Printable View
Tim/Norm/Ray,
I know that for the Beta, you had decided to not populate the outbound name feature, opting instead for "regional" entries (such as "NC Caller" for my line). When you fully launch, will you be submitting name info for outbound CallerID? How about for 'soft-launch'?
Thx
I hope the answer is YES!
I hope it is at least the billing name, but that won't always work. Someone may buy the service for their Grandmother in another State with (obviously) a different preferred name.
Can the Residential Service even reflect a Small Business number????????
Can that name be allowed for outgoing?
I know you want "Truth in Caller ID Act of 2007"
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-251
One interesting note--The way I read the legislation as it passed the house, there is not a 100% BAN on CID spoofing.
(emphasis added)Quote:
Originally Posted by H.R. 251, as passed in the House
So, here's the question. If a 'lax security' VoIP service allows their subscribers to set their outgoing CID number, who is held liable/accountable for 'intentional misleading to defraud or cause harm'? Is the VoIP provider in any way held accountable, or does the hammer fall on the individual doing the spoofing? How much due diligence does a carrier need to do to remain in compliance with this legislation?
If a person subscribes to multiple phone lines (each with its own DID), I read the text to say that it's perfectly lawful for that person to request that all of their lines send one of the DID numbers, since there's no intend to defraud or cause harm, but for a consistent presentation of their information. Once again, though, what controls are necessary to ensure that any such request is 'harmless'?
How are outbound-only services, which obviously do not have a DID associated with the line, restricted/regulated? Would they then be 'forced' to transmit "unavailable" (or is that in conflict with other CID/telecom laws)?
I'm not necessarily looking for immediate answers, but it's some food for thought...
Perhaps that is part of the reason the proposed legislation fails to be passed into law each year. It makes little sense!Quote:
Originally Posted by fisamo
One that looks to be passing is for 2010Quote:
Originally Posted by usa2k
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...1258rh.txt.pdf