I'm not sure if it was clear from the original post, but HR 1258 has been passed by the House. <br><br>I found this analysis helpful:<br><a href="http://blog.cloudvox.com/post/523641421/what-the-truth-in-caller-id-act-hr-1258-means">http://blog.cloudvox.com/post/523641421/what-the-truth-in-caller-id-act-hr-1258-means</a><br>
<br>-Nick<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:00 PM, David Hiers <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hiersd@gmail.com">hiersd@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Near as I can tell... As long as the "intent to defraud, etc"<br>
exclusion is in there, pretty much nothing changes. You pretty much<br>
have to be trying to break another law (fraud, harm, etc) to get<br>
busted on this one. This just gives them one more arrow to shoot at<br>
the fraudster, and it'll even stick in an unsuccessful one at that!<br>
<br>
You can still mislead as much as you like if you are doing out of<br>
humor or laziness.<br>
<br>
Carriers are pretty much indemnified from almost everything; we can't<br>
have those billionaires actually responsible for anything, now can we?<br>
<br>
Still gotta get counsel's read on this one, of course.<br>
<br>
<br>
David<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 9:24 PM, anorexicpoodle<br>
<<a href="mailto:anorexicpoodle@gmail.com">anorexicpoodle@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> While it hasn't been signed into law yet seems like its worth opening up a<br>
> discussion on the topic since its something we all deal with.<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1258rh.txt.pdf" target="_blank">http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1258rh.txt.pdf</a><br>
><br>
> The first questions that come to mind are:<br>
><br>
> Where does the liability lie in a termination/wholesale situation where the<br>
> termination carrier doesn't own the numbers terminating calls through their<br>
> network?<br>
><br>
> How does this impact services like SkypeOut or similar that mask all calls<br>
> with a common number?<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div>> _______________________________________________<br>
> VoiceOps mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:VoiceOps@voiceops.org">VoiceOps@voiceops.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops</a><br>
><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
VoiceOps mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:VoiceOps@voiceops.org">VoiceOps@voiceops.org</a><br>
<a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>