A few points to consider: 1. Phone spam is pervasive. Single actors are responsible for billions of calls per month within the US alone. 2. The goal in setti

A few points to consider: 1. Phone spam is pervasive. Single actors are responsible for billions of calls per month within the US alone. 2. The goal in setting the liability charge high is to create an incentive to propagate investigations up the chain. $10 * 1 billion does create a substantial incentive to a phone operator to pursue actions. Especially if a large fraction of the traffic is peered from a small number of sources, if not a single source. I'd really like to see a serious attempt at pointing out possible abuses or issues with the system, though I think it could work, and may be necessary to address the fundamental economic incentives spurring phone spam. See my own variant here: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49129679 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49129679>.