Re: BANDWIDTH and VONAGE lose FCC rules exemption for STIR/SHAKEN

[Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>]

On 2/20/22 9:56 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> Mine exploded since the requirement date.  Some mornings I get a dozen 
> before lunch.

So our anecdotes don't agree :) I know, maybe we should find out 
somebody who's doing research on this?

Does anybody know how this is being tracked for real?

Mike


> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 2:33 PM Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com> wrote:
>
>
>     On 2/17/22 11:58 AM, Sean Donelan wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-finds-two-providers-failed-fully-implement-stirshaken-0
>
>     >
>     >
>     > The Federal Communications Commission today took action to
>     ensure that
>     > voice service providers meet their commitments and obligations to
>     > implement STIR/SHAKEN standards to combat spoofed robocall scams.
>     > Specifically, voice service providers Bandwidth and Vonage lost a
>     > partial exemption from STIR/SHAKEN because they failed to meet
>     > STIR/SHAKEN implementation commitments and have been referred to
>     the
>     > FCC’s Enforcement Bureau for further investigation.
>
>
>     So for probably a year or so before the Stir/Shaken mandate came,
>     I have
>     been seeing a lot less phone spam. I don't know if that's typical
>     but it
>     was quite noticeable for me. What that tells me is that providers
>     likely
>     started clamping down on their shady customers well ahead of the
>     mandate
>     which says that regulatory fiat would have been sufficient too.
>     But that
>     hinges on whether my situation is typical though.
>
>     Mike