---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <20190605221448.GA25556@telecom.csail.mit.edu> Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 22:14:48 +0000 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> Subject: TCPA Litigation - Revocation Of Consent Is Tantamount To Never Having Provided Consent By David O. Klein On November 8, 2018, Plaintiff John Geraci ("Geraci") commenced a Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") lawsuit in the United States District Court of New Jersey. The named defendant in the TCPA litigation is Red Robin International ("Red Robin"), which operates the chain of Red Robin Gourmet Burgers and Brews casual dining restaurants. The Geraci lawsuit is based on alleged violations of the TCPA and seeks class action certification. The TCPA prohibits the placing of any telephone call or the sending of any text message, using an automatic telephone dialing system, to any telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service, without obtaining the receiving party's prior express written consent. [47 U.S.C. =C3=82=C2=A7227(b)(1)(A)(= iii]. The TCPA does not address a consumer's right to revoke previously provided consent. Nevertheless, courts and the Federal Communications Commission have uniformly interpreted TCPA regulations to permit such revocation. http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/795320/Telecommunications+Mobile+Cable+Communications/TCPA+Litigation+Revocation+Of+Consent+Is+Tantamount+To+Never+Having+Provided+Consent -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly) ------------------------------ Message-ID: <20190607165036.GA20038@telecom.csail.mit.edu> Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2019 16:50:36 +0000 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> Subject: Re: FCC Affirms Robocall Blocking By Default to Protect Consumers On 6 Jun 2019 at 23:45:34 -0400, Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote: > https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-affirms-robocall-blocking-default-protect-consumers > > FCC AFFIRMS ROBOCALL BLOCKING BY DEFAULT TO HELP PROTECT CONSUMERS > > Commission Also Seeks Comment on Requiring Caller ID Authentication > Implementation & Use of Authentication Standards for Blocking > > WASHINGTON, June 6, 2019 - The Federal Communications Commission today vo= ted > to make clear that voice service providers may aggressively block unwanted > robocalls before they reach consumers. Oh, I can't resist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D9xL2VN7JWuA But seriously: sadly, STIR won't work. Some years ago, I was interviewed by the FTC (along with other Digest readers) while they were trying to figure out how to stop caller ID spoofing. I told them that they can't stop it: that, like spam, spoofing is a problem caused by the design of the system. SS7 was designed when AT&T and the "Baby Bells" were still a monopoly, and the architechture of the phone network was based on the asumption that nobody would break the rules for commercial gain - in other words, that every CLEC or every PBX that connects through a CLEC would always obey the pronouncements brought down from the mountain and written in stone as interconnect specifications. But, many of the CLEC's are one step away from bankruptcy, and they will take any traffic that they can get, even if it's delivered by an Ethernet cable strung across a ceiling between two separate companies that happen to be located in the same building. Like the Internet with spam or Ma Bell with Blue/Black/Red Box fraud, it's a system set up to fail, not through malice but due to an engineering world-view which could not anticipate bad actors. Consider this explanation of STIR/SHAKEN: the "Partial Attestation" option has holes in it big enough to pass a stretch limousine. https://transnexus.com/whitepapers/understanding-stir-shaken/ Predictions-for-the-future-department (you heard it here first) - CO-based answering machines will be replaced by customer-owned apps or hardware devices which demand a security key before allowing any caller to bother the called party. The phone network will then have end-to-end security against fraudulent caller ID which doesn't require that users trust third parties. -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly) Copyright (C) 2019 E.W. Horne. All Rights Reserved. ------------------------------ Message-ID: <94984A1C-23E8-4868-B56A-0AA632C9E488@mishmash.com> Date: 6 Jun 2019 11:49:42 -0700 From: "Fred Atkinson" <fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com> Subject: Fwd: Trump Has Already Committed An Impeachable Offense During His London Trip On June 5, 2019 at 8:07:57 AM MST, Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> wrote: > By Sean Colarossi > > Donald Trump has only been in London for two days, but he has already > managed to commit an impeachable offense. > > During a discussion with MSNBC's Ari Melber, former editor-in-chief of > Slate Jacob Weisberg said that while many like to focus on the Mueller > report or obstruction of justice, Trump is committing other unrelated > impeachable offenses. > https://www.politicususa.com/2019/06/04/trump-has-already-committed-an-impeachable-offense-during-his-london-trip.html Don't I remember a story about Obama calling one of the Big Three's CEO's and ordering him to step down? They didn't say that was grounds for impeachment, did they? The liberal press just can't give it up. They are licked. Each of them keeps conducting their 'last great acts of defiance'! This just just another one of them. They've completely destroyed their integrity! I don't see how anyone is ever going to be able to believe them again. 'Journalistic integrity' is nothing more than a quaint oxymoron to them. The Democrats keep screaming for impeachment. They have no groun= ds. Even if they did, they don't have the votes. And how would the voters react if Congress unjustly impeached t= he leader they selected in a valid election? That would be a serious infringement on our Democracy! The voters would revolt in the next electio= n. They continue to waste their time and our taxpayer money on all = of this nonsense. If they would focus on building the wall and revising our antiquated immigration policies instead, they might have a chance of getting some power back. After all, gaining power is clearly their only real goal. The voters are so tired of this nonsense. Consequently, I expect the 2020 election to be a landslide. I saw this on Facebook the other day: Q. Why doesn't President Trump wear glasses? A. Because he's already got 2020! Fred ***** Moderator's Note ***** Well, I started it, so fair is fair. The original story concerned Trump's (tweeted) threats against AT&T, but others are entitled to their opinions. Bill Horne Moderator ------------------------------ Message-ID: <8BE8119A-D947-47F4-BE2A-D5B905F9F86E@roscom.com> Date: 6 Jun 2019 23:45:34 -0400 From: "Monty Solomon" <monty@roscom.com> Subject: FCC Affirms Robocall Blocking By Default to Protect Consumers https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-affirms-robocall-blocking-default-protect-= consumers https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-357852A1.txt https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-357852A1.pdf Media Contact: Will Wiquist, (202) 418-0509 will.wiquist@fcc.gov For Immediate Release FCC AFFIRMS ROBOCALL BLOCKING BY DEFAULT TO HELP PROTECT CONSUMERS Commission Also Seeks Comment on Requiring Caller ID Authentication Implementation & Use of Authentication Standards for Blocking WASHINGTON, June 6, 2019 - The Federal Communications Commission today voted to make clear that voice service providers may aggres- sively block unwanted robocalls before they reach consumers. Specifically, the Commission approved a Declaratory Ruling to affirm that voice service providers may, as the default, block unwanted calls based on reasonable call analytics, as long as their customers are informed and have the opportunity to opt out of the blocking. This action empowers providers= to protect their customers from unwanted robocalls before those calls even rea= ch the customers' phones. While many phone companies now offer their customers call blocking tools on an opt-in basis, the Declaratory Ruling clarifies th= at they can provide them as the default, thus allowing them to protect more consumers from unwanted robocalls and making it more cost-effective to implement call blocking programs. The ruling also clarifies that providers may offer their customers the choi= ce to opt-in to tools that block calls from any number that does not appear on= a customer's contact list or other "white lists." This option would allow consumers to decide directly whose calls they are willing to receive. Consumer white lists could be based on the customer's own contact list, updated automatically as consumers add and remove contacts from their smartphones. The Commission also adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes requiring voice service providers to implement the SHAKEN/STIR caller ID authentication framework, if major voice service providers fail to do so by the end of this year. It also seeks comment on whether the Commission shou= ld create a safe harbor for providers that block calls that are maliciously spoofed so that caller ID cannot be authenticated and that block calls that are "unsigned." With adoption of this item, the Commission continues its multi-pronged strategy to combat unwanted and illegal robocalls. The Declaratory Ruling will go into effect upon release of the item on FCC.gov. The deadline for submitting comments in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will be established upon publication in the Federal Register. Action by the Commission June 6, 2019 by Declaratory Ruling and Third Furth= er Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 19-51). Chairman Pai, Commissioners Carr and Starks approving. Commissioners O'Rielly and Rosenworcel approving in part and dissenting in part. Chairman Pai, Commissioners O'Rielly, Carr, Rosenworcel, and Starks issuing separate statements. CG Docket No. 17-59; WC Docket 17-97 ### Media Relations: (202) 418-0500 / ASL: (844) 432-2275 / TTY: (888) 835-5322 Twitter: @FCC / www.fcc.gov This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the fu= ll text of a Commission order constitutes official action. See MCI v. FCC, 515 F.2d 385 (D.C. Cir. 1974). ------------------------------ ********************************************* End of telecom Digest Sat, 08 Jun 2019