The backtrack chain of accountability has to apply to each telco transiting a given call. We can argue about how much that penalty should be (I'd prefer a heftier one), and details over how to address abuse and whatnot.
California has (recently?) introduced a bonding requirement of telemarketers. I'd like to see a far stiffer bonding obligation to telecoms providers, probably in the deca-to-mega millions amounts.
As that's bonding, the rate is based on risk (business assessment plus history), and would likely be a small fraction of the total amount for legitimate providers, but would be substantial for bad-actors, and the Surety (bond provider) would be strongly incentivised to limit their risk through bad behaviour on the part of the Principal (bonded entity).
The backtrack chain of accountability has to apply to each telco transiting a given call. We can argue about how much that penalty should be (I'd prefer a heftier one), and details over how to address abuse and whatnot.
I'd detailed a version of this a few days ago here: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49129679>.
California has (recently?) introduced a bonding requirement of telemarketers. I'd like to see a far stiffer bonding obligation to telecoms providers, probably in the deca-to-mega millions amounts.
As that's bonding, the rate is based on risk (business assessment plus history), and would likely be a small fraction of the total amount for legitimate providers, but would be substantial for bad-actors, and the Surety (bond provider) would be strongly incentivised to limit their risk through bad behaviour on the part of the Principal (bonded entity).