nanog mailing list archives
Re: OffTopic: Telecom Fraud
From: Dovid Bender <dovid () telecurve com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 16:23:23 -0400
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 4:18 PM Paul Timmins <paul () telcodata us> wrote:
I guarantee you that if carriers were made civilly or criminally liable for allowing robodialers to operate on their network, this sort of issue would end practically overnight. Robodialer calling patterns are obvious, and I'd imagine any tech could give you a criteria to search for in the CDR streams to identify them and shut them off in hours. Problem is, they're lucrative to provide services to, and there is immunity on the carrier's part to these sorts of issues. SHAKEN/STIR nonwithstanding (I don't think we'll see widespread adoption of this within a decade, even with a government mandate as there's still a massive embedded base of switches that can't support it and never will). It may be incredibly frustrating, but there's plenty of money to be made in prolonging the problem.
That was my thought as well. From what I heard last 50% of the calls are fraud. That's a lot of money that they are collecting on origination. I also saw this https://www.multichannel.com/news/comcast-and-att-test-anti-robocalling-tech and did a test. A client owned a Comcast number and had ATT. I set the CLI to the Comcast number and it showed up on the ATT phone as I set it. You would think if ATT had the tools in place at the very least it wouldn't display the number.
Current thread:
- OffTopic: Telecom Fraud Dovid Bender (Apr 23)
- Re: OffTopic: Telecom Fraud Valdis Klētnieks (Apr 23)
- Re: OffTopic: Telecom Fraud Paul Timmins (Apr 23)
- Re: OffTopic: Telecom Fraud Dovid Bender (Apr 23)
- Re: OffTopic: Telecom Fraud Mel Beckman (Apr 23)
- Re: OffTopic: Telecom Fraud Mel Beckman (Apr 23)
- Re: OffTopic: Telecom Fraud Dovid Bender (Apr 23)