FCC: rulemaking on STIR/SHAKEN and Caller ID Authentication

Thu Sep 10 21:00:30 UTC 2020

I think people are making a distinction between the traditional way the PSTN works and direct interconnections\Neutral Tandem\Peerless\etc. 

----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Brandon Svec" <bsvec at teamonesolutions.com> 
To: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog at nanog.org> 
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 3:56:00 PM 
Subject: Re: FCC: rulemaking on STIR/SHAKEN and Caller ID Authentication 

99%? If a phone number was used than the PSTN was used. The fact that SIP is involved in part or all of the call path is not very relevant except for peer-to-peer stuff like whatsapp, skype, signal, telegram, etc. (and even those don't use SIP, but I think you meant voip more than SIP specifically) Even some of those can use e.164 for part or all of the path. 

I do believe that if the robo call/scam/fraudulent call issue does not get resolved people may eventually start to give up and just use apps like that. Many probably have already. 

Brandon Svec 
15106862204 voice|sms 
teamonesolutions.com 

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 1:11 PM Michael Thomas < mike at mtcc.com > wrote: 

On 9/10/20 9:49 AM, Sean Donelan wrote: 
> 
> At this month's FCC rulemaking meeting, it will consider 
> 
> https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-announces-tentative-agenda-september-open-meeting-6 
> 
> 
> Promoting Caller ID Authentication to Combat Spoofed Robocalls – The 
> Commission will consider a Report and Order that would continue its 
> work to implement the TRACED Act and promote the deployment of caller 
> ID authentication technology to combat spoofed robocalls. 
> (WC Docket No. 17-97) 

So I have a question: what percentage of traffic in the US is really 
coming from the legacy PSTN? My understanding is that it's pretty low 
these days. 

If that's true, it seems to me that this is a SIP problem, not an e.164 
problem. 

Mike 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20200910/bb8e772b/attachment.html>