Re: BANDWIDTH and VONAGE lose FCC rules exemption for STIR/SHAKEN

[Brandon Svec via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

There is a company First Orion that does some surveys and reports on such
things: https://firstorion.com/2021-scam-call-trends/
*Brandon Svec*



On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 1:58 PM Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com> wrote:

> On 2/20/22 9:56 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> Mine exploded since the requirement date.  Some mornings I get a dozen
> before lunch.
>
> So our anecdotes don't agree :) I know, maybe we should find out somebody
> who's doing research on this?
>
> Does anybody know how this is being tracked for real?
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 2:33 PM Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com> wrote:
>
> > On 2/17/22 11:58 AM, Sean Donelan wrote:
> > >
> > https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-finds-two-providers-failed-fully-implement-stirshaken-0
> > > The Federal Communications Commission today took action to ensure that
> > > voice service providers meet their commitments and obligations to
> > > implement STIR/SHAKEN standards to combat spoofed robocall scams.
> > > Specifically, voice service providers Bandwidth and Vonage lost a
> > > partial exemption from STIR/SHAKEN because they failed to meet
> > > STIR/SHAKEN implementation commitments and have been referred to the
> > > FCC’s Enforcement Bureau for further investigation.
> >
> >
> > So for probably a year or so before the Stir/Shaken mandate came, I have
> > been seeing a lot less phone spam. I don't know if that's typical but it
> > was quite noticeable for me. What that tells me is that providers likely
> > started clamping down on their shady customers well ahead of the mandate
> > which says that regulatory fiat would have been sufficient too. But that
> > hinges on whether my situation is typical though.
> >
> > Mike