<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">The issue I have with this tactic is the impact it has on intermediate carriers who specifically service aggregate call center traffic, where the nefarious traffic is blended upstream and more difficult to detect. The upstream clients expect us to prevent it, and when we can't, it becomes a trust issue and then ultimately a revenue issue, on top of the support resources spend handling the complaints. We don't want to facilitate the nefarious traffic either and are implementing our own call blocking, but we're not going to scam every hop in between in the process.<div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div>This practice also directly conflicts with the recent FCC requirement to use SIP 607 or 608 responses when blocking calls:</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">iii)              Enhanced Transparency and Redress Requirements – The <span class="gmail-il">FCC</span> requires terminating voice service providers that block calls to immediately notify the caller that the call has been blocked by sending either a Session Initiation Protocol (IP network return SIP Code 607 or <span class="gmail-il">608</span>) or ISDN User Part (ISUP Code 21) response code, as appropriate, and requires all voice service providers in the call path to transmit these codes to the origination point.  Second, the <span class="gmail-il">FCC</span> requires terminating voice service providers that block calls on an opt-in or opt-out basis to disclose to their subscribers a list of blocked calls (on an opt-in or opt-out basis) within three business days of a request. Third, when a calling party disputes whether blocking its calls is appropriate, the <span class="gmail-il">FCC</span> requires terminating voice service providers to provide a status update to the party that filed the dispute within 24 hours and that the point of contact which terminating voice service providers have established to handle blocking disputes also handle contacts from callers that are adversely affected by information provided by caller ID authentication seeking to verify the authenticity of their calls. Finally, the <span class="gmail-il">FCC</span> declined to address the issue of erroneous labeling at this time.  The <span class="gmail-il">FCC</span> gave voice service providers until January 1, 2022 to comply with the immediate notification requirements.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-187A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-187A1.pdf</a><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Regards,<div><br></div><div><p style="font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:12px;margin:0px;padding:0px 0px 20px;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><strong>Calvin Ellison</strong><br>Systems Architect<br><a href="mailto:calvin.ellison@voxox.com" style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(14,123,174)" target="_blank">calvin.ellison@voxox.com</a><br>+1 (213) 285-0555<br><br>-----------------------------------------------<br><strong><a href="http://www.voxox.com/" style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(14,123,174)" target="_blank">voxox.com</a> </strong><br>5825 Oberlin Drive, Suite 5<br>San Diego, CA 92121<br></p><img src="http://cdn.voxox.com/img/voxox-logo.png" alt="Voxox" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:medium"><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 9:07 AM Brandon Svec <<a href="mailto:bsvec@teamonesolutions.com">bsvec@teamonesolutions.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:monospace,monospace">True, but it doesn't matter.  Since there are bad actors that we are trying to prevent, then all spoofed numbers must be handled correctly.  It can no longer be ok to just look the other way and let them all through.  Validated/authorized spoofed numbers should be fine and those that are not have work to do and all that should be left are bad actors being blocked.  Of course, I understand we are not quite there yet, but this is how it *should* be.</div><div style="font-family:monospace,monospace"><br></div><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><table width="300" border="0" style="font-size:12.8px"><tbody><tr><td style="font-family:"Courier New",Courier,monospace;font-stretch:normal;font-size:12px;padding-top:15px;padding-bottom:10px;border-top:1px solid rgb(255,255,255)"><strong><font color="#000000">Brandon Svec</font></strong><font color="#000000"> </font><font color="#000000"><br></font><b><a href="tel:15106862204" value="+15106862204" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">15106862204</a> voice|sms<br></b><span style="color:rgb(29,2,153)"><strong><a href="https://teamonesolutions.com/" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">teamonesolutions.com</a></strong> </span></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 9:00 AM Brooks Bridges <<a href="mailto:brooks@firestormnetworks.net" target="_blank">brooks@firestormnetworks.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
  
    
  
  <div>
    I would posit that outpulsing a specific ANI with authorization of,
    and at the request of, the number's owner doesn't really fall under
    the colloquial understanding of "spoofing".  I think that term is
    typically used to imply malice or deceit.<br>
    <br>
    <div>On 2/16/2021 8:44 AM, Carlos Alvarez
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div dir="ltr">But the ridiculous side of this is that there are
          valid reasons to "spoof" numbers.  We have two customers who
          need to do it all the time, and it's legal, as well as
          demanded by their customers.
          <div><br>
          </div>
        </div>
        <br>
        <div class="gmail_quote">
          <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 9:37
            AM <<a href="mailto:paul@timmins.net" target="_blank">paul@timmins.net</a>> wrote:<br>
          </div>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
            <div dir="auto">Legal or not it’s genius. Humans will notice
              right away and it’ll cost for the robocallers.<br>
              <br>
              <div dir="ltr">Sent from my iPhone</div>
              <div dir="ltr"><br>
                <blockquote type="cite">On Feb 16, 2021, at 11:23 AM,
                  Calvin Ellison <<a href="mailto:calvin.ellison@voxox.com" target="_blank">calvin.ellison@voxox.com</a>>
                  wrote:<br>
                  <br>
                </blockquote>
              </div>
              <blockquote type="cite">
                <div dir="ltr">
                  <div dir="ltr">Today we received a notice from one of
                    our underlying carriers that included the following
                    statement:
                    <div><br>
                    </div>
                    <div>
                      <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
                        <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;color:rgb(0,0,0);line-height:15.6933px;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:normal">*
                            If a customer spoofs an ANI that they do not
                            own, the clec's can forward to call to a
                            voiceless Voicemail which</span><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:normal"> appears
                            to be FAS.</span></p>
                      </blockquote>
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                      <div>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.</div>
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                      <div>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.</div>
                      <div>
                        <div dir="ltr">
                          <div dir="ltr">
                            <div>
                              <div dir="ltr">
                                <div>
                                  <div dir="ltr">
                                    <div>
                                      <div dir="ltr">
                                        <div>
                                          <div dir="ltr"><br>
                                          </div>
                                          <div dir="ltr"><br>
                                          </div>
                                          <div dir="ltr">Regards,
                                            <div><br>
                                            </div>
                                            <div>
                                              <p style="font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:12px;margin:0px;padding:0px 0px 20px;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><strong>Calvin
                                                  Ellison</strong><br>
                                                Systems Architect<br>
                                                <a href="mailto:calvin.ellison@voxox.com" style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(14,123,174)" target="_blank">calvin.ellison@voxox.com</a><br>
                                                +1 (213) 285-0555<br>
                                                <br>
-----------------------------------------------<br>
                                                <strong><a href="http://www.voxox.com/" style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(14,123,174)" target="_blank">voxox.com</a> </strong><br>
                                                5825 Oberlin Drive,
                                                Suite 5<br>
                                                San Diego, CA 92121<br>
                                              </p>
                                              <img alt="Voxox"><br>
                                            </div>
                                          </div>
                                        </div>
                                      </div>
                                    </div>
                                  </div>
                                </div>
                              </div>
                            </div>
                          </div>
                        </div>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                  <span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
                  <span>VoiceOps mailing list</span><br>
                  <span><a href="mailto:VoiceOps@voiceops.org" target="_blank">VoiceOps@voiceops.org</a></span><br>
                  <span><a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops</a></span><br>
                </div>
              </blockquote>
            </div>
            _______________________________________________<br>
            VoiceOps mailing list<br>
            <a href="mailto:VoiceOps@voiceops.org" target="_blank">VoiceOps@voiceops.org</a><br>
            <a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops</a><br>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset></fieldset>
      <pre>_______________________________________________
VoiceOps mailing list
<a href="mailto:VoiceOps@voiceops.org" target="_blank">VoiceOps@voiceops.org</a>
<a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </div>

_______________________________________________<br>
VoiceOps mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:VoiceOps@voiceops.org" target="_blank">VoiceOps@voiceops.org</a><br>
<a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
VoiceOps mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:VoiceOps@voiceops.org" target="_blank">VoiceOps@voiceops.org</a><br>
<a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>