FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls

Fri Dec 20 08:14:33 UTC 2019

Is it legally a spoofed robo-call if I robo-call someone who has
consented to be robo-called, with the caller-ID of a number that is
affiliated with me but not with the telco I'm calling from?

On 19-12-19 09 h 09, Andreas Ott wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:16:08AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>> How is it envisioned that this will work?
> My prediction for 2020: it still won't work, like in 2019 and the years
> before that. A call originated, transported and delivered equals revenue
> for all involved parties, so it is in their best interest not to block
> them, unless the fines are really magnitude(s) higher than the revenue.
>
>> I mean, I'm all for less spam calling... and ideally there would be
>> some form of 'source address verification' on the PSTN/phone
>> network... but in today's world that really just doesn't exist and the
>> motivations to suppress fake sources are 'just as good' as they are on
>> the intertubes. (with crappier options in the gear - SHAKEN/STIR are
>> really not even available in the majority of the switch 'gear' right?)
> When I tried to pay my AT&T uverse VOIP "landline" bill this morning they
> offered me a free "CallProtect App" but when I click on more info it's
> in fact only a link to open their "control call forwarding and blocking"
> part of the home phone features web site.  All their suggested controls
> are enabled, still I am receiving only unwanted calls on this line.
>
> In the call and voicemail history list for my number I have at least these
> examples for you to laugh at. Hint: look at the numbers. and I have also
> been told that there is no equivalent of uRPF in the phone world.
>
> Name 	Number 	When 	Length	Actions
> Suspected Spam	888-194-1242	11-30-19, 10:56 AM	0:00	Add to Address Book
>
> From	Number	When	Size
> NAME NOT FOUND	408-145-1341	08-12-19, 09:14 AM	29 Kb
> NAME NOT FOUND	213-141-5163	05-17-19, 10:22 AM	353 Kb
>
>
> -andreas