Bill Overview
Title: FINE Act
Description: This bill allows a state attorney general to recover unpaid penalties imposed by the Federal Communications Commission for illegal robocalls and other violations of restrictions on the use of automated telephone equipment.
Sponsors: Rep. Hudson, Richard [R-NC-8]
Target Audience
Population: People worldwide receiving robocalls or affected by automated telephone equipment violations
Estimated Size: 250000000
- The bill targets illegal robocalls and violations of automated telephone equipment restrictions.
- Robocalls have a global scope, potentially affecting anyone with a telephone.
- Anyone receiving illegal robocalls could potentially see a decrease in such calls if this bill is effective.
- Globally, robocalls are prevalent, affecting millions of people.
Reasoning
- The policy targets a large portion of the population that interacts with telephone systems and could be affected by robocalls, which are pervasive.
- The budgetary constraints suggest a limited magnitude of impact per individual given the vast population affected.
- Optimizing enforcement can help in mitigating robocalls but may only result in marginal improvements in perceived wellbeing.
- Wellbeing improvements are more likely to be perceived in terms of reduced annoyance and improved quality of life rather than substantial economic benefits.
- The impact might be more pronounced in demographics that heavily depend on telephone communication for critical purposes.
- Even without the policy, natural advancements in technology and regulations could modestly curb robocalls.
Simulated Interviews
Retired (Florida)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hoping this policy will reduce the number of nuisance calls I get every day.
- It's frustrating when I'm trying to relax and my phone keeps buzzing for no reason.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Software Engineer (California)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy sounds good, but I'm not sure how effective it will be.
- Automated calls are a hassle, especially during work hours.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Nurse (New York)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that reduces robocalls is welcome as they confuse my patients.
- It would be a relief to have fewer interrupted moments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Freelancer (Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's an interesting approach, and I hope it actually works.
- Robocalls are distracting when I'm in the middle of work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Truck Driver (Illinois)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fewer robocalls would be great; they distract me while driving.
- It's like a little nuisance that keeps bothering you.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Elementary School Teacher (Ohio)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Robocalls are really annoying, especially during class.
- I hope this helps to secure my phone from those calls.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
College Student (Washington)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy works, because spam calls are really annoying.
- It interrupts my work and sometimes even wakes me up.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Retired (Alabama)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this really reduces the calls.
- It's hard to differentiate important calls from these annoying robocalls.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Entrepreneur (Colorado)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These calls take time away from my work and personal life.
- I hope this will help streamline actual business-related calls.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Customer Service Manager (New Jersey)
Age: 56 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am skeptical but willing to see if this works.
- Robocalls clutter our communication lines, but we have blockers in place.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $8000000)
Year 2: $5100000 (Low: $2050000, High: $8150000)
Year 3: $5200000 (Low: $2100000, High: $8300000)
Year 5: $5400000 (Low: $2200000, High: $8600000)
Year 10: $5900000 (Low: $2450000, High: $9350000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Key Considerations
- The enforcement of existing penalties may incur minimal additional costs primarily for state governments.
- Deterrent effects could reduce future violations, but savings estimates are uncertain.
- The fines collected could offset costs or increase revenue for state governments.
- Potential variations in state pursuit of penalties may result in inconsistent impacts.