Is Shaw Phone subject to today's CRTC order for ip based phones to implement Caller ID verification?

[AndyK]

Is Shaw Phone subject to today's CRTC order for ip based phones to implement Stir/Shaken Caller ID verification? 

[mdk]

Is there any reason for Shaw (or other telephone-service providers) to be exempted from the CRTC regulation?

If so, it would be a "toothless" regulation by the CRTC.

[AndyK]

I was thinking about the technology not working on landlines, but Shaw Phone is IP based so they would be included. Actually a huge advantage for Shaw once it's implemented in all the countries where the calls originate.

[mdk]

> I was thinking about the technology not working on land-lines ...

The technology should work when the recipient of the call is using a POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) land-line.

However, if the caller is using a land-line, then the TSP (Telephone Service Provider) has set the Caller-ID information, when the caller subscribed to the TSP.  So, the recipient will see the as-issued telephone-number (or "unknown number", if the caller/TSP has enabled this option).

The problem is that the caller, when using IP-based services, can set the Caller-ID information to literally ANYTHING, on their CPE (Customer Provided Equipment), i.e., "spoofing".

[nanuuk]

I would think that Shaw is subject to the order. I became aware of a Shaw Phone feature that I enabled (Spam Filter) on December 9. It is very effective and uses an algorithm to detect and block 'spam' calls. Callers have the option of leaving a voice message on Shaw Voicemail in case it is a legitimate call.  I have had zero nuisance calls and none have left a voice mail. I do not know how long this feature has been available with Shaw, but perhaps it was their response (albeit early) to the CRTC order.

[mdk]

Please read about Shaw's roll-out:   STIR/SHAKEN Overview & FAQ (shaw.ca)

[mdk]

Bell is "permanently" rolling-out some technology, after obtaining permission from the CRTC:

Bell Canada gets call-blocking technology approved by telecom watchdog (msn.com)