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

Michael Thomas mike at mtcc.com
Tue Oct 4 18:28:02 UTC 2022


On 10/4/22 7:05 AM, Jawaid Bazyar wrote:
> Phone spam pretty much always involves the knowledge and involvement of the provider. There are no phone providers who don't know when one of their customers are making millions of robocalls.
>
> International toll fraud also always involves the collusion of corrupt small country telephone monopolies.
>
> So unlike email spam, where there are a million ways to send a million emails a minute without someone being aware, phone spam is definitively collisional. (Is that a word?)

All the more reason why waiting for STIR/SHAKEN was unnecessary. And yes 
the telephony network is a lot easier than email to police.

Mike


>
>
> On 10/3/22, 5:05 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
>      >      >
>      >
>      >
>
>


More information about the NANOG mailing list