On Sat, 2020-01-04 at 16:32 +0200, Max Tulyev wrote:
>
> Also, we implemented immediate answer and voice menu option, it says
> "Welcome, press ... to reach ...!" and circles. So me (as the telco
> operator) receive the money for call termination, and real customer
> do
> not get a spam call. L
Not only international call costs money (yes, it is extremely cheap SIP
nowdays), but the time of call center operators costs money as well, And
it is really not so cheap for the end customer (i.e. spammer), even in
India.
20.12.19 19:56, Mark Milhollan пише:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Keith Medcal
I do that every time ;)
As the owner of telco, I even get small money for this call termination.
Also, we implemented immediate answer and voice menu option, it says
"Welcome, press ... to reach ...!" and circles. So me (as the telco
operator) receive the money for call termination, and real c
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 tha
━━━
> 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
> thes
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'r
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 r
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
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 o
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
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
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
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
ember 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 tal
ay, 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
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
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 lo
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 wr
> 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 (han
On 12/19/19 6:52 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
On Thursday, 19 December, 2019 19:07, Valdis Kletnieks
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 16:02:42 -0700, "Keith Medcalf" said:
That stupid people do stupid things has no bearing on me. If there
is
a legal requirement for these people to be "notifying" t
On Thursday, 19 December, 2019 19:07, Valdis Kletnieks
wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 16:02:42 -0700, "Keith Medcalf" said:
>> That stupid people do stupid things has no bearing on me. If there
is
>> a legal requirement for these people to be "notifying" then they are
>> required to notify.
>>
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 16:02:42 -0700, "Keith Medcalf" said:
> That stupid people do stupid things has no bearing on me. If there is a
> legal requirement for these people to be "notifying" then they are required to
> notify.
> I do not want to receive robocalls period. End of Line. No Exception.
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, 2
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 sa
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 Too
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 3:15 PM wrote:
>
>
> 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
On 12/19/19 6:11 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
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
billabl
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
gt;Jeff Shultz
>Sent: Thursday, 19 December, 2019 14:59
>To: North American Network Operators' Group
>Subject: Re: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls
>
>On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 1:46 PM Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>>
>> [ Re-sent with proper headers.
On Thursday, 19 December, 2019 14:02, Michael Homas wrote:
>There are robocalls that you want to get. Here in california, our
>wonderful electric company sends out robocalls when they are going to
>cut our electricity so they don't get blamed for burning down cities
>(and then still manage to an
On 12/19/19 2:56 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
On Thursday, 19 December, 2019 13:57, 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.
I really do not care. It
On Thursday, 19 December, 2019 13:57, 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.
I really do not care. It is my e-mail server. It is my telephone.
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 13:59:00 -0800, Jeff Shultz said:
> I've occasionally thought that a tactical air strike on a couple of
> call centers might just convince the others of the errors of their
> ways.
Having a US-owned A10 strafe a Philippines-based call center is probably a bad
idea diplomatical
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 1:46 PM Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>
> [ Re-sent with proper headers. My apologies for the typo'd previous version.
> ]
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:34:48AM -0800, William Herrin wrote:
> > I don't want to start an arms race with the spam callers, I want to
> > end it. That m
[ Re-sent with proper headers. My apologies for the typo'd previous version. ]
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:34:48AM -0800, William Herrin wrote:
> I don't want to start an arms race with the spam callers, I want to
> end it. That means: jump directly to something they can't easily
> defeat.
It is
ton Telecom
200 Church St, Burlington, VT
-Original Message-
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Troy Martin
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 1:54 PM
To: Keith Medcalf ; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls
WARNING!! This message originated from an External
On 12/19/19 1:09 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
Bcc:
Subject:
Reply-To:
In-Reply-To:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:34:48AM -0800, William Herrin wrote:
I don't want to start an arms race with the spam callers, I want to
end it. That means: jump directly to something they can't easily
defeat.
It is
On 12/19/19 11:27 AM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
On Thu, 2019-12-19 at 11:02 -0800, William Herrin wrote:
I call your phone number.
Your phone company compares my number against your whitelist. Ring
through on match.
If no match, "You have reached Name. Press 2 to leave a message.
Press
3 to ente
On 12/19/19 11:34 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:27 AM Brian J. Murrell wrote:
On Thu, 2019-12-19 at 11:02 -0800, William Herrin wrote:
I call your phone number.
Your phone company compares my number against your whitelist. Ring
through on match.
If no match, "You have
On 12/19/19 8:16 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
How is it envisioned that this will work?
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
motiva
ing my cell
to continue to be a source of annoyance for the foreseeable future.
--
Troy Martin | tmar...@charter.ca
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG On Behalf Of Keith Medcalf
> Sent: December 19, 2019 9:43 AM
> To: Brandon Martin ; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: FCC p
On Thursday, 19 December, 2019 12:54, Dan Hollis
wrote:
>Fact is the telcos make lots of money off spoofed robocalls so they
have
>zero incentive to stop the practice.
That is an easy one to solve. The telco simply needs to provide a free
"Call Screening" service that you can activate on your
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 Brandon Martin
Sent: Thursday, 19 December, 2019 10:25
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed roboc
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:27 AM Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2019-12-19 at 11:02 -0800, William Herrin wrote:
> >
> > I call your phone number.
> > Your phone company compares my number against your whitelist. Ring
> > through on match.
> > If no match, "You have reached Name. Press 2 to l
On Thu, 2019-12-19 at 11:02 -0800, William Herrin wrote:
>
> I call your phone number.
> Your phone company compares my number against your whitelist. Ring
> through on match.
> If no match, "You have reached Name. Press 2 to leave a message.
> Press
> 3 to enter your code. Press 0 or stay on the
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 9:25 AM Brandon Martin wrote:
> Further, it's entirely normal and perfectly legitimate (to varying
> degrees) for an outfit to purport in CID a number that is not directly
> assigned to them nor which will actually result in a callback being
> routed to them.
Hi Brandon,
Behalf Of Brandon Martin
>Sent: Thursday, 19 December, 2019 10:25
>To: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls
>
>On 12/19/19 12:09 PM, Andreas Ott wrote:
>> I have also been told that there is no equivalent of uRPF in the phone
&
On 12/19/19 12:09 PM, Andreas Ott wrote:
I have also been told that there is no equivalent of uRPF in the phone world.
This is the biggest issue, and unfortunately (and my knowledge of the
PSTN is admittedly a bit lacking, here), there's likely no good way to
add it.
Calls on the PSTN are r
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 the
ave these stopped. I received 10 of them yesterday,
> pretending to be apple icloud support
>
>
>
> From: NANOG On Behalf Of Javier J
> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 8:38 PM
> To: Sean Donelan
> Cc: nanog
> Subject: Re: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed roboca
8, 2019 8:38 PM
> *To:* Sean Donelan
> *Cc:* nanog
> *Subject:* Re: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls
>
>
>
> It is so bad that I am not above us bribing politicians in
> foreign countries to crack down on this.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On T
Would be nice to have these stopped. I received 10 of them yesterday,
pretending to be apple icloud support
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Javier J
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 8:38 PM
To: Sean Donelan
Cc: nanog
Subject: Re: FCC proposes $10 Million fine for spoofed robocalls
It is so bad
It is so bad that I am not above us bribing politicians in
foreign countries to crack down on this.
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 3:37 PM Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> On Monday, U.S. FCC Chairman Pai and Canadian CRTC Chairperson Scott made
> the first official cross-border SHAKEN/STIR call.
>
> https://
On Monday, U.S. FCC Chairman Pai and Canadian CRTC Chairperson Scott made
the first official cross-border SHAKEN/STIR call.
https://www.fcc.gov/document/pai-scott-make-first-official-cross-border-shakenstir-call
Today, the U.S. FCC announced a proposed nearly $10 million fine for
spoofed ro
54 matches
Mail list logo
