[VoiceOps] Truth in CallerID act of 2010

David Hiers hiersd at gmail.com
Thu Apr 15 02:00:23 EDT 2010

Near as I can tell... As long as the "intent to defraud, etc"
exclusion is in there, pretty much nothing changes.  You pretty much
have to be trying to break another law (fraud, harm, etc) to get
busted on this one.  This just gives them one more arrow to shoot at
the fraudster, and it'll even stick in an unsuccessful one at that!

You can still mislead as much as you like if you are doing out of
humor or laziness.

Carriers are pretty much indemnified from almost everything; we can't
have those billionaires actually responsible for anything, now can we?

Still gotta get counsel's read on this one, of course.


On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 9:24 PM, anorexicpoodle
<anorexicpoodle at gmail.com> wrote:
> While it hasn't been signed into law yet seems like its worth opening up a
> discussion on the topic since its something we all deal with.
> http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1258rh.txt.pdf
> The first questions that come to mind are:
> Where does the liability lie in a termination/wholesale situation where the
> termination carrier doesn't own the numbers terminating calls through their
> network?
> How does this impact services like SkypeOut or similar that mask all calls
> with a common number?
> _______________________________________________
> VoiceOps mailing list
> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

More information about the VoiceOps mailing list