> > I thought that SCOTUS ruled years ago that telco users possess a First > Amendment right to spoof Caller ID. >
If you are referring to Facebook v. Duguid , that's not what the ruling says at all. On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 1:23 AM Matthew Black <matthew.bl...@csulb.edu> wrote: > I thought that SCOTUS ruled years ago that telco users possess a First > Amendment right to spoof Caller ID. > > > > Matthew > > > > > > *From:* NANOG < > *On Behalf Of *Shane Ronan > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 04, 2022 11:22 AM > *To:* Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> > *Cc:* nanog@nanog.org > *Subject:* Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls) > > > > CAUTION: This email was sent from an external source. > > > > 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 <m...@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 > <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ics-il.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7CMatthew.Black%40csulb.edu%7C4f407d3657914e6e376808daa635d027%7Cd175679bacd34644be82af041982977a%7C0%7C0%7C638005047301904372%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bo0uAAYDQOW8qVLoIa1ry3XqWW1fvzQl3ekm3Db77cg%3D&reserved=0> > > Midwest-IX > http://www.midwest-ix.com > <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.midwest-ix.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7CMatthew.Black%40csulb.edu%7C4f407d3657914e6e376808daa635d027%7Cd175679bacd34644be82af041982977a%7C0%7C0%7C638005047301904372%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2BxqML5s%2FfiO2qJqgjTwIscrNnb%2FakGsBmNz3p07fFs%3D&reserved=0> > > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Shane Ronan" <sh...@ronan-online.com> <sh...@ronan-online.com> > *To: *"Michael Thomas" <m...@mtcc.com> <m...@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 <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/ > <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cyberscoop.com%2Ffcc-robocall-fine-database-removal%2F&data=05%7C01%7CMatthew.Black%40csulb.edu%7C4f407d3657914e6e376808daa635d027%7Cd175679bacd34644be82af041982977a%7C0%7C0%7C638005047301904372%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=YzrPveqbGpF%2FnpjU%2Bn9m6GTx5mhA2dG%2FzACG%2Fjmdumc%3D&reserved=0> > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > “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 > > > > > > > > > > >