So if I understand this correctly, a company like Verizon can now legally start blocking calls from other companies known to be supporting spammers. This is great, since it means that a lot of...
So if I understand this correctly, a company like Verizon can now legally start blocking calls from other companies known to be supporting spammers.
This is great, since it means that a lot of these foreign companies that abuse the caller ID system with spoofing will most likely get cracked down on by their backbone providers so they don't get blocked by major carriers in the US.
It's not a complete fix, since there are loopholes, but it at least puts some consequences on the companies enabling this.
There is an exception for carriers that have less than 100,000 customers, which will probably render this pointless. I wish we could pass laws with actual teeth.
There is an exception for carriers that have less than 100,000 customers, which will probably render this pointless. I wish we could pass laws with actual teeth.
There is an exception for carriers that have less than 100,000 customers, which will probably render this pointless. I wish we could pass laws with actual teeth.
From the article:
The FCC also gave carriers with 100,000 or fewer customers until June 30, 2023, to comply with the STIR/SHAKEN requirement, though the commission is seeking comment on a plan to make that deadline June 30, 2022, instead because "evidence demonstrates that a subset of small voice service providers appear to be originating a high number of calls relative to their subscriber base and are also generating a high and increasing share of illegal robocalls compared to larger providers."
Right, I just don't understand why they were given any more time than the larger carriers. They have all had years to prepare for this. They all chose to do nothing while enforcement was "voluntary".
Right, I just don't understand why they were given any more time than the larger carriers. They have all had years to prepare for this. They all chose to do nothing while enforcement was "voluntary".
This is interesting, but it's mixed bag. It's better than nothing, though: ... ...
This is interesting, but it's mixed bag. It's better than nothing, though:
In a new milestone for the US government's anti-robocall efforts, phone companies are now prohibited from accepting calls from providers that did not comply with a Federal Communications Commission deadline that passed this week.
...
STIR/SHAKEN is now widely deployed on IP networks because large phone companies were required to implement it by June 30 this year, but it isn't a cure-all. Because of technology limitations, there was no requirement to implement STIR/SHAKEN on older TDM-based networks used with copper landlines, for instance. The FCC has said that "providers using older forms of network technology [must] either upgrade their networks to IP or actively work to develop a caller ID authentication solution that is operational on non-IP networks."
...
There are just too many loopholes and ways to bypass this system. First of all, smaller providers currently aren't being required to implement this new system. And so if you're robocalling, you're probably going to be moving to a smaller carrier. Another issue is there are certain providers who are providing US phone service, but for people located overseas. Those so-called "gateway providers" currently aren't required to participate in the system, either. So if a call is coming from outside the United States, and a lot of people think that most robocalls are, it's not going to have this identifying token attached to it.
So if I understand this correctly, a company like Verizon can now legally start blocking calls from other companies known to be supporting spammers.
This is great, since it means that a lot of these foreign companies that abuse the caller ID system with spoofing will most likely get cracked down on by their backbone providers so they don't get blocked by major carriers in the US.
It's not a complete fix, since there are loopholes, but it at least puts some consequences on the companies enabling this.
There is an exception for carriers that have less than 100,000 customers, which will probably render this pointless. I wish we could pass laws with actual teeth.
From the article:
Right, I just don't understand why they were given any more time than the larger carriers. They have all had years to prepare for this. They all chose to do nothing while enforcement was "voluntary".
I'm not sure either, but they haven't been forgotten.
This is interesting, but it's mixed bag. It's better than nothing, though:
...
...