nanog mailing list archives
Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls)
From: Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2022 06:24:07 -0700
On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 6:20 AM Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote:
Sorta like in the IP world, if everyone did BCP38/84, amplification attacks wouldn't exist. Not everyone does, so...
Tragedy of the commons Furthermore, those customers are paying to not be policed.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ------------------------------ *From: *"Mike Hammett" <nanog () ics-il net> *To: *"Shane Ronan" <shane () ronan-online com> *Cc: *nanog () nanog org *Sent: *Tuesday, October 4, 2022 8:07:55 AM *Subject: *Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) 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. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ------------------------------ *From: *"Shane Ronan" <shane () ronan-online com> *To: *"Michael Thomas" <mike () mtcc com> *Cc: *nanog () 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 () 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 () mtcc com> wrote: On 10/3/22 1:54 PM, Jawaid Bazyar wrote: > Because it's illegal for common carriers to block trafficotherwise.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 () nanog org on behalf of mike () mtcc com> wrote:> > > On 10/3/22 1:34 PM, Sean Donelan wrote: > > 'Fines alone aren't enough:' FCC threatens to blacklistvoice> > 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 itsobligations under> > the law, it now faces expulsion from America’s phonenetworks. Fines> > alone aren’t enough,” FCC chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcelsaid in a> > statement accompanying the announcement. “Providers thatdon’t follow> > our rules and make it easy to scam consumers will nowface swift> > consequences.” > > > > It’s the first such enforcement action by the agency toreduce the> > growing problem of robocalls since call ID verificationprotocols> > known as “STIR/SHAKEN” went fully into effect this summer. > > [...] > > Why did we need to wait for STIR/SHAKEN to do this? > > Mike >
Current thread:
- FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Sean Donelan (Oct 03)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Michael Thomas (Oct 03)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Jawaid Bazyar (Oct 03)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Michael Thomas (Oct 03)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Jawaid Bazyar (Oct 03)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Michael Thomas (Oct 03)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Shane Ronan (Oct 03)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Mike Hammett (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Mike Hammett (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Ca By (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Mike Hammett (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Robert Blayzor via NANOG (Oct 04)
- Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Compton, Rich A (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Jawaid Bazyar (Oct 03)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Michael Thomas (Oct 03)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Michael Thomas (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Mike Hammett (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Michael Thomas (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Shane Ronan (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Mike Hammett (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Michael Thomas (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Tom Beecher (Oct 04)