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

bzs at theworld.com bzs at theworld.com
Tue Oct 4 18:22:48 UTC 2022

On October 3, 2022 at 16:05 mike at mtcc.com (Michael Thomas) 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.

Analogies to email are always fraught.

How often do LEGITIMATE telco customers make hundreds if not thousands
of calls per hour w/o some explicit arrangement with their telco?

As they say, a telephone company is a vast, detailed billing system
with an added voice feature.

Quite unlike email where it's mostly fire and forget plus or minus
hitting a spam filter precisely because there is no billing, no
incentive. And no voice "snowshoeing".

I doubt robocalls are ever made with anything like spam

With email it's like every single computer on the net with an IP
address has, in effect, a (potentially) fully functional "originating
switch" (again, some exceptions like port 25 blocking.) People have
run spambots from others' printers etc.

        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs at TheWorld.com             | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD       | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

More information about the NANOG mailing list