Phone spam pretty much always involves the knowledge and involvement of the
provider. There are no phone providers who don't know when one of their
customers are making millions of robocalls.
International toll fraud also always involves the collusion of corrupt small
country telephone monopolies.
So unlike email spam, where there are a million ways to send a million emails a
minute without someone being aware, phone spam is definitively collisional. (Is
that a word?)
On 10/3/22, 5:05 PM, "Michael Thomas" <m...@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" <m...@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....@nanog.org on behalf of m...@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
> >
>
>
