Hacker News Reader

Why wouldn't this solve the problem? Phone calls have a real cost, however small it may be, to both the recipient and the carriers. Everyone accepts paying for stamps. What makes paying for calls different, and such an abhorrent idea that we shouldn't even discuss it?

EDIT: Parent comment was replaced with something completely different so my reply makes no longer makes sense, but I'm leaving it unchanged.

View on HN

In a world where we pay for stamps, why didn't bulk unsolicited mail go away? Why would it work for telephones?

> In a world where we pay for stamps, why didn't bulk unsolicited mail go away? Why would it work for telephones?

Different situation. Bulk mail is not illegal, in fact the USPS subsidizes it. Spam calls ARE illegal. Hopefully phone carriers will not give discounts for explicitly illegal uses of their networks, but we can deal with that later if it happens.

You are right back at the same "distinguishing legal from illegal calls" problem.

The whole point of this scheme is that it treats all callers equally, and works without needing to distinguish legal from illegal calls.

If paying for stamps can't stop junk mail, I don't see how paying for calls could stop cold callers.

Different situation. Bulk mail is not illegal, in fact the USPS subsidizes it. Spam calls ARE illegal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com