RE: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls

[Peter Beckman]

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019, Keith Medcalf wrote:


On Friday, 20 December, 2019 10:57, Mark Milhollan wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Keith Medcalf wrote:



You should ALWAYS talk to the call center behind the robocaller.  The
robocaller (the one playing the message) is relatively local and the
cost of that call is minimal.  When you select to talk to the
robocaller, that generates an international handoff to a call center
in India.



Generally the call center phone number is also "local" even if the warm
body is in some other country as that usually occurs via SIP.


Be that as it may, every minute you keep the call center person on the
line is a minute they are not busily scamming someone else.
Furthermore, while it is merely anecdotal, I can indeed report that
since instituting a policy of ALWAYS answering robocalls and ALWAYS
keeping them talking as long as possible, the number of such calls has
decreased markedly, from several per day to now only one every couple of
weeks / month.

Because there *is* a cost associated with robo-scams, they must keep
score in order to maximize return for the resources consumed (unlike
e-mail spam scams which have effectively no need to prune the potential
target list) you simply have to make the "cost" of dialing your
telephone more expensive that the other couple billion potential
targets.  Its like being in a group being chased by a bear.  You needn't
run faster than the bear, merely faster than the slowest in the group.


This assumes my time is worth less than nothing, which is not the case, and
that my time will make a material negative impact on these operations,
which it will not.

I do not believe that all people receiving these calls will spend the time
to screw with them at a high enough rate to make it cost-ineffective for
the scams to continue, unfortunately due to the high enough rate of success
that keeps them in business.

---
Peter Beckman  Internet Guy
beck...@angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/
---

Re: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls

[bzs]

On December 20, 2019 at 08:00 na...@ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) wrote:
 > I can't imagine many telcos are making a lot of money from voice anymore.

They may not be making a huge amount anymore which may be why they're
now allowing (i.e., not fighting/lobbying) these folks to be thrown
under the bus before someone shines a light on them.

 > 
 > 
 > -
 > Mike Hammett
 > Intelligent Computing Solutions
 > http://www.ics-il.com
 > 
 > Midwest-IX
 > http://www.midwest-ix.com
 > 
 > ━━━
 > From: b...@theworld.com
 > To: "nanog" 
 > Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 5:11:17 PM
 > Subject: RE: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls
 > 
 > 
 > They should be fining the telcos, they're making a lot of money on
 > these calls.
 > 
 > And if you believe otherwise (e.g., that it's like email spam) you've
 > been duped by telco PR.
 > 
 > Unlike spam when was the last time a telco failed to bill you for a
 > billable phone call? Never.
 > 
 > They know exactly who is using their system. And they get paid for
 > it. And these junk callers are making millions of calls per hour when
 > they're active.
 > 
 > The entire telco infrastructure has been described as a billing system
 > with some added voice features.
 > 
 > Try devising a box which makes millions of voice calls per hour and
 > see how long it takes before you're stopped dead until you agree to
 > pay the telcos for those calls, or get arrested.
 > 
 > --
 > -Barry Shein
 > 
 > Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | 
 > http://www.TheWorld.com
 > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
 > The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
 > 

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls

[Paul Timmins]

On 12/20/19 9:00 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

I can't imagine many telcos are making a lot of money from voice anymore.


We are. Not as much as the olden days, but we are. And a lot of 
companies charge surcharges to customers who have tons of short duration 
calls. Do the math on why, and who they're targeting for a little extra 
income.

Re: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls

[Michael Thomas]

On 12/20/19 11:46 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 1:40 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:


SHAKEN is trying to solve e.164 problem which inherently hard and
subject to a lot of cases where it fails. Their problem statement is
worth the read if you're interested.

I'll have to go read, I didn't pay attention much to stir/etc after
the first meeting when it was made very clear that they really didn't
want opionions from outside their group (at that time) or
thoughts/ideas that came from outside the bell-shaped-head space. is
fine, I had many other problems to solve.



I know most of the people who worked on this, and it definitely seems 
like it got wrapped around a bell shaped axle. But P-ASSERTED-IDENTITY 
was always about telco stuff, not internet stuff, so it's unsurprising 
that trying to get a workable version of P-ASSERTED-IDENTITY wouldn't be 
receptive to solutions for other problems.




And since we've been told that 5G is a magic elixir that will wash our
clothes and dress our dogs, our new phones can just be SIP UA's instead
of going through the PSTN nonsense at all.


the think is.. SIP doesnt' matter here.. not really.
or I don't care about the carriage, as long as I can say: 'the think
I'm talking at on the 'far end' is whom they say they are...
verified... no one else can pretend to be that thing/person/etc"

To know *exactly* who's at the other end of the line is an extremely 
hard problem. But if are willing to relax that a bit and say that I can 
know for certain the *domain* that sent it, we definitely know how to do 
that, and happens billions of times an hour. For example, I can be 
pretty sure that morrowc.li...@gmail.com is probably the whoever owns 
that account since google is very strict about smtp auth, and i know 
that gmail.com sent the message. And obviously with a domain identifier, 
you can be held accountable by blacklist services, etc.


But my main point is that with 5G there's really no reason to keep the 
legacy PSTN stuff there. Why do I want to be beholden to legacy telco 
stuff when everything can do voip these days? E.164 needs to sail into 
the west.


Mike

RE: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls

[Keith Medcalf]

On Friday, 20 December, 2019 10:57, Mark Milhollan wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Keith Medcalf wrote:

>>You should ALWAYS talk to the call center behind the robocaller.  The
>>robocaller (the one playing the message) is relatively local and the
>>cost of that call is minimal.  When you select to talk to the
>>robocaller, that generates an international handoff to a call center
>>in India.

>Generally the call center phone number is also "local" even if the warm
>body is in some other country as that usually occurs via SIP.

Be that as it may, every minute you keep the call center person on the
line is a minute they are not busily scamming someone else.
Furthermore, while it is merely anecdotal, I can indeed report that
since instituting a policy of ALWAYS answering robocalls and ALWAYS
keeping them talking as long as possible, the number of such calls has
decreased markedly, from several per day to now only one every couple of
weeks / month.

Because there *is* a cost associated with robo-scams, they must keep
score in order to maximize return for the resources consumed (unlike
e-mail spam scams which have effectively no need to prune the potential
target list) you simply have to make the "cost" of dialing your
telephone more expensive that the other couple billion potential
targets.  Its like being in a group being chased by a bear.  You needn't
run faster than the bear, merely faster than the slowest in the group.

--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven
says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.

Re: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls

[Christopher Morrow]

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 1:40 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:
>
>
> On 12/19/19 9:14 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> >> Plus if it didn't work well/too cumbersome/etc with email, it probably
> >> won't be any better with voice. We have lots of experience with what
> >> doesn't work for email.
> > I sort of figured that the shaken/stir model that ( i happened to
> > propose in their first meeting) of:
> >"get the originator (handset, ebony phone, call-warehouse) to
> > digitally sign the call initiation, propagate that through the network
> > to the receiver (so they could associate the
> > md5/sha256/cert-signature/etc with an identity, and let the receivers
> > decide: 'Not in my known callers list, no answer'"
> >
> > was a great plan... that the folk in the room basically didn't
> > understand (or even want me to voice, actually)... It's a shame that
> > something like this wasn't created instead of shaken/stir. You could
> > check the signature at any of the hops, start failing calls earlier as
> > rates of completion didn't stay at some standard level. All sorts of
> > options would be available, and really the callers could be identified
> > (at least by endpoint) more quickly.
> >
> > oh well. glad we got shaken / stir though? :)
>
>
> SHAKEN is trying to solve e.164 problem which inherently hard and
> subject to a lot of cases where it fails. Their problem statement is
> worth the read if you're interested.

I'll have to go read, I didn't pay attention much to stir/etc after
the first meeting when it was made very clear that they really didn't
want opionions from outside their group (at that time) or
thoughts/ideas that came from outside the bell-shaped-head space. is
fine, I had many other problems to solve.

> But the reality is that it's a pretty SIP-y world these days, and the
> proper identity for SIP is the From: address, not the e.164 address.
> Since From: addresses contain domain names, you can tie identity to the
> domain itself, instead of trying to make sense of telephone number
> delegations. It would be trivial to attach a signature to the SIP
> INVITE's -- we've been doing that for 15 years with email, and then you
> at least know that the INVITE came from the domain it purports to be
> from. It works even for PSTN last legs because the PSTN headend can
> place the From: address in the caller id. Armed with that knowledge, you
> can filter to your heart's content.
>

this is sort of what I was imagining, except that the caller's handset
(or copper receiver at the end of my ebony phone (in the CO)) could
stamp my call with the correct signature for 'me'.

Ideally 'number' or 'person face' or 'video dancing hamster' makes no
difference here.
Oh my handset I see a picture of your smiling face (or randys or even
seans...) and I (if I agree that's whom I'm talking to) I click the
'verified' button and now only that sent 'certificate' can pretend to
be the person I'm talking to.

Setup some call screening system at the telco, people that last can
get 'verified' by the reciever.. bob's yer auntie and robo callers go
away.

> And since we've been told that 5G is a magic elixir that will wash our
> clothes and dress our dogs, our new phones can just be SIP UA's instead
> of going through the PSTN nonsense at all.
>

the think is.. SIP doesnt' matter here.. not really.
or I don't care about the carriage, as long as I can say: 'the think
I'm talking at on the 'far end' is whom they say they are...
verified... no one else can pretend to be that thing/person/etc"

> STIR/SHAKEN seems like a solution to a problem whose time is way overdue
> to be retired.

maybe.

Re: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls

[Michael Thomas]

On 12/19/19 9:14 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:

Plus if it didn't work well/too cumbersome/etc with email, it probably
won't be any better with voice. We have lots of experience with what
doesn't work for email.

I sort of figured that the shaken/stir model that ( i happened to
propose in their first meeting) of:
   "get the originator (handset, ebony phone, call-warehouse) to
digitally sign the call initiation, propagate that through the network
to the receiver (so they could associate the
md5/sha256/cert-signature/etc with an identity, and let the receivers
decide: 'Not in my known callers list, no answer'"

was a great plan... that the folk in the room basically didn't
understand (or even want me to voice, actually)... It's a shame that
something like this wasn't created instead of shaken/stir. You could
check the signature at any of the hops, start failing calls earlier as
rates of completion didn't stay at some standard level. All sorts of
options would be available, and really the callers could be identified
(at least by endpoint) more quickly.

oh well. glad we got shaken / stir though? :)



SHAKEN is trying to solve e.164 problem which inherently hard and 
subject to a lot of cases where it fails. Their problem statement is 
worth the read if you're interested.


But the reality is that it's a pretty SIP-y world these days, and the 
proper identity for SIP is the From: address, not the e.164 address. 
Since From: addresses contain domain names, you can tie identity to the 
domain itself, instead of trying to make sense of telephone number 
delegations. It would be trivial to attach a signature to the SIP 
INVITE's -- we've been doing that for 15 years with email, and then you 
at least know that the INVITE came from the domain it purports to be 
from. It works even for PSTN last legs because the PSTN headend can 
place the From: address in the caller id. Armed with that knowledge, you 
can filter to your heart's content.


And since we've been told that 5G is a magic elixir that will wash our 
clothes and dress our dogs, our new phones can just be SIP UA's instead 
of going through the PSTN nonsense at all.


STIR/SHAKEN seems like a solution to a problem whose time is way overdue 
to be retired.


Mike

Weekly Routing Table Report

[Routing Analysis Role Account]

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.

The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG
TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.

Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net

For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net.

If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith .

Routing Table Report   04:00 +10GMT Sat 21 Dec, 2019

Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net
Detailed Analysis:  http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/

Analysis Summary


BGP routing table entries examined:  788605
Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS):  300793
Deaggregation factor:  2.62
Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets):  386434
Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 66571
Prefixes per ASN: 11.85
Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   57215
Origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   24175
Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:9356
Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:289
Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table:   4.4
Max AS path length visible:  41
Max AS path prepend of ASN (  8697)  28
Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table:  1311
Number of instances of unregistered ASNs:  1313
Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs:  29921
Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:   24634
Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table:  112572
Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:29
Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:1
Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space:285
Number of addresses announced to Internet:   2845478784
Equivalent to 169 /8s, 154 /16s and 143 /24s
Percentage of available address space announced:   76.9
Percentage of allocated address space announced:   76.9
Percentage of available address space allocated:  100.0
Percentage of address space in use by end-sites:   99.4
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  263835

APNIC Region Analysis Summary
-

Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes:   209493
Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation:   61025
APNIC Deaggregation factor:3.43
Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks:  203626
Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:84593
APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   10259
APNIC Prefixes per ASN:   19.85
APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   2864
APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   1532
Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:4.6
Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 26
Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:   5304
Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet:  767196672
Equivalent to 45 /8s, 186 /16s and 126 /24s
APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431
(pre-ERX allocations)  23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319,
   58368-59391, 63488-64098, 64297-64395, 131072-141625
APNIC Address Blocks 1/8,  14/8,  27/8,  36/8,  39/8,  42/8,  43/8,
49/8,  58/8,  59/8,  60/8,  61/8, 101/8, 103/8,
   106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8,
   116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8,
   123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8,
   163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8,
   203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8,
   222/8, 223/8,

ARIN Region Analysis Summary


Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes:231277
Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:   107122
ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.16
Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks:   229192
Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks:116042
ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:18342
ARIN Prefixes per ASN:12.50
ARIN 

RE: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls

[Mark Milhollan]

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Keith Medcalf wrote:

You should ALWAYS talk to the call center behind the robocaller.  The 
robocaller (the one playing the message) is relatively local and the 
cost of that call is minimal.  When you select to talk to the 
robocaller, that generates an international handoff to a call center 
in India.


Generally the call center phone number is also "local" even if the warm 
body is in some other country as that usually occurs via SIP.



/mark

Re: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls

[Dan Hollis]

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019, Mike Hammett wrote:

So send them all to Lenny?


I wish there was a phone app to do this.

-Dan

Re: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls

[Dan Hollis]

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Paul Timmins wrote:

The people handling these calls know exactly who their customers are,


yep


and they'd remove them in hours if a legal mandate came down to provide
passthrough penalties for providing service to these people.


the only penalties that would motivate them is prison terms.

financial penalties will be ignored.

-Dan

Re: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls

[Mike Hammett]

So send them all to Lenny? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Keith Medcalf"  
To: "North American Network Operators' Group"  
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 6:09:32 PM 
Subject: RE: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls 


This, of course, will do no good. These so called "Robocalls" are exactly that. 
They generate a random number to call and play the silly canned message. If you 
press whatever the code is to talk to the idiots, they then hand off the call 
to a call center. 

You should ALWAYS talk to the call center behind the robocaller. The robocaller 
(the one playing the message) is relatively local and the cost of that call is 
minimal. When you select to talk to the robocaller, that generates an 
international handoff to a call center in India. This costs more money (it 
costs THEM more money). The longer you can keep the bastards talking on the 
phone, the MORE it costs them. It can also be quite entertaining and you can 
keep them on the line for HOURS with enough practice. 

If you do this EVERY SINGLE TIME then in rather short order your telephone 
number will be fed back to the company doing the "robocalling" as a "bad 
target" and you will get no more robocalls (since there are only two or three 
companies in the whole world who run the front end for a whole shitload of 
scammers). 

Conversely if you do not answer or hang up on the robo-message, you will be 
classified as an "excellent target" and you will get MORE calls. 

-- 
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume. 

>-Original Message- 
>From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Chad Dailey 
>Sent: Thursday, 19 December, 2019 16:38 
>To: nanog@nanog.org 
>Subject: Re: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls 
> 
>Perhaps list the phone number of your representatives or your state 
>attorney general's office in your domain contact info. 
> 
> 
>On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 5:28 PM  > wrote: 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to end robocalls then every time you get one call your 
> local congress person's or senator's main phone number and say "I 
>just 
> got another robocall (perhaps characterizing it like 'for auto 
> warranties' or 'for IRS fraud')". 
> 
> Everyone. Every time. 
> 
> -- 
> -Barry Shein 
> 
> Software Tool & Die | b...@theworld.com | 
>http://www.TheWorld.com 
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD 
> The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* 
> 

Re: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls

[Mike Hammett]

I can't imagine many telcos are making a lot of money from voice anymore. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: b...@theworld.com 
To: "nanog"  
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 5:11:17 PM 
Subject: RE: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls 


They should be fining the telcos, they're making a lot of money on 
these calls. 

And if you believe otherwise (e.g., that it's like email spam) you've 
been duped by telco PR. 

Unlike spam when was the last time a telco failed to bill you for a 
billable phone call? Never. 

They know exactly who is using their system. And they get paid for 
it. And these junk callers are making millions of calls per hour when 
they're active. 

The entire telco infrastructure has been described as a billing system 
with some added voice features. 

Try devising a box which makes millions of voice calls per hour and 
see how long it takes before you're stopped dead until you agree to 
pay the telcos for those calls, or get arrested. 

-- 
-Barry Shein 

Software Tool & Die | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com 
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD 
The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* 

Re: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls

[Valdis Klētnieks]

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 00:14:33 -0800, Large Hadron Collider said:
> Is it legally a spoofed robo-call if I robo-call someone who has
> consented to be robo-called, with the caller-ID of a number that is
> affiliated with me but not with the telco I'm calling from?

Every 8 weeks, the vampires at the American Red Cross call me to schedule
another blood donation, and I'm sure that the number on my caller-ID isn't the
actual phone number attached to the specific seat at the call center.

And I'm pretty sure that until I answer the call, there's no really good way to
distinguish between a robo-call with a recorded message and a robo-dialed
call with an actual carbon-based lifeform at the call center on the call...

(If I'm wrong on that one, feel free to enlighten me.. :)



pgpgLCWaxCcdR.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: ServiceFinder: Ärendenummer 184863

[Large Hadron Collider]

Agreed!

On 19-12-19 11 h 05, William Herrin wrote:

Would you please unsubscribe your address from the nanog mailing list?

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:05 AM nanog@nanog.org
 mailto:i...@servicefinder.com>> wrote:

__
Vänligen skriv endast ovanför denna markering när du svarar på
meddelandet.
Hej Andreas Ott,
Tack för din fråga!

Vi har nu registrerat ditt ärende och du kommer inom kort att bli
kontaktad av oss på Kundservice.

Du kan också få hjälp själv via vårt Support Center på
www.support.servicefinder.se. 

Du har ärendenummer *184863* – och alla våra ärenden hanteras i
den turordning som de kommer in.

Vi kontaktar dig så snart vi bara kan, din fråga är viktig för oss.

Ha en fortsatt bra dag,

--


Med vänliga hälsningar

*Kundservice*

Öppettider: Vardagar 9-17 | Växel: 08-653 00 00 

Hemsida: www.servicefinder.se 
ServiceFinder.se


--

Detta meddelande skickades till andr...@naund.org
 med hänvisning till ärende 184863.

[[d6cfd2851039b706a8b132ff191c6dbee09cb785-1481251958]]



--
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us 

https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls

[Jared Mauch]

There's a lot fewer cell companies than email providers. This may work to the 
advantage of consumers. 

Sent from my iCar

> On Dec 19, 2019, at 3:57 PM, Michael Thomas  wrote:
> 
> Plus if it didn't work well/too cumbersome/etc with email, it probably won't 
> be any better with voice. We have lots of experience with what doesn't work 
> for email.

Re: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls

[Large Hadron Collider]

Is it legally a spoofed robo-call if I robo-call someone who has
consented to be robo-called, with the caller-ID of a number that is
affiliated with me but not with the telco I'm calling from?

On 19-12-19 09 h 09, Andreas Ott wrote:

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:16:08AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:

How is it envisioned that this will work?

My prediction for 2020: it still won't work, like in 2019 and the years
before that. A call originated, transported and delivered equals revenue
for all involved parties, so it is in their best interest not to block
them, unless the fines are really magnitude(s) higher than the revenue.


I mean, I'm all for less spam calling... and ideally there would be
some form of 'source address verification' on the PSTN/phone
network... but in today's world that really just doesn't exist and the
motivations to suppress fake sources are 'just as good' as they are on
the intertubes. (with crappier options in the gear - SHAKEN/STIR are
really not even available in the majority of the switch 'gear' right?)

When I tried to pay my AT uverse VOIP "landline" bill this morning they
offered me a free "CallProtect App" but when I click on more info it's
in fact only a link to open their "control call forwarding and blocking"
part of the home phone features web site.  All their suggested controls
are enabled, still I am receiving only unwanted calls on this line.

In the call and voicemail history list for my number I have at least these
examples for you to laugh at. Hint: look at the numbers. and I have also
been told that there is no equivalent of uRPF in the phone world.

NameNumber  WhenLength  Actions
Suspected Spam  888-194-124211-30-19, 10:56 AM  0:00Add to Address 
Book

FromNumber  WhenSize
NAME NOT FOUND  408-145-134108-12-19, 09:14 AM  29 Kb
NAME NOT FOUND  213-141-516305-17-19, 10:22 AM  353 Kb


-andreas