Robocallers who phoned the FCC pretending to be from the FCC land telco in trouble In its first enforcement action of the Trump presidency, the FCC has voted to propose fining Telnyx $4,492,500 – after scammers pretending to be the watchdog's staff started calling actual FCC staffers via the VoIP telco. The FCC was alerted to the issue on February 6 last year when several staff, and some of their family …
Data: Captain, I'm receiving a sub space signal from 'scam likely'.
Speaker: [Ferengi Accent] Greetings, I am hoo-man like you, calling from Starship Registration division on Earth planet. Your starship is past registration date and needs to be paid. Do you have access to to your gift card wallet to make payment?
Q: [appears, smiling at Picard] Let me take this mon capitaine...
> and the two sides will have to work out a compromise. Typically the agency will reach a no-fault settlement rather than taking the matter to court;
It's well past time that "no fault" settlements ceased. Yeah you can admit fault, pay, and avoid legal costs, and even more reputational damage.
But you are paying the fine because you are guilty.
And the evidence goes in the public record...
Instead of Google gift cards the US government should be selling their own directly. I tried searching to see if they had a system in place under their new name (X). All I got were links to Xbox gift cards. Microsoft introduced the brand in late 2001 over two years after x.com was founded. Clearly Microsoft should cease and desist from using the name to make it easier for US citizens to hand their money over to Musk. Wikipedia is currently a little ahead of events as it lists x.com as a "defunct online bank". As far as I know, the US government is still trading.
"Providers are required to know their customers and secure their networks to deter fraudulent and malicious calls," said Patrick Webre, acting chief of the FCC's Enforcement Bureau."
is that a reasonable statement, or a populist appeasing rant ?
i mean, is webre a trump appointee ?
It should be a reasonable statement. If you're giving access to your phone network, you should know the customers name, address, probably have access to an ID, etc. Simply having a credit card number should not be enough.
But naturally the Telcos don't want that, because then they wouldn't be able to accept so much scam traffic. Dodgy traffic pays, too hell with the real customers...
you should know the customers name, address, probably have access to an ID, etc.
That applies to the originating telcom, but not necessarily any subsequent telcoms that just transmit the traffic through their networks.
At the bottom of this article, Telnyx says they are the later:
"Telnyx [...] did not originate"
is that a reasonable statement, or a populist appeasing rant ?
That's been an accurate statement since the implementation of STIR/SHAKEN protocols, procedures, and the laws like TRACED Act that mandated their use:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIR/SHAKEN
"The FCC also requires all providers—regardless of whether they have a STIR/SHAKEN implementation obligation—to institute robocall mitigation programs to ensure that they are not originating or transmitting illegal robocalls."
https://www.fcc.gov/call-authentication
Circa 2021-2022, carriers were required to stop allowing customers to spoof CallerID of whatever source phone # they wanted, and get proof that the customer owned any phone # they would be allowed to spoof. But there probably is some legal wiggle-room in how aggressively telcoms are expected to respond to block transmition of spoofed calls from less-scrupulous small (usually foreign) telcoms.
And yes, the SHAKEN acronym is rather tortured. An accurate initialism would be something long the lines of: STIR/SHAIT
The comment about the company not finding facilitating these scam calls is in their best interest is a hoot. The phone companies get paid to carry the traffic so anything done that reduces traffic is NOT in their interest. If the telcos were losing money on scammer calls, they implement aggressive ways to shut them down.
It's a filter.
Same as any other business, robocalls are cheap, but human labor isn't. Scammers want their human personnel to only interact with marks that are highly likely to buy the scam. Therefore, the phishing robocalls or spam emails are crafted in such a way that only the extremely gullible will fall for them.
They could make extremely plausible phishing attempts. It's not that difficult. But then they would have to talk to thousands of people, only a handful of which are actually dumb enough to pay in the end. It's much more efficient to phish for the dumb ones directly.
"A jury trial should be required before any fine can be levied by the government that is paid to the same government. It is an inherent conflict of interest."
You are more than welcome to challenge the fine if you like. Since they aren't criminal proceedings, a court trial isn't required for a duly constituted agency to asses a fine. Something like a traffic ticket in that sense. You can pay the ticket or challenge it by asking to appear before a judge. A fine can be negotiated down as well.
If regulatory fines all had to be heard in a court before a jury, too many jurists would be required for one thing. There would need to be many more courthouses constructed and judges/staff hired to be in them. Violations are typically very cut and dry when it comes to this sort of thing. Evidence is to hand and the accused knows they've been caught.
So dumb and will never stand up in court. Telnyx stated exactly what the FCC has required- to know your customer and take action when fraud is reported. Unless they can be shown to be lying for some reason this seems like a big overreach and even kind of personal because the calls were directed at the FCC what about the millions of other calls directed at citizens?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
