{"id":9991,"date":"2017-01-12T11:21:49","date_gmt":"2017-01-12T16:21:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mhgoldberg.com\/blog\/?p=9991"},"modified":"2017-01-12T11:21:49","modified_gmt":"2017-01-12T16:21:49","slug":"will-regulation-inhibit-innovation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mhgoldberg.com\/blog\/?p=9991","title":{"rendered":"Will regulation inhibit innovation?"},"content":{"rendered":"

I hate getting robo-calls as much as anyone. With all the phone lines I have, I can sometimes get bombarded by calls from “credit card services”, duct cleaners, Mexican resorts or agencies purporting to repair the viruses they detected on my computer. I have filed more than my fair share of Do Not Call List complaints (perhaps explaining why Ontario’s 61,000 filings represent nearly half of the DNCL complaint reports to the CRTC<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Last year, the CRTC spent more than $3M on the Do Not Call List, over and above the $2M spent on the database itself. The complaints continue to pour in (more than 130,000 last year), but enforcement resulted in just 5 warning letters, 8 citations and 20 notices of violations. <\/p>\n

The current regulatory approach appears to be unable to make a dent. The CRTC and other jurisdictions have been considering technology-based solutions. Earlier this week, the Commission issued a public notice<\/a> to “examine the development and implementation of technical solutions to (i) prevent spoofing of caller identification information, and (ii) trace and identify the source of a call.”<\/p>\n

Some may ask why caller ID spoofing is even allowed in the standards. There are good reasons for the capability, such as enabling people to work from home but display their office number. Indeed, the CRTC’s unsolicited call rules<\/a> leverage the ability for telemarketers to provide call number display of an alternate number where they can be reached.<\/p>\n

As indicated in the Notice of Consultation<\/a>, in the wake of a report from what the CRTC calls a “US telecommunications industry Robocall Strike Force” (the group actually included non-US service providers British Telecom and Rogers as well as global suppliers such as Blackberry, Nokia and Ericsson) some proposals have been put forward to authenticate the telephone number being presented as the caller ID, but these have not yet been adopted:<\/p>\n

\n
    \n
  1. The telecommunications industries in the United States (U.S.) and the United Kingdom (U.K.) have developed approaches and mechanisms to improve the accuracy and authenticity of caller ID information that could be introduced by TSPs in Canada and elsewhere to reduce caller ID spoofing.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    …<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. In this proceeding, the Commission is seeking information and comments on\n