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

[Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>]

On 10/4/22 1:40 PM, sronan () ronan-online com wrote:
> Except the pstn DB isn’t distributed like DNS is.


Yes, I had forgot about "dip" in that sense. But an originating provider 
doesn't need to do a dip to know that the calling number routes to 
itself. I've been talking about the calling provider not the called 
provider all along.

Mike

> > On Oct 4, 2022, at 2:40 PM, Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com> wrote:
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> > On 10/4/22 11:21 AM, Shane Ronan wrote:
> > > Except the cost to do the data dips to determine the authorization 
> > > isn't "free".
> >
> > Since every http request in the universe requires a "database dip" 
> > and they are probably a billion times more common, that doesn't seem 
> > like a very compelling concern.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > > 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>
> > > >     <mailto:shane () ronan-online com>
> > > >     *To: *"Michael Thomas" <mike () mtcc com> <mailto: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
> > > >         >      >
> > > >         >
> > > >         >