FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls)

Tue Oct 4 18:18:24 UTC 2022

On 10/4/22 6:07 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> I think the point the other Mike was trying to make was that if 
> everyone policed their customers, this wouldn't be a problem. Since 
> some don't, something else needed to be tried.
>
>
Exactly. And that doesn't require an elaborate PKI. Who is allowed to 
use what telephone numbers is an administrative issue for the ingress 
provider to police. It's the equivalent to gmail not allowing me to 
spoof whatever email address I want. The FCC could have required that 
ages ago.


Mike

>
> -----
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *"Shane Ronan" <shane at ronan-online.com>
> *To: *"Michael Thomas" <mike at mtcc.com>
> *Cc: *nanog at nanog.org
> *Sent: *Monday, October 3, 2022 9:54:07 PM
> *Subject: *Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls)
>
> The issue isn't which 'prefixes' I accept from my customers, but which 
> 'prefixes' I accept from the people I peer with, because it's entirely 
> dynamic and without a doing a database dip on EVERY call, I have to 
> assume that my peer or my peers customer or my peers peer is doing the 
> right thing.
>
> I can't simply block traffic from a peer carrier, it's not allowed, so 
> there has to be some mechanism to mark that a prefix should be 
> allowed, which is what Shaken/Stir does.
>
> Shane
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 7:05 PM Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:
>
>     The problem has always been solvable at the ingress provider. The
>     problem was that there was zero to negative incentive to do that. You
>     don't need an elaborate PKI to tell the ingress provider which
>     prefixes
>     customers are allow to assert. It's pretty analogous to when
>     submission
>     authentication was pretty nonexistent with email... there was no
>     incentive to not be an open relay sewer. Unlike email spam, SIP
>     signaling is pretty easy to determine whether it's spam. All it
>     needed
>     was somebody to force regulation which unlike email there was always
>     jurisdiction with the FCC.
>
>     Mike
>
>     On 10/3/22 3:13 PM, Jawaid Bazyar wrote:
>     > We're talking about blocking other carriers.
>     >
>     > On 10/3/22, 3:05 PM, "Michael Thomas" <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:
>     >
>     >      On 10/3/22 1:54 PM, Jawaid Bazyar wrote:
>     >      > Because it's illegal for common carriers to block traffic
>     otherwise.
>     >
>     >      Wait, what? It's illegal to police their own users?
>     >
>     >      Mike
>     >
>     >      >
>     >      > On 10/3/22, 2:53 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Michael Thomas"
>     <nanog-bounces+jbazyar=verobroadband.com at nanog.org on behalf of
>     mike at mtcc.com> wrote:
>     >      >
>     >      >
>     >      >      On 10/3/22 1:34 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
>     >      >      > 'Fines alone aren't enough:' FCC threatens to
>     blacklist voice
>     >      >      > providers for flouting robocall rules
>     >      >      >
>     >      >      >
>     https://www.cyberscoop.com/fcc-robocall-fine-database-removal/
>     >      >      >
>     >      >      > [...]
>     >      >      > “This is a new era. If a provider doesn’t meet its
>     obligations under
>     >      >      > the law, it now faces expulsion from America’s
>     phone networks. Fines
>     >      >      > alone aren’t enough,” FCC chairwoman Jessica
>     Rosenworcel said in a
>     >      >      > statement accompanying the announcement.
>     “Providers that don’t follow
>     >      >      > our rules and make it easy to scam consumers will
>     now face swift
>     >      >      > consequences.”
>     >      >      >
>     >      >      > It’s the first such enforcement action by the
>     agency to reduce the
>     >      >      > growing problem of robocalls since call ID
>     verification protocols
>     >      >      > known as “STIR/SHAKEN” went fully into effect this
>     summer.
>     >      >      > [...]
>     >      >
>     >      >      Why did we need to wait for STIR/SHAKEN to do this?
>     >      >
>     >      >      Mike
>     >      >
>     >
>     >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20221004/9311711f/attachment.html>