Calvin, Perhaps I missed it, but I do not recall seeing any FCC order authorizing any treatment of calls other than proper termination or blocking.
-jbn On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 5:52 PM Calvin Ellison <[email protected]> wrote: > Can anyone speak to this "CLECs think FAS is OK because robocalls" claim? > I'd really like to tell these carriers exactly how wrong they are, if they > are. If not, we would all be collecting minutes on spam diversion instead > of blocking it. > > > Regards, > > *Calvin Ellison* > Systems Architect > [email protected] > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 11:29 AM Joel Stalder < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> Agreed that the threat of carrier blocking should be a serious deterrent >> but blocking based on the SHAKEN root cert or SPID isn’t the only method. >> There is an expectation of easy/instant traceback too, which will hopefully >> generate onerous support costs for the offending carrier(s) before a BFH is >> required. >> >> >> >> I think of caller verification and spam/fraud/robocall mitigation as two >> potentially related but separate tools. If my network receives a call that >> is SHAKEN-verified but has a very high spam/fraud/robocall score, it’s >> blocked (SIP 608 response). The FCC has provided legal “safe harbor” to >> block such calls without the potential threat of liability, as long as the >> required processes are in-place to remove erroneous blocking. >> >> >> >> -Joel >> >> >> >> *From:* VoiceOps <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Paul >> Timmins >> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 16, 2021 10:45 AM >> *To:* Nick Olsen <[email protected]>; Karl Douthit <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* Voiceops.org <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [VoiceOps] Fake Voicemail Anti-Robocall Tactics >> >> >> >> I expect that people will attest spam. But we're allowed to block >> carriers by spid if we want if we start getting garbage. The effective >> telecom death penalty that'd create (along with the liability) will be an >> interesting enforcement mechanism. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* VoiceOps <[email protected]> on behalf of Nick Olsen >> <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 16, 2021 1:27 PM >> *To:* Karl Douthit >> *Cc:* Voiceops.org >> *Subject:* Re: [VoiceOps] Fake Voicemail Anti-Robocall Tactics >> >> >> >> My faith in STIR/SHAKEN has all but collapsed. I think we're just going >> to end up in a situation where even the SPAM is attested. At least having a >> breadcrumb to follow might help. >> >> >> >> Given the current state of SS. I won't hold my breath. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 12:44 PM Karl Douthit <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Stir will only help if carriers actually pass or allow tokens. Still >> waiting on several tier 1 carriers to take them. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 9:35 AM Glen Gerhard <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hopefully Stir/Shaken will make this a moot point. Calvin, are you saying >> that a 608 is the recommended response for a call that is being rejected >> due to S/S attestation or CVT reasons? >> >> ~Glen >> >> On 2/16/2021 8:19 AM, Calvin Ellison wrote: >> >> Today we received a notice from one of our underlying carriers that >> included the following statement: >> >> >> >> * If a customer spoofs an ANI that they do not own, the clec's can >> forward to call to a voiceless Voicemail which appears to be FAS. >> >> >> >> Is there any legal device that actually supports this practice? I'm >> looking for a specific statute, FCC rule, precedent in a judicial ruling, >> or the like. >> >> >> >> The FCC has ruled that the SIP 608 response code is to be used for >> signaling when a call is rejected. I doubt the FCC or FTC has ruled that >> terminating carriers are permitted to cause loss of trust and revenue >> between upstream intermediate and originating carriers. >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> *Calvin Ellison* >> Systems Architect >> [email protected] >> +1 (213) 285-0555 >> >> ----------------------------------------------- >> *voxox.com <http://www.voxox.com/> * >> 5825 Oberlin Drive, Suite 5 >> San Diego, CA 92121 >> >> [image: Voxox] >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> VoiceOps mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Glen Gerhard >> >> [email protected] >> >> 858.324.4536 >> >> >> >> Cognexus, LLC >> >> 7891 Avenida Kirjah >> >> San Diego, CA 92037 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> VoiceOps mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Karl Douthit >> >> 10572 Calle Lee #123 >> >> Los Alamitos Ca. 90720 >> >> (562) 257-3590 (Desk) >> >> (562) 824-0757 <%28562%29%20827-0757> (Mobile) >> >> *www.piratel.com <http://www.piratel.com/>* >> >> _______________________________________________ >> VoiceOps mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops >> >> _______________________________________________ >> VoiceOps mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops >> > _______________________________________________ > VoiceOps mailing list > [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops >
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
