FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls

Thu Dec 19 16:08:39 UTC 2019

~ $204 per spoofed call.

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 10:09 AM Kain, Becki (.) <bkain1 at ford.com> wrote:

> Would be nice to have these stopped.  I received 10 of them yesterday,
> pretending to be apple icloud support
>
>
>
> *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces at nanog.org> *On Behalf Of *Javier J
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 18, 2019 8:38 PM
> *To:* Sean Donelan <sean at donelan.com>
> *Cc:* nanog <nanog at nanog.org>
> *Subject:* Re: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls
>
>
>
> It is so bad that I am not above us bribing politicians in
> foreign countries to crack down on this.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 3:37 PM Sean Donelan <sean at donelan.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, U.S. FCC Chairman Pai and Canadian CRTC Chairperson Scott made
> the first official cross-border SHAKEN/STIR call.
>
> https://www.fcc.gov/document/pai-scott-make-first-official-cross-border-shakenstir-call
>
>
> Today, the U.S. FCC announced a proposed nearly $10 million fine for
> spoofed robocalls.
>
> https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-nearly-10-million-fine-spoofed-robocalls
>
> A U.S. telemarketing firm spoofed the caller-id of a competitor to make
> approximately 47,610 political robocalls shortly before a California State
> Assembly primary election.
>
> I think this case is somewhat unusual for robocall spoofing, because the
> alleged perpetrator, victims, and 'crime scene' occured within the same
> jurisdiction.
>
> While the FCC likes to announce large enforcement actions in splashy
> press releases, its actually bad about collecting fines. The FCC must
> rely on the Justice Department to initiate separate prosecution to
> enforce payment from non-license holders because the FCC can't do that
> itself.  So don't expect anyone to actually pay soon (or ever).
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20191219/10dd8b69/attachment.html>