RE: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls

[Kevin Burke <kburke () burlingtontelecom com>]

There are laws against many of these SPAM calls today.  I suppose the agencies that are responsible for prosecuting 
these could answer some of their SPAM calls to see who was calling.  Same thing with SPAM faxes, we didn't get a 
technical fix, just used the law against anyone who tried.  Fax SPAM isn't fixed but its not being abused.

Technical fixes might will no doubt be part of the problem.  But enforcement will also address this.  

But yes I see everyone's lack of apathy for this problem as only accelerating the death of the PSTN.

Kevin Burke
802-540-0979
Burlington Telecom
200 Church St, Burlington, VT

-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces () nanog org> On Behalf Of Troy Martin
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 1:54 PM
To: Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf () dessus com>; nanog () nanog org
Subject: RE: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls

WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening 
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

On top of that, there's also the issue of many telcos deciding that, no, you can't just shove whatever you want on the 
wire, it needs to be a DID and name registered on your trunk... unless you pay us an extra fee per month and say you'll 
be good, then you can spoof to your heart's content.

As far as actual enforcement of all this goes, this morning spam and robocall blocking legislation came into force in 
Canada. Coincidentally, this morning so far I've received six robocalls from the same "your social insurance number has 
been hacked and you are breaking the law by not paying us to fix it" scam, two of which were before the sun came up. 
Prior to today I usually got one a day on average.

At least one of the big three carriers has said they're going to be rolling out network-side call blocking "in the 
coming weeks" but I'm expecting my cell to continue to be a source of annoyance for the foreseeable future.

--
Troy Martin | tmartin () charter ca

> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces () nanog org> On Behalf Of Keith Medcalf
> Sent: December 19, 2019 9:43 AM
> To: Brandon Martin <lists.nanog () monmotha net>; nanog () nanog org
> Subject: RE: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls
>
>
> "CallerID" is a misnomer.  It is actually the "Advertized ID".  
> However, the telco's realized you would not pay to receive advertizing 
> so they renamed it to something they thought you would pay for.
>
> Pretty canny business model eh?  And apparently y'all fell for it, 
> thinking it was related to the Identification of the Caller, rather 
> than being what the caller wished to advertize.
>
> --
> The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven 
> says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.