FCC wants to kill burner phones by forcing telecoms to get all customers' IDs
berlianta
507 points
324 comments
June 09, 2026
https://archive.is/ZobUQ
Related Discussions
Found 5 related stories in 109.6ms across 10,324 title embeddings via pgvector HNSW
- The FCC Wants Your ID Before You Get a Phone Number bilsbie · 19 pts · May 08, 2026 · 72% similar
- The FCC wants your ID before you get a phone number delichon · 76 pts · May 09, 2026 · 71% similar
- A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime FergusArgyll · 317 pts · June 12, 2026 · 56% similar
- FCC Uses False Claims of Immigrant Fraud to Drive Up Broadband Cost for Everyone hn_acker · 12 pts · May 21, 2026 · 54% similar
- FCC Chair to Europe: If You Restrict US Satellite Providers, We'll Ban You Here msolujic · 15 pts · March 05, 2026 · 51% similar
Discussion Highlights (20 comments)
dkdbejwi383
This is how it works in Australia, which means it's a pain for tourists as you need to provide a passport for ID and get it activated, as opposed to just grabbing one at an airport kiosk and being ready to go on your way to the taxi or train like most other places.
garyfirestorm
Isn’t this already a requirement? Can you really buy a burner phone/sim without providing identifying information?
josefritzishere
Seems like classic regulatory overreach.
aaomidi
This is the pathway Iran is using to provide tiered internet btw. Just putting it out there on how quickly this tech turned against the population.
standardUser
The Trump administration has been working overtime trying to build databases of people in this country. Leaving no stone unturned, legal or otherwise. I vaguely remember a time when American conservatives were against precisely this, often as a first principle. Maybe that's just an idealized memory on my part.
rirze
Fundamentally un-American. That being said, many countries across the world already do this to eliminate burner phones. And many messaging apps require a phone number anyways so this basically locks down anonymous messaging through a phone.
throwaway27448
We're already forced into the credit bureaus. Into traffic cameras. Into using credit cards and banks. The idea the state would let us actually say things online anonymously (or to each other) is completely unrealistic: we must be tagged and tracked through our lifecycle.
rusk
They’ll get around to guns eventually …
bsimpson
Here's the link to submit a comment to the FCC: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express Ran a quick search and found a whole bunch of news articles, but nobody includes info that makes it easy to route your comment. Feels like the beginning of Hitchhiker's Guide: > It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard.
giantg2
Maybe a way around this is for intermediary companies to own the phone that happens to have service and then lease the phone.
iammrpayments
Had to buy one of these SMS activation services from a guy in Nigeria using a memecoin because claude decided to ban my account because they didn’t like my credit card brand and Claude requires sms activation for new accounts. Guess these guys are going to make more money in the near future.
giancarlostoro
I wish they would kill spam calling and texting instead.
mrsssnake
Regardless of this, I see phone network as a legacy thing that in perfect world should already be replaced with lightweight upgradeable calling protocol over IPv6.
StepBroBD
US of A’s Chinafication letsgooooooo
2OEH8eoCRo0
Good. Telecoms should have a duty to know who uses their networks.
9cb14c1ec0
I expect the FCC to adopt this rule, and I also expect it to be challenged in court, on the basis that there are many other approaches to fighting spam calls that the FCC has not tried, but are much less intrusive.
reaperducer
Good luck with this. You can't make the desk clerk in a ghetto cell phone store care. I say this speaking as someone who has a T-Mobile account under the name George Washington with a Valley Forge, Pennsylvania address.
vfclists
It was only a matter of time. The real issue is whether government's should have the right to metadata or the content of remote communications. Government's don't claim the right to monitor face to face communications so why should they have the right to do so for remote communications.
brushfoot
No more anonymous driving, thanks to Flock. Soon, no more anonymous calls, thanks to the FCC. Your bank already knows everything about you; why not your operating system, too? Soon your ISP will only let you online if your OS sends them the "right" information: your government ID. We should also abolish cash while we're at it. The government needs to know every purchase you've ever made, no exceptions. Of course, then we should tear down used bookstores. They're the biggest risk of all. Anyone can walk in and pick up pieces of paper that teach them dangerous ideas. Other religions. Philosophies. Poetry. How to make things. What we really need is a nation of drones walking to and fro in the image of our rulers, thinking their thoughts, practicing their religions, and parroting their words. It's the only way to be truly safe.
Keyb0ardWarri0r
I'm always surprised how bad ideas spread faster than good ideas among our rulers. Here is a map of countries where an ID is required (or not) https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/sim-card-regist...