[VoiceOps] Fake Voicemail Anti-Robocall Tactics

[Justin B Newman]

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 <calvin.ellison at voxox.com>
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
> calvin.ellison at voxox.com
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 11:29 AM Joel Stalder <
> jstalder at panterranetworks.com> 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 <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> *On Behalf Of *Paul
>> Timmins
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 16, 2021 10:45 AM
>> *To:* Nick Olsen <nick at 141networks.com>; Karl Douthit <karl at piratel.com>
>> *Cc:* Voiceops.org <voiceops at voiceops.org>
>> *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 <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> on behalf of Nick Olsen
>> <nick at 141networks.com>
>> *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 <karl at piratel.com> 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 <glen at cognexus.net> 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
>> calvin.ellison at voxox.com
>> +1 (213) 285-0555
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------
>> *voxox.com <http://www.voxox.com/> *
>> 5825 Oberlin Drive, Suite 5
>> San Diego, CA 92121
>>
>> [image: Voxox]
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> VoiceOps mailing list
>>
>> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
>>
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Glen Gerhard
>>
>> glen at cognexus.net
>>
>> 858.324.4536
>>
>>
>>
>> Cognexus, LLC
>>
>> 7891 Avenida Kirjah
>>
>> San Diego, CA 92037
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> VoiceOps mailing list
>> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
>> 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
>> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> VoiceOps mailing list
>> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>>
> _______________________________________________
> VoiceOps mailing list
> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20210217/e332d36b/attachment.htm>