RE: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls

[Troy Martin <tmartin () charter ca>]

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.