Does anybody know if part of this enforcement involves STIR/SHAKEN?

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?
>>
>> https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/21/tech/fcc-robocall-crackdown/index.html
>
>
> 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 
> traffic
> described in this Order to take immediate steps to effectively 
> mitigate and prevent further transmission of the apparently unlawful 
> calls."
> [...]
> "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 
> conclusion."
> [...]
>
> The order is available
> https://www.fcc.gov/document/robocall-enforcement-order-all-us-based-voice-service-providers 
>
>
>
So the FCC could have done this well before with routes that don't 
involve crypto authentication? That's what I've always assumed.

Mike