I'm not sure if it was clear from the original post, but HR 1258 has been passed by the House. I found this analysis helpful: http://blog.cloudvox.com/post/523641421/what-the-truth-in-caller-id-act-hr-1... -Nick On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:00 PM, David Hiers <hiersd at gmail.com> wrote:
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.
David
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&doc...
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
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops