocalls.
- Frequent robocallenable real-time, two-way voice communications)
- I prioritize security in phone use due to scam threats.
- If things improve, it could ease my job and personal communications.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
construction worker (Texas)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't understand much about technology, but robocalls are a nuisance.
- I hope this policy works to reduce these calls.
- I'm not sure if anything will change, but it's worth trying.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
college student (Boston)
Age: 21 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might be more useful for my parents than myself.
- I use tech to block robocalls, so I'm mostly unaffected.
- I support the initiative as it may help more vulnerable people.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
retired police officer (Ohio)
Age: 61 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm frequently disrupted by these calls while taking care of my spouse.
- This policy should help reduce the interruptions.
- If successful, it'll improve our peace of mind.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
freelance writer (Washington)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Robocalls disrupt my workflow.
- It's essential to have policies in place to protect people like me.
- The idea is promising, and if it delivers, it'll enhance my productivity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
high school teacher (Pennsylvania)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't get too many robocalls personally, thanks to blockers.
- My concern is more for students and their families who might be targeted.
- The policy could be a great preventive measure for the community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
retired nurse (Georgia)
Age: 72 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These calls are worrisome and hard for me to manage.
- I need this policy to significantly reduce these scam attempts.
- If it works, it will relieve me and improve my sense of security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 2: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 3: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 5: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 10: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 100: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Key Considerations
- Liability protection is anticipated to encourage proactive collaboration among companies, enhancing enforcement of robocall regulations.
- While initial costs are low, the cumulative impact of implementation could depend on how robust tracing and sharing are structured.