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