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. :)

▲

singpolyma3 an hour ago | parent [-]

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.

	▲	refulgentis 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		May I submit you do see the reason, in fact, you named it :) They are a user of a payphone, not subleasing a number that could be used for robodialing.