<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <p>Pretty simply - Sending caller ID to commit fraud. It's literally
      already illegal. The legislature has already defined it for us,
      even.</p>
    <p>47 USC 227</p>
    <p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227</a></p>
    <div class="subparagraph indent2"><a name="b_1_B"></a><span
        class="num" value="B">(B)</span>
      <div class="content"> to initiate any telephone call to any
        residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded
        voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of
        the called party, unless the call is initiated for emergency
        purposes, is made solely pursuant to the collection of a debt
        owed to or guaranteed by the <a class="colorbox-load
          definedterm"
          href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227"
          data-toggle="modal" data-target="#myModal">United States</a>,
        or is exempted by rule or order by the<a class="colorbox-load
          definedterm"
          href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227"
          data-toggle="modal" data-target="#myModal"> Commission </a>under
        paragraph (2)(B);</div>
      <div class="content"><br>
      </div>
      <div class="content"><span class="num bold" value="1">(e)(1)</span><span
          class="heading bold"> In general</span>
        <div class="content">
          <p>It shall be unlawful for any <a class="colorbox-load
              definedterm"
              href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227"
              data-toggle="modal" data-target="#myModal">person</a>
            within the <a class="colorbox-load definedterm"
              href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227"
              data-toggle="modal" data-target="#myModal">United States</a>,
            in connection with any <a class="colorbox-load definedterm"
              href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227"
              data-toggle="modal" data-target="#myModal">telecommunications
              service</a> or<a class="colorbox-load definedterm"
              href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227"
              data-toggle="modal" data-target="#myModal"> IP-enabled
              voice service,</a> to cause any<a class="colorbox-load
              definedterm"
              href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227"
              data-toggle="modal" data-target="#myModal"> caller
              identification service </a>to knowingly transmit
            misleading or inaccurate<a class="colorbox-load definedterm"
              href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227"
              data-toggle="modal" data-target="#myModal"> caller
              identification information </a>with the intent to
            defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value,
            unless such transmission is exempted pursuant to paragraph
            (3)(B).</p>
        </div>
      </div>
    </div>
    <p>All I'm asking is to make the carrier liable if it should have
      been obvious to a carrier using basic traffic analysis that the
      service was a robocaller (low answer rates combined with tons of
      source numbers, especially situations where the source and
      destination number share the first 6 digits) that the carrier be
      liable for failing to look into it.</p>
    <p>Carriers already look at things like short duration in order to
      assess higher charges, and already investigate call center
      traffic. If they then look at the caller ID and it looks
      "suspect", and the customer then is contacted and barred from
      sending arbitrary caller ID until they can verify they own the
      numbers they're calling from, then they're good to go.</p>
    <p>If the carrier continues to just ensure that call center traffic
      is a revenue stream they can bill higher without making sure
      they're outpulsing valid numbers, then they should absorb the
      social costs of what's going on.</p>
    <p>Let's not get this confused - this isn't about customer PBXen
      outpulsing forwarded calls when they do it, it's about people
      shooting millions of calls a month, the carrier hitting them with
      short duration charges, making more money, and having zero
      incentive to question the arrangement.<br>
    </p>
    <p>-Paul<br>
    </p>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/11/19 1:18 PM, Christopher Morrow
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAL9jLaa9zNuPKJ=StWonF_X2=2y85zv9M=1-PWp0oq9t2JA=3Q@mail.gmail.com">
      <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">'illicit use of caller id' - how is caller-id being illicitly used though?
I don't think it's against the law to say a different 'callerid' in the call
 session, practically every actual call center does this, right?
</pre>
    </blockquote>
  </body>
</html>