SHAKEN/STIR Robocall Summit - July 11 2019 at FCC

Thu Jul 18 22:15:11 UTC 2019

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Thomas" <mike at mtcc.com>

> On 7/15/19 12:07 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>> Yes, of course we sent out calls with "spoofed" CNID.
>>
>> But, even though only 2 or 3 or our 5 carriers* held *our* feet to the fire,
>> we held the clients' feet to the fire, requiring them to prove to our
>> satisfaction that they had adminstrative control over the numbers in question.
>>
>> But it's the carrier's responsibility, properly, to do that work.
> 
> How do the clients prove that?

Do you know, I don't know; it was above my paygrade; the few times I stubbed
a toe on it, I threw it over a wall.

I presume that there was paperwork...

> Way back when when we were working on mipv6 we had to work through a
> somewhat similar problem for handoffs. The ultimate answer was a return
> routability test: that is, if you can answer on the address you're
> trying to claim "ownership" for, it's good enough.

Might have been a handshake like that; I suspect it was mostly just 
"here's a picture of the client's phone bill".

> But right you are, it's ultimately the carrier who needs to care about
> this problem at or nothing gets better.

Yup.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra at baylink.com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates       http://www.bcp38.info          2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA      BCP38: Ask For It By Name!           +1 727 647 1274