NARUC Resolutions
2 11 2007All..
NARUC (check out what NARUC is: Link to About NARUC) - National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners submitted a notice of oral and written ex-parte contacts and in that comments incuded a resolution on IP Relay and scammer problem. Basically the resolution explains the problem of fraudulent relay calls and then goes on to encourage that the FCC needs to take aggressive actions to educate the businesses.
Quote:
"..urges the FCC to act immediately and aggressively, in conjunction with State commissions
and other appropriate governmental entities, to educate the business community, especially small
businesses, about ways to identify and deal with fraudulent IP Relay callers in a manner that
ensures legitimate IP Relay users will not be denied the benefits of this technology."
Unquote.
Click to this link for further reading. Be sure to scroll down further to read the resolutions made by the NARUC.
My personal analysis is that education to the businesses is good. Back of my mind, though, thinks that businesses should ALREADY know how to do the verification process to begin with. I think the best way to resolve this is via having a registration or 10 digit phone number or create an account from IP Relay providers or even better through 3rd party. The 3rd party would resolve several issues like being able to use any IP providers. If IP providers do the work (be it assigning ph nbrs, create account, or registration), and there are 8 IP Providers now -by this method, we would have 8 accounts, 8 registration or 8 ph nbrs. Third party would make it possible for us to have just one phone number or one account or one registration. We can call third party of our preferred choice of IP providers for hearing persons to call us. Can change IP Providers anytime.
What think you, Relay Users?
Ed
Bosson
PS: Hopefully within a few days I will demonstrate a cool method of verification. I know quite a few of you are opposed to that concept, but I also know quite a few of you support it as well.
Loading ...
ED,
THE NARUC RESOLUTION IS A START IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. BUSINESSES DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THE SITUATION AS MANY SMALL BUSINESSES DO NOT HAVE WAYS OF COMMUNICATING BETWEEN THEMSELVES. WE NEED TO TAKE AWAY THE FEAR OF ANSWERING AN IP CALL OR A TRADITIONAL RELAY CALL. IF THEY HAVE PROCEDURES IN PLACE THEY CAN MANAGE THE PROBLEM.
I DO AGREE WITH YOU THAT A REGISTRATION/VERIFICATION PROGRAM IS NEEDED. I DID SUGGEST THAT TO THE PUC IN CALIFORNIA BUT THEY DECIDED TO BE MORE CONSERVATIVE ON THIS ISSUE. YOUR SOLUTION IS ONE WAY TO DO IT AND PROVIDES FOR FLEXIBILITY ON THE PART OF THE USER. I LOOK FORWARD TO A DEMO OF THE CONCEPT. YOU HAVE ONE PERSON IN SUPPORT.
I rejected that idea.
Phil,
Thanks for ur support, and, Meow, thanks for ur remark.
We’ll see how it all works out and what the FCC ultimately decides.
Ed
In my hometown we are required to change the ip # in 3 months to prevent frauders from making calls..
I know it is “pain in the rear end” to memorize my ip # over and over but in other word, I appreciate it very much after I learn the real reason for changing ip#.
Now I’m curious whether if this is a good idea or not - need some feedback/input how to solve this situation - in other word I sort of agree with Meow’s comment - reject the idea!
Which idea did you and Meow reject? The education of businesses or the registration/10 digit ph nbr/account idea?
I agree that the registration verification program is necessary due to security reason and reduction of fraudential. Few years ago, I visit my friend in London and I wanted to make a call to my wife by tty in USA and I could not get through and I learned from my friend I can not get relay service provided by British government because government pays relay service for deaf people and it has the right to demand deaf people to do registration verification program.
I think Federal should do the same thing what British government due to security reason.