Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls)

[sronan () ronan-online com]

Inter-telco trunks aren’t all SIP, you might be surprised how much “traditional” trunking there still is.

> On Oct 4, 2022, at 3:18 PM, Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com> wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> > On 10/4/22 11:58 AM, Tom Beecher wrote:
> > >  Honestly the root of a lot of the problems here is the bellheaded insistence of still using E.164 addresses in the 
> > > first place. With SIP they are complete legacy and there is no reason that my "telephone number" can't be mike () 
> > > mtcc com.
> >
> > You can do that all you want. You just don't get to interact with the PSTN.
> What is the "PSTN" these days? It's a bunch of interconnected SIP proxies where there is nothing special about the 
> identifiers used. With end to end SIP (or middle to middle, etc), the routing is not being done with e.164 addresses 
> like in the legacy PSTN. It's just bellheaded thinking that e.164 addresses mean anything these days.The only time 
> they make any difference is if they need to off ramp to legacy signaling which is becoming rarer and rarer. 
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> > On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 2:53 PM Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com> wrote:
> > > > On 10/4/22 11:31 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> > > > What's regulated or implemented is rarely the best course of action. Does this cause more good or harm?
> > >
> > > Honestly the root of a lot of the problems here is the bellheaded insistence of still using E.164 addresses in the 
> > > first place. With SIP they are complete legacy and there is no reason that my "telephone number" can't be mike () 
> > > mtcc com. In fact, that would be a huge win since I could just use my email address book to make a call. You could 
> > > tell that STIR/SHAKEN really went off the rails when it has heuristics on how to scrape E.164 addresses in the 
> > > From: field. At this point we should be mostly ignoring legacy signaling, IMO. 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > Mike Hammett
> > > > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> > > > http://www.ics-il.com
> > > >
> > > > Midwest-IX
> > > > http://www.midwest-ix.com
> > > >
> > > > From: "Shane Ronan" <shane () ronan-online com>
> > > > To: "Michael Thomas" <mike () mtcc com>
> > > > Cc: "Mike Hammett" <nanog () ics-il net>, nanog () nanog org
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 1:21:41 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: FCC chairwoman: Fines alone aren't enough (Robocalls)
> > > >
> > > > 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 <mike () 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
> > > > >
> > > > > Midwest-IX
> > > > > http://www.midwest-ix.com
> > > > >
> > > > > From: "Shane Ronan" <shane () ronan-online com>
> > > > > To: "Michael Thomas" <mike () 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 <mike () 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" <mike () 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.com () 
> > > > > > > nanog org on behalf of mike () 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
> > > > > > >      >