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

[Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>]

On 10/4/22 11:21 AM, Shane Ronan wrote:
> Except the cost to do the data dips to determine the authorization 
> isn't "free".

Since every http request in the universe requires a "database dip" and 
they are probably a billion times more common, that doesn't seem like a 
very compelling concern.

Mike


> On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 2:18 PM Michael Thomas <mike () 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
> >
> >     Midwest-IX
> >     http://www.midwest-ix.com
> >
> >     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >     *From: *"Shane Ronan" <shane () ronan-online com>
> >     <mailto:shane () ronan-online com>
> >     *To: *"Michael Thomas" <mike () mtcc com> <mailto: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
> >         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
> >         >      >
> >         >
> >         >