Re: SHAKEN/STIR Robocall Summit - July 11 2019 at FCC

[Paul Timmins <paul () telcodata us>]

Not really. For reasons already cited by Keith Medcalf in an offshoot of 
the thread, and because the real world implication of that liability 
transfer would be telecom carriers undertaking risk management and 
looking at their products and pricing and deciding whether certain 
customers should be allowed to send arbitrary caller ID. What would 
likely happen is that small customers would be allowed to send whatever, 
like today. Call center customers (they are already identifying these 
because most big carriers have different rates for callcenter activity 
because of the network load it puts on them) would likely be restricted 
to a subset of numbers, and the biggest, long term call centers would 
probably be allowed to send whatever they want, but with a contract that 
compels them to indemnify the carrier against loss (which would only 
work if the call center was well capitalized enough to make that 
commitment, because the carrier would NOT want to be stuck with the bill 
if they couldn't pay up).

It may sound burdensome, but speaking as an employee of a carrier who is 
in a position to see how things work on the business AND technical side 
(who I do not speak for, in this context) - we're already looking at 
what our customer's intended use is, and whether they're asking for a 
product they can reasonably afford, we run their business credit and if 
they aren't clean enough, we request prepayment for our services, or 
similar.

This would just be one more risk we'd take into account.

-Paul

On 7/11/19 3:04 PM, Peter Beckman wrote:
> "with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of
> value"
>
> Kind of a huge hole that, unless you record all calls which opens other
> liability, is hard to prove.
>
> Beckman
>
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019, Paul Timmins wrote:
>
> > Pretty simply - Sending caller ID to commit fraud. It's literally 
> > already illegal. The legislature has already defined it for us, even.
> >
> > 47 USC 227
> >
> > https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227
> >
> > (B)
> > 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 United States 
> > <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227>, or is exempted by 
> > rule or order by theCommission 
> > <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227>under paragraph (2)(B);
> >
> > (e)(1)In general
> >
> > It shall be unlawful for any person 
> > <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227> within the United 
> > States <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227>, in 
> > connection with any telecommunications service 
> > <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227> orIP-enabled voice 
> > service, <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227> to cause 
> > anycaller identification service 
> > <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227>to knowingly transmit 
> > misleading or inaccuratecaller identification information 
> > <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227>with the intent to 
> > defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value, unless 
> > such transmission is exempted pursuant to paragraph (3)(B).
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > -Paul
> >
> > On 7/11/19 1:18 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> > > '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?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
> Peter Beckman Internet Guy
> beckman () angryox com http://www.angryox.com/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------