OffTopic: Telecom Fraud

Tue Apr 23 20:23:23 UTC 2019

On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 4:18 PM Paul Timmins <paul at telcodata.us> wrote:

> I guarantee you that if carriers were made civilly or criminally liable
> for allowing robodialers to operate on their network, this sort of issue
> would end practically overnight. Robodialer calling patterns are
> obvious, and I'd imagine any tech could give you a criteria to search
> for in the CDR streams to identify them and shut them off in hours.
>
> Problem is, they're lucrative to provide services to, and there is
> immunity on the carrier's part to these sorts of issues. SHAKEN/STIR
> nonwithstanding (I don't think we'll see widespread adoption of this
> within a decade, even with a government mandate as there's still a
> massive embedded base of switches that can't support it and never will).
>
> It may be incredibly frustrating, but there's plenty of money to be made
> in prolonging the problem.
>
>
That was my thought as well. From what I heard last 50% of the calls are
fraud. That's a lot of money that they are collecting on origination. I
also saw this
https://www.multichannel.com/news/comcast-and-att-test-anti-robocalling-tech
and
did  a test. A client owned a Comcast number and had ATT. I set the CLI to
the Comcast number and it showed up on the ATT phone as I set it. You would
think if ATT had the tools in place at the very least it wouldn't display
the number.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20190423/528526f2/attachment.html>