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?
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
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
David Hiers on the Voiceops list pretty much nailed it: https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/2010-April/001410.html On 04/15/2010 02:00 AM, David Hiers 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
-- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC 1170 Peachtree Street 12th Floor, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30309 Tel: +1-678-954-0670 Fax: +1-404-961-1892 Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/
Whoops, was meaning to cross-post this to another list that brought it up. On 04/15/2010 05:39 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
David Hiers on the Voiceops list pretty much nailed it:
https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/2010-April/001410.html
On 04/15/2010 02:00 AM, David Hiers 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
-- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC 1170 Peachtree Street 12th Floor, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30309 Tel: +1-678-954-0670 Fax: +1-404-961-1892 Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/
There is an "intent to deceive" clause that still bothers me. In most cases it probably doesn't apply, but "deceive" can be interpreted pretty loosely. An example, although not an important one, would be a prank call on a buddy. No fraud, no harm, but with intent to deceive. I don't know how else this could end up being applied, but I always consider the unintended consequences of new laws. Is it my intent to deceive when I call a customer from my cell phone through my Asterisk server so it shows the office caller ID? I simply don't want them calling my cell, but it could be said I'm trying to deceive them into thinking I'm in the office. Possibly a stretch, yet it's a nagging little thing, because so many laws have been poorly applied in the past.
There will probably need to be a substantial complaint for an instance to be applied to this law. I'm sure the people who you call and "deceive" into thinking you're at work aren't going to report you to the FCC. Everyone knows that speeding is illegal, but that doesn't keep some of us from doing it. This is mostly pointed at the infamous extended car warranties that grandma in Alabama offers. On 4/15/2010 4:52 PM, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
There is an "intent to deceive" clause that still bothers me. In most cases it probably doesn't apply, but "deceive" can be interpreted pretty loosely. An example, although not an important one, would be a prank call on a buddy. No fraud, no harm, but with intent to deceive. I don't know how else this could end up being applied, but I always consider the unintended consequences of new laws.
Is it my intent to deceive when I call a customer from my cell phone through my Asterisk server so it shows the office caller ID? I simply don't want them calling my cell, but it could be said I'm trying to deceive them into thinking I'm in the office. Possibly a stretch, yet it's a nagging little thing, because so many laws have been poorly applied in the past.
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
participants (6)
-
abalashov＠evaristesys.com -
anorexicpoodle＠gmail.com -
carlos＠televolve.com -
hiersd＠gmail.com -
lriemer＠bestline.net -
nicholas.hatch＠gmail.com