I appreciated the concern, but after looking into it, that’s much more than what the FCC has proposed.
The “ID, address, and alternate phone number” idea is part of a proposed Know-Your-Customer rule for artificial voice service providers when they sign up or renew customers, especially to stop illegal robocallers from getting network access. It’s not a requirement that every person provide ID before placing each phone call.
The call-branding proposal is separate: it’s about displaying verified caller name/branding information when a call gets top-level STIR/SHAKEN attestation.
“ID required for anyone who makes a call” is doing a little too much work. The telecom acronyms are exhausting enough without adding extra panic. :)
I didn't say every time they make a call. But everyone who is able to make a call. I don't see any reason a user of a payphone is not a customer of the payphone provider for example.
We'll have to wait for the final guidance from the FCC, but as a telecoms provider I'm quite concerned about the direction.
May I submit you do see the reason, even, you named it? :) They are a user of a payphone, not subleasing a number that could be used for robodialing.
And if they stand at the payphone and make scam calls for an hour and someone reports this and the payphone operator gets asked to identify this customer of theirs?
Then a police officer can visit the payphone and find out.
[dead]