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

Wed Oct 5 14:42:14 UTC 2022

>
> I thought that SCOTUS ruled years ago that telco users possess a First
> Amendment right to spoof Caller ID.
>

If you are referring to Facebook v. Duguid , that's not what the ruling
says at all.

On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 1:23 AM Matthew Black <Matthew.Black at csulb.edu>
wrote:

> I thought that SCOTUS ruled years ago that telco users possess a First
> Amendment right to spoof Caller ID.
>
>
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* NANOG < > *On Behalf Of *Shane Ronan
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 04, 2022 11:22 AM
> *To:* Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com>
> *Cc:* nanog at nanog.org
> *Subject:* Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls)
>
>
>
> CAUTION: This email was sent from an external source.
>
>
>
> Except the cost to do the data dips to determine the authorization isn't
> "free".
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 2:18 PM Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ics-il.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7CMatthew.Black%40csulb.edu%7C4f407d3657914e6e376808daa635d027%7Cd175679bacd34644be82af041982977a%7C0%7C0%7C638005047301904372%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bo0uAAYDQOW8qVLoIa1ry3XqWW1fvzQl3ekm3Db77cg%3D&reserved=0>
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.midwest-ix.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7CMatthew.Black%40csulb.edu%7C4f407d3657914e6e376808daa635d027%7Cd175679bacd34644be82af041982977a%7C0%7C0%7C638005047301904372%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2BxqML5s%2FfiO2qJqgjTwIscrNnb%2FakGsBmNz3p07fFs%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From: *"Shane Ronan" <shane at ronan-online.com> <shane at ronan-online.com>
> *To: *"Michael Thomas" <mike at mtcc.com> <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/
> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cyberscoop.com%2Ffcc-robocall-fine-database-removal%2F&data=05%7C01%7CMatthew.Black%40csulb.edu%7C4f407d3657914e6e376808daa635d027%7Cd175679bacd34644be82af041982977a%7C0%7C0%7C638005047301904372%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=YzrPveqbGpF%2FnpjU%2Bn9m6GTx5mhA2dG%2FzACG%2Fjmdumc%3D&reserved=0>
> >      >      >
> >      >      > [...]
> >      >      > “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/20221005/144643ca/attachment.html>