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

[Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>]

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 () 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 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 () 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 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
>      >      >
>      >
>      >