Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

blog.lopp.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 248 posts

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#161

Post by donaldjbiden »

derefr wrote: post #89
9cb14c1ec0 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because they are bulk purchasing numbers from voip providers, cycling through probably hundreds per day.

Do they actually need to purchase numbers to do that, though? I always imagined that there are certain shady providers ("grey-market Twilio" sort of idea) that just let you run single outbound call/text requests through a giant pool of numbers shared with other customers of the service. Perhaps specifically a bank of residential numbers plugged into banks of regular cell phones, like a residential IP proxy service pr…

[dead]

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#162

Post by donaldjbiden »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #24
coldpie wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> legacy TDM systems Easy fix. It should be opt-in to accept a call that is routed through one of these. I know they allow it so some grandma in rural France that still uses a dial phone on a copper line that hasn't been touched since 1962 can call her son in New York, but for the rest of us who are not in that situation, we can just blacklist all those calls and lose nothing. This would even fix spam for the people…

I am, more in tune with "just get it over with" than ever. Ipv6? 25 years of this crap? should have just said, Jan 1 2001, all routers must support 64 bit ipv4 addresses. Like the chrome HTTPS switch over, JUST DO IT

You mean 128 bit? That's called ipv6. It's ipv4 with 128 bit addresses.

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#163

Post by techsupporter »

bsimpson wrote: post #153
br0ceph wrote: post #3

Im USA based use prepaid service because I dont want to provide information for a credit check to obtain postpay service. Theres absolutely no reason for a US based telephony provider to retain the most sensitive PII on their customers. Every large provider has a history of breaches and selling customer data. The telephone companies are already tracking, storing, selling; so many data points on their customers. They…

My primary phone number has been a Google Voice account since 2010. It's unclear to me how I'd be impacted by these new rules, but I don't believe there's any requirement to provide PII to get a VOIP number.

Google Voice now requires identity verification for new numbers or porting a number into an account that does not have a number assigned: https://support.google.com/voice/answer/16768664

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#164

Post by [deleted] »

gunsle wrote: post #105
gwerbin wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have to wonder, you don't need to wonder. So now not only can "antifa"-related speech qualify you as a terrorist ( https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/coun... ), now your phone is legally required to track you and report your location at all times. The legal infrastructure is in place to track and bring a wide range of consequences down on just about any and all political enemy, whether tha…

Are you trying to imply that there isn’t coordinated attacks by fringe groups just because they’re leftist?

[deleted]

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#165

Post by inigyou »

KaiserPro wrote: post #52
triceratops wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It did in every other country that did it Citation required.

SMS farm/machines don't work in the UK at least, I suspect not even in NL

Of course they do but every SIM is registered to your ID so it's extremely risky for you.

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#166

Post by inigyou »

reddalo wrote: post #44
inigyou wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It did in every other country that did it. What's different about this one? If you get a spam call in Europe from Europe, you call the police and the spammer gets located and punished.

> It did in every other country that did it Italy has mandatory KYC for all mobile numbers, and scam/spam calls are a common problem. So no, it doesn't fix the problem at all.

From Italy or from other countries?

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#167

Post by [deleted] »

bsimpson wrote: post #153
br0ceph wrote: post #3

Im USA based use prepaid service because I dont want to provide information for a credit check to obtain postpay service. Theres absolutely no reason for a US based telephony provider to retain the most sensitive PII on their customers. Every large provider has a history of breaches and selling customer data. The telephone companies are already tracking, storing, selling; so many data points on their customers. They…

My primary phone number has been a Google Voice account since 2010. It's unclear to me how I'd be impacted by these new rules, but I don't believe there's any requirement to provide PII to get a VOIP number.

[deleted]

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#168

Post by inigyou »

coldpie wrote: post #16
inigyou wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to a defcon talk, spammers just make sure all their spam gets routed through legacy TDM systems which discard the shaken/stir header because they're too old to support it. The other side then re-adds a "we got this from somewhere that didn't support this header" header.

> legacy TDM systems Easy fix. It should be opt-in to accept a call that is routed through one of these. I know they allow it so some grandma in rural France that still uses a dial phone on a copper line that hasn't been touched since 1962 can call her son in New York, but for the rest of us who are not in that situation, we can just blacklist all those calls and lose nothing. This would even fix spam for the people…

It is opt/in. There's three categories (according to that defcon talk): call originates from the number it says it does, call originates from our network but we're not sure about the number, and call came to us unverified (only allowed by regulation on legacy links).

Now, operators of those legacy links make A LOT of money for operating them since they carry 100% of the country's spam traffic, and they're not going to shut them down just because you think they should. The government would have to make them do it and they'll pretend upgrading is super expensive.

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#169

Post by Scaled »

troyvit wrote: post #126

They would do well to make a better CTA for their call to action. Here's the link from the article: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/26/2026-10... I think that gets you most of the way to a link that somebody on HN dropped a few days ago: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express It requires the docket-id to complete: Docket No: 17-59 You can double check that Docket Number here: https://www.fcc.gov/d…

People should file comments at that Federal Register link as well as FCC. (The FR is the official way for citizens to comment on proposed agency rulemaking. Since it's independent, it might go farther, but it's worth doing both.)

Re: A Call to Action: Stop the FCC's KYC Regime

#170

Post by jrockway »

inigyou wrote: post #168
coldpie wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> legacy TDM systems Easy fix. It should be opt-in to accept a call that is routed through one of these. I know they allow it so some grandma in rural France that still uses a dial phone on a copper line that hasn't been touched since 1962 can call her son in New York, but for the rest of us who are not in that situation, we can just blacklist all those calls and lose nothing. This would even fix spam for the people…

It is opt/in. There's three categories (according to that defcon talk): call originates from the number it says it does, call originates from our network but we're not sure about the number, and call came to us unverified (only allowed by regulation on legacy links). Now, operators of those legacy links make A LOT of money for operating them since they carry 100% of the country's spam traffic, and they're not going t…

Sure, but why do I care? Let them run the legacy links. Just don't make my phone ring.
Post reply on HN