Who’s calling?

AT&T scored the highest – an A on services and a B overall – even though it has only partial anti-robocall technology implementation. It scored high because it offers 9 of the 10 services to fight unwanted calls and texts and doesn’t charge customers an unnecessary monthly fee for allowing customers to step-up their protection with various types of blocks or filters. The only basic service it doesn’t offer: Allowing a customer to create a white list to accept calls only from contacts or specific numbers.

AT&T’s free ActiveArmor app offers the most common protections, such as automatic blocking of suspected fraudulent or spam calls, alerts for nuisance calls and filtering for spam texts. It does have a paid version but that offers atypical services, including a VPN, identity theft monitoring and blocks for harmful URLs on the internet.

In contrast, T-Mobile, Verizon and U.S. Cellular don’t offer as many of the basic services to all customers, or charge a monthly fee for their apps that offer more protection, such as blocking calls in unwanted categories, including “nuisance” or “political.” Verizon charges all customers who want the advanced app for more protection. T-Mobile and U.S. Cellular offer their premium app free for those with more expensive plans, but charge those with basic cell plans.

T-Mobile earned a C on services. It offers 8 of the 10 services for companies with texting, but it lost 1 point because it charges $4 per month for some plans for its Scam Shield Premium app. The premium app is used to block entire categories of calls, such as telemarketers or political solicitors, or to block calls or texts from specific numbers.

It’s available at no charge for higher-tier “unbundle carrier” benefits that also include international roaming, mobile hotspot and free streaming services.

It added 5 points because it has installed anti-robocall technology through its entire network. T-Mobile ended with 7 out of 10 for services and 12 out of 15 overall.

UScellular offers 7 of the 10 services for wireless customers. But it lost 1 point because it charges $3.99 per month for its Call Guardian Premium for some plans. The app allows customers to block nuisance calls, block neighbor spoofing and create a personal block list. It’s available at no charge for higher-tier calling plans.

It gets 5 points because it has installed anti-robocall technology through its entire network. UScellular ends with 6 out of 10 points for services and 11 out of 15 overall.

Verizon offers 7 of the 10 services for wireless customers. But it lost 2 points because it charges $3.99 per month for its Call Filter Plus app, needed for Caller ID, a spam risk meter, a personal block list or to block by category. Verizon ends with 5 out of 10 for services – an F. It added 5 points because it has installed anti-robocall technology through its entire network. It ended with 5 out of 10 points for services and 10 out of 15 overall.

In our scoring, we deducted points for any provider that charged extra to allow customers to control the types of calls they don’t want. All four of these cellular providers have the ability to block many types of spam and scam calls. How dare they charge a monthly fee to allow customers to protect themselves better.

AT&T doesn’t charge any customers for its extra protection app. T-Mobile and UScellular charge some customers. Verizon charges all customers.

Nextlink was one of three double A companies – an A on services and an A overall. Nextlink offers phone service in 11 states, mostly in the middle of the country, from Wyoming to Minnesota and down to Texas and Louisiana.

It earned the highest grades in our survey, with near-perfect scores of 9.5 for services and 14.5 overall. It offers all eight of the basic services, including blocking known scam calls and spoofed numbers by default, warning on screen that a call may be spam or a scam and allowing customers to block/filter all calls with no Caller ID (often called “anonymous call rejection.”)

It also blocks suspected spam and scam texts by default. The only service it doesn’t offer is allowing customers to block email-to-text messages. This is currently encouraged by the FCC; it may be required soon. Nextlink said it isn’t offering this yet but has plans to do so; this earned the company a half-point.

It also has installed anti-robocall technology throughout its entire network, according to its filing with the FCC; less than half of providers operating in the United States  have done this, according to U.S. PIRG’s analysis of FCC data.

Charter/Spectrum also earned a double A  – an A on services and an A overall. with scores of 9 and 14, respectively.

Charter/Spectrum provides phone service in 41 states. It offers 9 of the 10 basic services we surveyed and has installed anti-robocall technology networkwide . It earned tied for the second-highest score, 9 out of 10 points on services and 14 out of 15 points overall.

It lost one point because it doesn’t offer a white list, as allowed by FCC since 2019.

Charter’s Spectrum mobile service relies on its underlying “mobile network operator” to offer protections related to blocking suspected spam texts and blocking email-to-text messages. The latter is currently encouraged by the FCC and may be required soon.

Comcast/Xfinity earned an A for services and an A overall in our survey. It’s one of the nation’s largest cable providers and home phone providers, operating in about 40 states. It also offers Xfinity cellphone service, using Verizon’s network and Comcast hotspots.

The only service among the basic eight that it doesn’t appear to offer: Allowing customers to create a white list to accept calls only from contacts or specific numbers, as allowed by FCC since 2019.

Its Comcast and Xfinity filings with the FCC indicate the company has installed anti-robocall technology throughout its networks.

That gives the company an A overall, one of only three companies to earn an overall A. It’s one of five companies to earn an A for services.

Comcast was also one of the original 12 companies that signed on to an agreement on anti-robocall principles in 2019 with attorneys general from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Lumen Technologies/CenturyLink earned an A for services and a B overall, with scores of 8 and 11, respectively. It operates in 16 states. It offers all eight of the basic services we surveyed, including blocking known scam calls and spoofed numbers by default, allowing customers to block or filter all calls with no Caller ID and allowing customers to create a white list to allow calls only from contacts or specific numbers.

It’s one of the largest landline companies in the United States. It earned three out of five points for installing anti-robocall technology in only part of its network. Companies with non-Internet Protocol phone lines often need more time to implement the technology. Lumen has an extension through the FCC for the non-IP parts of its network.

“We share our customers’ frustration with fraudulent and unwanted automated telephone solicitations and are committed to doing our part to stop these annoying and harmful calls,” said Lumen spokeswoman Linda Johnson.

“We have taken and continue to take substantial steps to combat illegal robocalls on our network and wherever we can as an intermediary transit provider that hands off calls originating on other providers’ networks.”

Johnson noted that Lumen/CenturyLink is a founder of the Industry Traceback Group, which she said “helps reputable providers like us trace back fraudulent calls to their source and pursue action to cut them off.”

Lumen/CenturyLink was also one of the original 12 companies that signed on to an agreement on anti-robocall principles in 2019 with attorneys general from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Mediacom, which offers phone service in 22 states, provides seven of the 10 basic services we surveyed and has installed anti-robocall technology throughout its entire network, according to its filing with the FCC. That earns Mediacom a C for services and a B overall, with scores of 7 of 10 for services and 12 of 15 overall. Only seven companies in our survey earned an A or a B overall.

The two missing services: It doesn’t allow customers to block or filter all calls with no Caller ID and doesn’t offer a white list.

“These solutions are not perfect and there is a balance to help ensure we don’t block valid calls,” said Thomas Larsen, Mediacom’s senior vice president for government and public relations. “The solutions we have implemented are constantly reevaluated, so we stay relevant with customer needs and changing regulations/technologies.”

Larsen noted that Mediacom has gone beyond the federal anti-robocall technology by offering multiple solutions (TNS and Neustar) to protect people from robocalls.

“The solutions use technology and known bad-actors and other sources to block calls,” he said.

On its mobile side, it operates on Verizon’s network, offering the same on-screen spam warnings Verizon does.

“We don’t have additional apps on top of that currently,” Larsen added. “The important thing to note is a large part of customers have smartphones and the contact on the phone supersedes any info identified by the spam solution.”

WOW! offers only six of the eight basic services but has installed anti-robocall technology throughout its entire network, according to its filing with the FCC. It operates in six states. WOW! earned a C on services and a B overall, with scores of 6 of 8 for services and 11 of 13 overall.

WOW! spokeswoman Debra Havins pulled back the curtain a bit on WOW!’s robocall-blocking approach: “We automatically block calls with a –4 score and send Caller ID alerts with –3 and –2 scores,” she said.

While this is managed at the network level and consumers can’t customize this by choosing to block calls with a -3 or -2 score, Havins said, “we have found this approach to be effective (to) block known spam calls and give customers added information on the calls that may be suspicious.”

As with many phone providers, WOW!’s network has evolved: it purchased small providers in the Southeast including Knology of the Valley, Knology Total Communications and Valley Telephone Co. about 15 years ago. And it sold markets to Cogeco, Atlantic and Breezeline in 2022.

Cox Communications earned a B for services because it offers seven of the eight basic services we surveyed. Cox operates in 18 states. The customer protection services offered include blocking known scam calls and spoofed numbers by default, warning on screen that a call may be spam and allowing customers to block or filter all calls with no Caller ID. The only one it doesn’t offer: A customer’s ability to create a white list to allow calls only from pre-approved numbers or contacts.

Cox also blocks certain text messages that are likely to be spam / scams because they’re coming from numbers unlikely to text or numbers that aren’t actually assigned to any or any government office. A new FCC rule in January 2024 required providers to follow most of this by March 2024.

It ended with grades of B for services and C overall, with scores of 7 of 10 for services and 11 of 15 overall.

Cox is one of seven companies to earn an A or B on services.

It earned a C overall because it has installed anti-robocall technology in only part of its network, according to its filing with the FCC. Companies with non-Internet Protocol phone lines often need more time to implement the technology. Cox has an extension through the FCC for a “small portion” of its network.

Windstream earned 7 out of 8 points for services. It doesn’t offer an on-screen “verified” number alert or an additional app or service that allows customers to filter possible spam calls and texts, according to their preferences. But Windstream is considering the former and has the latter on its development plan. So it earned a half-point for each.

It earned a B on services and a C overall, with scores of 7 of 8 and 10 of 13 respectively. It has only partially installed anti-robocall technology, according to its filing with the FCC. Companies with non-Internet Protocol phone lines often need more time to implement the technology.

Windstream is one of seven companies to earn an A or B on services.

Windstream offers a trifecta of optional services: anonymous call rejection, selective call acceptance and selective call rejection.

It’s one of five companies in our survey that allow customers to block calls with no Caller ID and create a white list to accept calls only from contacts or specific numbers. The others are Frontier, Lumen/CenturyLink, Nextlink and WOW!

Windstream’s acceptance/rejection features are included with both residential and commercial phone services at no additional charge, according to Scott Morris, Windstream’s associate director of corporate affairs.

Mayes is also a member of the 51-attorney general Anti-Robocall Multistate Litigation Task Force.

Then in December, the FCC announced new enforcement and other actions to crack down on companies that are continuing to allow illegal and unwanted robocalls to travel on their networks. The FCC said 2,411 voice service providers “failed to properly file in the Robocall Mitigation Database and must show cause why they should not be removed.” When a company is removed from the RMD, all other phone companies are prohibited from allowing call traffic from the banned providers.

But remember calls on the lines means dollars in the pockets of phone companies.

“Phone providers can’t put their profits first and turn a blind eye to the illegal robocallers they allow on our phone networks,” Josh Stein, then North Carolina’s attorney general and now governor, said in December

At the same time, the coalition of state AGs sent formal warnings to four voice service providers suspected of allowing tens of millions of scam calls on their networks. The task force said attorneys general sent the results of their investigations to the FCC.

Most phone companies need to do more to protect their customers. Half of the companies in this analysis earn D or F grades regarding the free services they don’t offer.

Companies are allowed to block suspected scam or spoof calls from ever reaching consumers, as long as they give their customers a chance to opt back in. Companies are also allowed to label calls as possible scams or spam. And they’re allowed to display a checkmark or V next to a phone number, indicating the call is coming from the number displayed.

More companies are offering more of these services than a couple of years ago, but still, too few companies offer these protections for their customers. In some cases, if they do, they charge customers monthly fees.

More companies also should give customers the power to block or filter suspicious calls or calls with no Caller ID or texts from unknown numbers if they want. They’re allowed to offer “anonymous call rejection” for calls with no Caller ID, and “selective call acceptance,” for people we may do to protect from getting calls outside of their contacts. The latter is often used for children or elderly folks. Many companies don’t offer these services.

The FCC continues to refine its rules to try to squash unwanted robocalls. For example, the FCC in 2023 announced new rules to require all providers, regardless whether they’ve installed STIR/SHAKEN, to take “reasonable steps to mitigate illegal robocall traffic” and detail what they’re doing in the FCC’s Robocall Mitigation Database. The FCC must follow through with its promises to protect us.

The FCC needs to pass more rules to combat robotexts, requiring phone companies to block obviously illegal text messages. The FCC took baby steps in 2024 and has more rules proposed. The rules require mobile wireless carriers to block texts originating from invalid, unallocated, or unused numbers. Texts from these numbers are most likely to be illegal, the FCC says.

The rules affect only 10-digit numbers and toll-free numbers, not “short code” messages. Short code messages are generally five- or six-digit numbers often used by companies to reach people who’ve opted in to receive texts about bank transactions, prescriptions ready for pickup, suspicious account log-ins, etc. Because there’s no phone number attached to the messages, you can’t really determine who sent them. (Pro tip: Create a named contact for entities you expect to receive texts from periodically. That way, you’ll know they’re legit.)

Other rules proposed would affect short code numbers, texts to numbers on the Do Not Call Registry and texts from marketers who didn’t get permission directly but tried to piggyback on consent given to a partner. Our phone numbers could be getting provided by lead generators and data brokers, the FCC says.

The FCC also encourages phone companies are also encouraged to allow customers to make email-to-text messages opt-in. It’s optional now; it could be required in the future. This is important because “texts originating from email addresses, rather than telephone numbers, account for a significant percentage of fraudulent text messages,” the FCC says. “The email-to-text messages process allows the sender to be anonymous because the text is sent from an email account on a computer, not a phone number.”

Consumers can be defrauded in all types of ways. Among the most damaging: When a person is duped into thinking a call or text is from their bank and must act immediately, or is tricked into believing they must provide a code to someone who wants to buy their car or who found their lost pet. Scammers use two-factor authentication codes to hack into accounts and steal money in mere seconds, often through person-to-person payment services such as Zelle and other “instant payments” that are difficult to get back.

We didn’t see the volume and size of fraud we see now, until instant payments were possible. Instant payments mean instant fraud, and the money stolen usually can’t be recovered.

Banks must do more to protect people, starting with three easy-to-understand policies:

• Put guardrails on Zelle payment. Require Zelle to be an opt-in service with a 24- or 48-hour delay to be active. Banks can and do make Zelle opt-in for teenagers; they should do the same for all customers. Many bank customers whose accounts are raided because of Zelle have never used Zelle and didn’t even know their account could send a payment through Zelle. But Zelle can be used in a scam in mere seconds.
• Limit money sent to first-time recipients. Zelle was founded just seven years ago, in 2017. What did we do before that? We didn’t send money instantly from our bank accounts to someone who could disappear in minutes. We survived just fine before instant payments. Other person-to-person payment services carry risks as well, but not like Zelle, because there’s a middleman or protection under credit card laws. P2P payments can be convenient, but there must be reasonable limits.What if payments to someone you’ve never sent money to before were limited to $100 and you couldn’t send more money for 48 hours? We bet fraud through Zelle would plunge. Most people who are scammed through Zelle realize it in a few minutes or hours.
• Do more to recognize and question unusual withdrawals and transactions. If a customer has never done a wire transfer before, and suddenly there’s one requested online for $10,000, banks should confirm it with the customer with a phone call or by requiring an in-person branch visit.If a customer has never withdrawn more than $300 in cash at one time before, and suddenly they show up and want to withdraw $5,000 in cash, banks should ask some questions. Banks can’t prohibit customers from withdrawing money on deposit, but they also aren’t prohibited from gently asking questions that could reveal a scam. Scams are thwarted every week by bank employees who take the initiative to ask what’s behind a large withdrawal request.

In August, the Protecting Consumers from Payment Scams Act was introduced in Congress by Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Maxine Waters. The bill proposes updating the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA,) which protects consumer bank transactions such as ATM and ACH transactions, point-of-sale purchases and phone-authorized recurring payments, but not wire transfers or some electronic transfers.

In a stunning hearing in July, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee of Investigations (PSI) revealed that its investigation showed that banks reimbursed fewer than 40% of Zelle fraud victims in 2023. This is despite a new Zelle policy to make victims whole. The hearing included high-level executives from Zelle and three of the largest U.S. banks, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo.

One of the big findings: The three banks reimbursed only 38% of fraud victims in 2023, down from 62% in 2019. That amounted to more than $100 million worth of transactions each year for 2021, 2022 and 2023.

The Protecting Consumers from Payment Scams Act would offer robust protections for transactions through Zelle and other person-to-person services.

The FCC needs to crack down more on phone providers that flout the law. Congress passed a law that said companies must install robocall- fighting technology on the digital and internet parts of their networks or have another robocall mitigation plan on file. As of Oct. 1, 2024, only 66% of companies have completely or partially implemented anti-robocall strategies. The FCC has started blocking offenders from being allowed to transmit calls, but that’s amounted to fewer than 20 companies so far. The FCC and state regulators need to step up enforcement.

The public and government officials need more information about the entities that are making and allowing illegal robocalls. The industry’s Traceback Group (ITG) tracks thousands of tracebacks each year to discover where illegal calls originate and who along the way allowed the calls on their lines. The information is kept mostly private and released on a limited basis to regulators.

Republican-sponsored bills have been introduced in Congress in recent years with multiple bi-partisan co-sponsors that would open up this information to the public by protecting the ITG and phone companies from liability if they share information about illegal calls. Neither the House bill nor Senate bill moved out of committee. These bills or something like them need to be adopted soon.

All of the laws in the world don’t guarantee illegal practices will stop. People who like to defraud people, which is obviously illegal, often don’t care about breaking other laws. So we all need to remain vigilant and do whatever we can to help educate our friends and loved ones about the dangers of illegal robocalls and robotexts.

Telemarketing calls — whether pre-recorded or artificial voice — without advanced written consent.

Telemarketing calls — whether pre-recorded, autodialed or artificial voice — without advanced written consent.
OR
Non-telemarketing pre-recorded or autodialed calls without your verbal or written consent.

Autodialed commercial texts without advanced written consent.
OR
Autodialed non-commercial texts without advanced verbal consent.

Note: You always retain the right to revoke consent that you gave to a company or organization at any time, whether it involves calls or texts.

One of the big asterisks to consumer protection law: political robocalls and robotexts. Here’s what to know about autodialed calls and texts:

• Political robocalls to cellphones require consent in advance. 
• Political robotexts require consent in advance. 
• Texts sent manually, not relying on an autodialer, can be sent without consent in advance.
• Political calls with pre-recorded messages require consent in advance.
• Political robocalls to home landlines are permitted without advanced consent, but can’t exceed three calls in a 30-day period.
• If political calls have been authorized but contain artificial or pre-recorded messages, the phone number of the caller must be stated, the person or entity making the call must be clearly identified at the beginning and the business name of any identity must be stated at the beginning. 
• Even if consent has been granted, it can be revoked instantly, by asking someone not to call again or by replying “STOP” to a text.
• Political calls and texts are exempt from compliance with the national Do Not Call list. But they must follow the other rules.

PRINT A PDF OF WHAT’S LEGAL AND WHAT’S NOT