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

[Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com>]

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 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
> > >      >