[VOIPSEC] Truths on "Truth in Caller ID Act"

[John Osmon]

On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 10:56:36PM -0600, Zmolek, Andrew (Andy) wrote:
> [...] if you're going to resurrect
> that ancient meme--and for those unfamiliar with the circuit vs. packet
> wars it goes roughly like this: "Internet (a.k.a. 'dumb network')
> architecture is inherently superior to the PSTN IN (Intelligent Network)
> architecture"--to suggest that therein lies the answer to ANI spoofing
> problem, then please at least offer some evidence that this problem is
> solvable at the endpoint. 

Perhaps I was a bit too flip in my response.  I'm not going to argue
about the inherent superiority of any given model.  Your response
had some great points, and taught me a few things.

However, this thread pertains to legal issues, not technical ones.

ANI spoofing is a direct consequence of the upheaval of the times.
The underlying foundation of why it was authorative is being erroded.
"Voice services" are no longer tied to the CO from which the
copper/fiber is strung -- dial tone can come from anywhere.

Our thoughts on how to legislate/regulate voice services are in limbo
until everyone understands that the service and the physical plant
can be completely orthogonal even though the service is delivered
on that physical plant.

If we aren't careful, we're going to have "truth in Caller ID" and
"network neutrality" laws that seriously hinder the growth of
the telecommunications industry.  We need to take the time to 
throw out simple models that people can grasp, and ponder upon.