nanog mailing list archives
Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls)
From: Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2022 14:58:17 -0400
Honestly the root of a lot of the problems here is the bellheaded insistence of still using E.164 addresses in the first place. With SIP they are complete legacy and there is no reason that my "telephone number" can't be mike () mtcc com.
You can do that all you want. You just don't get to interact with the PSTN. On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 2:53 PM Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com> wrote:
On 10/4/22 11:31 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: What's regulated or implemented is rarely the best course of action. Does this cause more good or harm? Honestly the root of a lot of the problems here is the bellheaded insistence of still using E.164 addresses in the first place. With SIP they are complete legacy and there is no reason that my "telephone number" can't be mike () mtcc com. In fact, that would be a huge win since I could just use my email address book to make a call. You could tell that STIR/SHAKEN really went off the rails when it has heuristics on how to scrape E.164 addresses in the From: field. At this point we should be mostly ignoring legacy signaling, IMO. 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> <shane () ronan-online com> *To: *"Michael Thomas" <mike () mtcc com> <mike () mtcc com> *Cc: *"Mike Hammett" <nanog () ics-il net> <nanog () ics-il net>, nanog () nanog org *Sent: *Tuesday, October 4, 2022 1:21:41 PM *Subject: *Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Except the cost to do the data dips to determine the authorization isn't "free". 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> <shane () ronan-online com> *To: *"Michael Thomas" <mike () mtcc com> <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 trafficotherwise.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 blacklistvoice> > 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 itsobligations under> > the law, it now faces expulsion from America’s phonenetworks. Fines> > alone aren’t enough,” FCC chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcelsaid in a> > statement accompanying the announcement. “Providers thatdon’t follow> > our rules and make it easy to scam consumers will nowface swift> > consequences.” > > > > It’s the first such enforcement action by the agency toreduce the> > growing problem of robocalls since call ID verificationprotocols> > known as “STIR/SHAKEN” went fully into effect thissummer.> > [...] > > Why did we need to wait for STIR/SHAKEN to do this? > > Mike >
Current thread:
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls), (continued)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Ca By (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Mike Hammett (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Robert Blayzor via NANOG (Oct 04)
- Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Compton, Rich A (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Michael Thomas (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Mike Hammett (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Michael Thomas (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Shane Ronan (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Mike Hammett (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Michael Thomas (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Tom Beecher (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Michael Thomas (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Tom Beecher (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) sronan (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Michael Thomas (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) sronan (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Michael Thomas (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) sronan (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Michael Thomas (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Shane Ronan (Oct 04)
- Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) Michael Thomas (Oct 04)