BANDWIDTH and VONAGE lose FCC rules exemption for STIR/SHAKEN
Michael Thomas
mike at mtcc.com
Mon Feb 21 21:56:05 UTC 2022
On 2/20/22 9:56 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> Mine exploded since the requirement date. Some mornings I get a dozen
> before lunch.
So our anecdotes don't agree :) I know, maybe we should find out
somebody who's doing research on this?
Does anybody know how this is being tracked for real?
Mike
>
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 2:33 PM Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/17/22 11:58 AM, Sean Donelan wrote:
> >
> >
> https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-finds-two-providers-failed-fully-implement-stirshaken-0
>
> >
> >
> > The Federal Communications Commission today took action to
> ensure that
> > voice service providers meet their commitments and obligations to
> > implement STIR/SHAKEN standards to combat spoofed robocall scams.
> > Specifically, voice service providers Bandwidth and Vonage lost a
> > partial exemption from STIR/SHAKEN because they failed to meet
> > STIR/SHAKEN implementation commitments and have been referred to
> the
> > FCC’s Enforcement Bureau for further investigation.
>
>
> So for probably a year or so before the Stir/Shaken mandate came,
> I have
> been seeing a lot less phone spam. I don't know if that's typical
> but it
> was quite noticeable for me. What that tells me is that providers
> likely
> started clamping down on their shady customers well ahead of the
> mandate
> which says that regulatory fiat would have been sufficient too.
> But that
> hinges on whether my situation is typical though.
>
> Mike
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220221/67484552/attachment.html>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list