Pretty simply - Sending caller ID to commit fraud. It's literally already illegal. The legislature has already defined it for us, even.

47 USC 227

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227

(B)
to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party, unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes, is made solely pursuant to the collection of a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States, or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission under paragraph (2)(B);

(e)(1) In general

It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States, in connection with any telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service, to cause any caller identification service to knowingly transmit misleading or inaccurate caller identification information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value, unless such transmission is exempted pursuant to paragraph (3)(B).

All I'm asking is to make the carrier liable if it should have been obvious to a carrier using basic traffic analysis that the service was a robocaller (low answer rates combined with tons of source numbers, especially situations where the source and destination number share the first 6 digits) that the carrier be liable for failing to look into it.

Carriers already look at things like short duration in order to assess higher charges, and already investigate call center traffic. If they then look at the caller ID and it looks "suspect", and the customer then is contacted and barred from sending arbitrary caller ID until they can verify they own the numbers they're calling from, then they're good to go.

If the carrier continues to just ensure that call center traffic is a revenue stream they can bill higher without making sure they're outpulsing valid numbers, then they should absorb the social costs of what's going on.

Let's not get this confused - this isn't about customer PBXen outpulsing forwarded calls when they do it, it's about people shooting millions of calls a month, the carrier hitting them with short duration charges, making more money, and having zero incentive to question the arrangement.

-Paul

On 7/11/19 1:18 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
'illicit use of caller id' - how is caller-id being illicitly used though?
I don't think it's against the law to say a different 'callerid' in the call
 session, practically every actual call center does this, right?