Does anybody know if part of this enforcement involves STIR/SHAKEN?
mike at mtcc.com
Fri Jul 22 23:07:36 UTC 2022
On 7/22/22 4:00 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2022, Michael Thomas wrote:
>> Basically the jist that it's fake auto warranty fraud calls. Or is
>> this just requiring providers to do the forensics whichever way to
>> enforce this?
> As always speak with your corporate attorney or a licensed attorney
> familar with communications law.
> The FCC order is under the TRACED Act of 2019. The order doesn't
> depend on STIR/SHAKEN. The Traceback Consortium and providers use a
> variety of methods to identify the calls.
> "By this Order, the Bureau directs all U.S.-based voice service
> providers to investigate promptly the apparently illegal robocall
> traffic identified in section II.A. above. We further direct all voice
> service providers that locate any of the apparently illegal robocall
> described in this Order to take immediate steps to effectively
> mitigate and prevent further transmission of the apparently unlawful
> "If the voice service provider concludes that the identified traffic
> was not illegal, the report must include an explanation as to why the
> provider has reasonably concluded that the identified calls were not
> illegal and what steps the voice service provider took to reach that
> The order is available
So the FCC could have done this well before with routes that don't
involve crypto authentication? That's what I've always assumed.
More information about the NANOG