| Message-ID: <20230430231727.GA188317@telecomdigest.us>
Date: 30 Apr 2023 19:17:27 -0400
From: "The Telecom Digest" <submissions@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: New Hamshire VoIP provider asks FCC Chairwoman for help
April 6, 2023 (Via ECFS)
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street
Washington, DC 20554
Re: WC Docket 17-97 - Call Authentication Trust Anchor
Dear Chairwoman Rosenworcel,
We are a relatively small VoIP provider based in Nashua, New Hampshire
with customers around the country spanning from large auto dealerships
to over 1,200 restaurants. Recently, over the past few months, we
began to receive complaints from our customers regarding a change in
the presentation of Caller ID, particularly the CNAM (or customer
name) portion. The complaints ranged from calls being labeled "spam
risk" to "city, state" and other misleading labels. We've been
Stir/Shaken compliant for several months and sign all of our
calls. The removal of CNAM and the mislabeling of our calls has served
to create harm both to our customers' businesses and to our reputation
as their provider. The worst of this is the resulting lack of faith
developing in the public phone system's seeming inability to label
calls correctly as well as calls not completing because called parties
are not answering their phones because the customer name is missing or
the call is mislabeled. I would like to chalk this up to the law of
unintended consequences but the fact remains that this recent
phenomenon has been somewhat of a secret. We received no pertinent
information from any of our upstream partners that would have
indicated that this practice was occurring and what the possible
remedy or remedies might be. As a matter of fact, we only discovered
the possible reasons for this after doing a fair amount of digging via
repeated Google searches uncovering companies like Hiya, TNS and First
Orion that we understand are responsible for call analytics.
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10406144565925/1
|
Message-ID: <20230501142103.GA193145@telecomdigest.us>
Date: 1 May 2023 10:21:03 -0400
From: "The Telecom Digest" <submissions@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: We must oppose the S.686 - the RESTRICT act
The Senate is currently considering a law that could make censorship
in the United States much easier. It’s called the RESTRICT Act, and
while it’s still early in the legislative process, the bill already
has bipartisan support.
In its current state, the RESTRICT Act gives the feds massive power to
monitor and police U.S. citizens online. It does so by allowing the
Secretary of Commerce to conduct security reviews of tech that is even
partially owned by companies from any “foreign adversary.” (Who is a
foreign adversary? Any country the secretary says. Seriously.)
https://go.thefire.org/webmail/869921/1503930501/d9fd308004d8099f4711a5d74c525552769ffc82265d6680ac06999668c284d5
| Moderator's Note |
|---|
|
The one thing which gets the attention of elected officials is
numbers, and the only way to be counted is to write a hand-written
note to both of your senators and to your Congressman. They ignore all
electronic messages - their software counts the keywords, and sends
them a graph - and they give lip service to typed postal mail (some
just weigh it). |
|
They do, however, pay a LOT of attention to hand-written letters.
They are impossible to forge (No, you can't just use a "script" font),
and they are the most certain way I know of to be sure you'll be
heard.
| | - Bill Horne |
|---|
|
| Message-ID: <u2omje$2ek3$1@usenet.csail.mit.edu>
Date: 1 May 2023 15:41:34 -0000
From: "Garrett Wollman" <wollman@bimajority.org>
Subject: More FCC pirate crackdowns
Earlier this year we discussed the FCC's new authority under the
so-called PIRATE Act to go after landlords of pirate broadcasters. In
his weekly NorthEast Radio Watch newsletter, my friend Scott Fybush
reports today:
The FCC’s effort to crack down on pirate operators by going
after their landlords took a new turn last week when 16
property owners in New York and New Jersey received notices
from the Commission warning them that unlicensed signals were
coming from their locations, subjecting them to the
possibility of fines as high as $2 million if the broadcasts
continued. The list included stations in Brooklyn on 91.9,
95.9, 97.5, 98.9, 99.7, 100.7 and 107.9, in the Bronx on 88.9
and 101.7, in St. Albans, Queens on 88.5, in Newark on 87.9,
in Irvington on 88.5 and 90.9, in Maplewood on 90.7, in Orange
on 102.1 and in Paterson on 99.3.
No indication yet as to whether this aggressive approach is actually
having an effect. The law requires the FCC's Enforcement Bureau to
make an annual list of the pirate-broadcasting hotspots and report to
Congress on its enforcement efforts there.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | “Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wollman@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together.”
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015) |
