Livevox: Seeking Help with Relentless Calling

February 13, 2024

Hello Larry Siegel —

I am writing to you because you are the listed contact for LiveVox, Inc. in the FCC’s robocall mitigation database.

With my company, ZipDX, I operate a robocall surveillance platform called RRAPTOR. More information about RRAPTOR is here:

https://legalcallsonly.org/what-is-rraptor/ and also here:
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10808115052966/1

In the 45 days since the start of 2024, RRAPTOR has captured 11,810 calls signed by LiveVox. Those calls have come from 4,547 ANIs (Caller-ID’s) and have been directed to 1,359 of our numbers. That’s an average of more than 8 calls per called number.

Virtually all of these calls (11,785) were to numbers on the Federal DNC list. I have not given consent for any of these calls, and I do not make any outbound calls from any of my numbers. I do not publish or advertise the numbers anywhere.

I believe that my fairly small sample is indicative of the kinds of unwanted calls Americans are receiving, and serves to quantify why they are so frustrated.

What’s even more troublesome, and the focus of my note to you today, is what I call “relentless calling.” One of my numbers has received 441 calls signed by LiveVox – 10 per day if we count weekends! Five other numbers of mine have received more than 100 calls; 11 more than 50.

More than half the calls are very short – the caller just says “Hello?” or gives a name they are looking for, and then hangs up. Sometimes they say “Please hold” and then disconnect. Over 1,500 are completely silent.

A large number of the calls appear to be from live agents (often, it appears, being connected only after the call has been answered and an initial greeting played by my end). Typically these agents to do not identify the entity responsible for the call.

I’m wondering if you and your team can do something to reign in these calls. Since I can’t tell the origin of most calls (no identification by the caller; the caller-ID changes every 2 or 3 calls on average, and the SHAKEN OrigID appears unique on each call) I don’t know how many different calling entities are involved. Presumably you do – all the calls carry A-level attestation. But just as these calls are so annoying to the recipients, they must also be of minimal utility to your callers.

I believe a best practice would be for your callers to identify themselves and the purpose of the call in their initial introduction. Calls associated with the same purpose or campaign should use a single caller-ID.

And if they do not get a satisfactory response when they call a number (they do not get confirmation regarding the name they say they are trying to reach, or even if they figure out they’ve reached a RRAPTOR number) they should not call that number again. Ever. If they reach voice-mail, they should leave a detailed explanatory message and if the called party is really anxious to get in touch, that party can return the call.

I’m anxious to hear your thoughts on this, or other approaches to find technical and procedural solutions that allow your callers to make calls that the recipients are likely to want. I’m happy to have a brainstorming discussion with you, or to address any other questions or feedback you might have. I plan to publish this note and your response on my website as I think it could be helpful to others. If you don’t your response published, just let me know and I’ll withhold it.

Below I’ve pasted details of the 441 calls I’ve received this year on 201-907-9025. Hopefully this gives you some substantive starting data to investigate. I look forward to hearing back from you.

David Frankel