Then I've gone though countless numbers of "mass layoffs" with the companies I used to work for. I must be battle weary with PTSD or something. I worked for the "We lay off 10% every year" company for 3 years during the late 90's and it was growing by leaps and bounds, then worked for a two bit telcom company for 12, riding the 2000 down turn where the company went from 2,000 employees down to 550, up to 1,200 and back down to 550. We saw MASS layoffs there.
The argument I'm making is that "10% + layoffs DO happen in growing companies" more often than the OP might think. I really don't care if you want to call it a "mass layoff" or a simple "reduction in force", and really, to the folks getting their walking papers and to those left to pick up the pieces it doesn't matter.
SpaceX is not hugely successful though. They just failed their capital raise and are in pretty bad shape. Companies experiencing growth do not have mass layoffs.
10% is a mass layoff? I worked for a company that routinely laid off 10% every year. If you where in the lower 10% of performers you got walking papers right after the 1 Quarter each year. They where growing at the time too. Thankfully I don't work there anymore...
I'm not saying this is a good idea, only that your statement is not necessarily true. Some companies do layoff when growing. It's a management technique that used to be a bit more popular than it is today.
To the question about why SpaceX is doing this, I'm of the opinion (looking into from the outside) that they are trying to "right size" a bit as their growth has leveled off, reorganize things a bit for efficiency. But, I don't really know for sure.
didn't Trump agree to sign the funding, until Fox news etc. said that would be bad?
No, and it was Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh not Fox news who said it was a bad idea. Trump was never going to sign this without wall funding and everybody knew it already. He was negotiating and effectively said "If you want to make a reasonable deal, I'm here to talk." which was interpreted by some as a "I will sign the deal." Go back and listen to Trump's public statements, he may be parsing his words a bit, but he clearly wants that wall and simply isn't talking about any "compromise" that doesn't include significant wall funding of some kind.
For the life of me, I don't understand why the democrats don't just cave, or offer part of the funding and demand something they want in return. Surely they are not saying that 5.6 Billion out of 45 Trillion budget is going to break us. Or, to quote a meme I saw, the Democrats are refusing to spend ANYTHING when they make $45,000 / year and somebody wants to spend $58 on a fence, so they stop paying the bills, refuse to pay the kids allowances or buy gasoline for the lawn mower. Really?
Republicans could not pass such a measure w/o democrat support though the Senate, unless they wished to change the Senate rules (go nuclear) over this issue. This is true today. If ANYTHING is going to get done now it will take compromise and deal making and so far both sides are pretty much saying my way or the highway.
The PR battle is where this will be "won or lost" for either party and so far, it's looking like a pretty even draw.
Now you are inventing or cherry picking your facts. Obama did make the claim that undocumented border crossers are a danger to this country as well as a danger to themselves. Trump isn't disagreeing with any of that and Obama was right. Illegals represent a danger to themselves and to the people of the USA and a barrier to their entry into the USA needs to be in place or we will be over run. Trump called this barrier a "wall" and he wants to build it.
On the asylum claims, this has got to stop. 99.9% of those claims are bogus and without merit. Why? Because Mexico would offer most of these folks from south of their border asylum in Mexico, removing the reason for continuing to the USA. I'm told our laws clearly deny asylum in that case. But... IF you are on US soil, your case MUST be heard by a court, so the goal is to get into the USA, get caught and THEN make your asylum claim. Because the courts are backed up for months, you either stay in jail until your hearing or, more likely, ICE let's you lose with an order to return for your court date. You tell me what happens...
Liar. They supported fencing and technology for border security. And the Democrats still do support that. None ever supported a wall.
Semantics and nothing more, childish word play. Wall, fence who cares what you call it, it's a barrier on the border either way, Trump doesn't care, if you want to call it something other than a wall, just cough up the 5.6 billion for a physical barrier on the border and we are good, the government can get restarted and federal workers paid in about an hour. You don't have to call it a wall if that's what's eating you, just call it a border barrier or a solid fence, pick something.
How can you refuse... Oh yea, because you don't want Trump to be able to make the claim he built the wall.... How childish are we getting here?
The Wall won't work, not just imperfect, but a waste. Money taken and stolen for no real purpose.
Walls don't work? Tell Israel that, their walls seem to be pretty effective in the multiple places they got built recently. There are LOTS of examples of walls that help border security, many of which are currently being successfully used right NOW (even on our border, shown by Jim Acosta just yesterday). Not to mention that I heard multiple border portal officers in DHS calling for a wall, saying that they make their work easier and safer just yesterday when the president visited...
Stop lying about the wall's effectiveness. They work and once you accept that, it's obvious they are efficient uses of money, allowing you to focus your manpower resources to places where you simply cannot build walls (such as in the middle of a river and the like). Surely we can build something more effective than a barbed wire fence where we don't have more than that...
Besides, we've wasted more than the requested amount of money on stuff your side wanted when I thought it was frivolous and ineffective without this much trouble. Don't try and claim you somehow are deficit hawks now. So just spend the money and be done with it, then beat up Trump when it doesn't work.. Or are you afraid it might actually work or something...
Let's see... Democrats have cycled though the following arguments so far..
1. It costs TOO much, look at the deficits, we cannot afford a 5.6 Billion outlay right now! (Early in December)
2. It's immoral to build walls! (Last month)
3. Walls don't work! (a week ago)
4. Trump is inventing a crisis..(started about 2 days ago)
So post some links or give us some dates and times so we can find the transcripts..
I'm aware that folks believe that he said this, but finding the actual quotes is quite a bit more complex than what you think.
PLUS, I don't see how the second promise (who pays) has all that much to do with the first (build the wall). We are talking about 5.6 billion in federal funds and you cannot seriously think that's going to break the bank bad enough to justify all this do you? Or do you?
IF Trump is really being unreasonable, then just fund the stupid all, prove it doesn't work and reap rewards at the ballot box... What do you have to lose? Oh yea, the next election that's what..
Again, boo hoo... And what do you expect they are going to do over in the Senate?
I'm sorry, but the Democratic Senate leadership refused to take up anything Obama would veto too. I didn't like the game then, but I didn't claim it was somehow dirty pool or immoral on the democrats part. I understood why they where doing it and that they had the power to if they wished. I didn't complain then so you don't have to like it, but your complaints will fall on my deaf ears now.
Transcript? Sound bite? Date and time? When did Trump actually SAY this? Do be specific...
But like I've said to the other poster. Building the wall was one promise, Mexico paying for it another. Right now we are dealing with the first promise, Trump is trying to deliver a wall, unlike many democrats who previously promised to support the idea and are trying to ignore the promise they made.
Let's build the wall, THEN you can try to hold Trump's feet to the fire on who paid for it.. OK?
Or would you like to suggest that we fund the wall though a new tariff for stuff coming and going to Mexico? That way we can get the government open for you. Oh, wait...
Sound bite of this? Even a transcript of a Trump speech where he says this?
A campaign memo isn't a Trump promise, it's a memo. Promises have to come from the horse's mouth you know.
But even then, the wall is one promise and Mexico paying for it is another. He's trying to fulfill the "build a wall" promise. Which is a refreshing change from most politicians who claim they want a wall during the campaign, then forget they said anything of the sort when it comes time to actually cast a vote that counts towards actually doing it. (Here's looking at a lot of democrats..)
We where discussing if walls work and if they are efficient use of funds...
Walls do work, BECAUSE they funnel those who wish to get around the wall to specific points where the wall cannot be built. Those areas where no wall exists can then be manned easier because they can be stationed where the wall isn't. Walls help, recent history and examples show this.
What your argument really turns out to be here is that a wall isn't perfect. It won't be 100% effective. You are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I've literally heard recordings of Nancy, Chuck, Hillary and even Barrack himself claiming we needed this from only a few short years ago. What gives? Where they for it before they decided it was a bad idea it or some such nonsense?
I think one side IS inventing facts here, but in this case it's not who you seem to think.
Well, maybe in December they did, but now in January the issue is falling squarely on the House...
Is it worth 5.6 billion to ya? No? Then we wait some more.... But truth be told, Trump was right, he is not a dictator, cannot make law by the force of his will alone, Congress must participate, the very thing he told Nancy and Schumer in their first meeting.
Ah.. Boo Hoo... Seems the Democrat tactic from the Obama years is being used by the Republicans...
Remember all the "Give me a CLEAN CR!" statements from Obama when the Republican house was trying to get concessions on the ACH and the Budget from him? The house kept passing bills and the Senate kept ignoring them and we shutdown the government then too.
It's how the game is played by both sides, so cry into your beer if you have to but your complaints are falling on deaf ears here.
BTW.. How'd that all turn out? The House republicans caved, passed a clean CR and we moved on. I suspect the House will lose this fight too, but that's just my guess based on history.
LOL, I thought Mexico was going to pay for it. And do the work themselves.
And how secure is the rest of the country when even illegals work in the White House?
As the president said yesterday, he never said HOW Mexico would pay for it, nor did he say they'd be building it. Further, the president claims that the NAFTA replacement deal is already getting Mexico to pay for it, indirectly...
Yea, the method Trump is claiming for Mexico's funding the wall is very indirect and the argument is pretty thin, but anybody who was actually listening and thinking during the campaign never expected Mexico would be writing a check or something. Only folks who think Trump is an idiot thought he was saying that, or folks who wanted to make Trump look bad. His supporters surely didn't expect *direct* payments from Mexico for the wall... At least this one never did.
border security YAY, Wall = monument to waste. They don't work.
Ah yes, the democrat talking point sans any actual facts. Actually, Walls DO work and they work quite well, there are multiple modern examples that show this (Including Acosta's news report from south Texas yesterday).. PLUS, if you build them properly, they have very little maintenance costs compared to "other" means of securing the border which all require larger amounts of man power to remain effective. So they are actually NOT wasteful, but quite efficient over time as they reduce manpower costs significantly over the long term. So you are wrong on both points.
So can we PLEASE drop the pretense here and just admit that this is a political fight... Democrats simply CAN NOT allow Trump to be able to claim success on "the wall" or they are sunk with their voters come 2020 and Trump cannot give in with his demands for a similar reason. The question has become more about a political win than protecting the border, and the democrats are clearly the ones who are inventing stupid stuff like "walls don't work" in their PR campaign. You tell me who's coming out on top here...
In Europe, Calling Party Pays, is the rule, so spammers don't like to make spam calls to cell phones because it costs them money over POTS calls.
The phone system in the US suffers from being "first" and needing to provide backwards compatibility. We also have "called party pays" for cell phones, which means the spammers are free to call any phone number without any added cost.
So I'm not so quick to disparage the US's system, but obviously there are technologic solutions we need to apply here. I'm for requiring the verification and registration of all spoofed numbers, if it's not in the list and doesn't belong to you and you attempt to spoof a number, it gets routed to the great bit bucket and you get the "I'm sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialed..." intercept.
Either the business owns the number or they don't. This requires some infrastructure on the carrier side to determine whether the number should be allowed to be set by the PBX. Doesn't mean the PBX should be allowed to spoof numbers willy-nilly. If there's some weird use case where a company wants to use numbers it doesn't own (maybe an outsourced call center, who knows) - too bad, so sad - they can always set their number as missing. And then people being called are free to ignore those calls.
They can also just forward the inbound call from specific numbers to the outsourced call center themselves. Yea it burns up two trunk lines per inbound call, but (as you say) to bad, so sad, consider it a cost of doing business.
This is how mass confusion ensues and how you break cell calling...
Cell calls are routinely routed all over the place using source and destination numbers that only have a passing association with your handset. Unless you happen to be in your handset's home MSC (unlikely) then when you make a call, the ANI is not going to be your actual phone number, but a transitory number assigned by the MSC to the call you are making. For the voice circuits to get setup, this number has to map to a specific MSC so the switches can select the physical trunks to route the circuit onto. Your phone number only routes to your home MSC, from there it's remapped for routing purposes, same in reverse, when you call out.
Unfortunately this won't be an easy thing to change.
Yup.. The only 100% solution (or the only one that could possibly be 100%) is to *require* any call that enters a switch be from either a trusted source (such as another switch who only accepts trusted calls itself) or from untrusted PBX's for which you have validated the ANI, DNS, Billing number to be associated with that PBX's owner. That way spammers cannot spoof any number they want, but only numbers they are registered for or the call won't be routed.
Slashdot Mirror
Then I've gone though countless numbers of "mass layoffs" with the companies I used to work for. I must be battle weary with PTSD or something. I worked for the "We lay off 10% every year" company for 3 years during the late 90's and it was growing by leaps and bounds, then worked for a two bit telcom company for 12, riding the 2000 down turn where the company went from 2,000 employees down to 550, up to 1,200 and back down to 550. We saw MASS layoffs there.
The argument I'm making is that "10% + layoffs DO happen in growing companies" more often than the OP might think. I really don't care if you want to call it a "mass layoff" or a simple "reduction in force", and really, to the folks getting their walking papers and to those left to pick up the pieces it doesn't matter.
SpaceX is not hugely successful though. They just failed their capital raise and are in pretty bad shape. Companies experiencing growth do not have mass layoffs.
10% is a mass layoff? I worked for a company that routinely laid off 10% every year. If you where in the lower 10% of performers you got walking papers right after the 1 Quarter each year. They where growing at the time too. Thankfully I don't work there anymore...
I'm not saying this is a good idea, only that your statement is not necessarily true. Some companies do layoff when growing. It's a management technique that used to be a bit more popular than it is today.
To the question about why SpaceX is doing this, I'm of the opinion (looking into from the outside) that they are trying to "right size" a bit as their growth has leveled off, reorganize things a bit for efficiency. But, I don't really know for sure.
didn't Trump agree to sign the funding, until Fox news etc. said that would be bad?
No, and it was Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh not Fox news who said it was a bad idea. Trump was never going to sign this without wall funding and everybody knew it already. He was negotiating and effectively said "If you want to make a reasonable deal, I'm here to talk." which was interpreted by some as a "I will sign the deal." Go back and listen to Trump's public statements, he may be parsing his words a bit, but he clearly wants that wall and simply isn't talking about any "compromise" that doesn't include significant wall funding of some kind.
For the life of me, I don't understand why the democrats don't just cave, or offer part of the funding and demand something they want in return. Surely they are not saying that 5.6 Billion out of 45 Trillion budget is going to break us. Or, to quote a meme I saw, the Democrats are refusing to spend ANYTHING when they make $45,000 / year and somebody wants to spend $58 on a fence, so they stop paying the bills, refuse to pay the kids allowances or buy gasoline for the lawn mower. Really?
Ah.. Because of how the senate works..
Republicans could not pass such a measure w/o democrat support though the Senate, unless they wished to change the Senate rules (go nuclear) over this issue. This is true today. If ANYTHING is going to get done now it will take compromise and deal making and so far both sides are pretty much saying my way or the highway.
The PR battle is where this will be "won or lost" for either party and so far, it's looking like a pretty even draw.
Didn't Trump say he wanted a smaller government? Seems like a quick way to achieve that.
Where is that link you speak of?
Here is one just in case you have a hard time finding any.. https://insider.foxnews.com/20...
Now you are inventing or cherry picking your facts. Obama did make the claim that undocumented border crossers are a danger to this country as well as a danger to themselves. Trump isn't disagreeing with any of that and Obama was right. Illegals represent a danger to themselves and to the people of the USA and a barrier to their entry into the USA needs to be in place or we will be over run. Trump called this barrier a "wall" and he wants to build it.
On the asylum claims, this has got to stop. 99.9% of those claims are bogus and without merit. Why? Because Mexico would offer most of these folks from south of their border asylum in Mexico, removing the reason for continuing to the USA. I'm told our laws clearly deny asylum in that case. But... IF you are on US soil, your case MUST be heard by a court, so the goal is to get into the USA, get caught and THEN make your asylum claim. Because the courts are backed up for months, you either stay in jail until your hearing or, more likely, ICE let's you lose with an order to return for your court date. You tell me what happens...
Liar. They supported fencing and technology for border security. And the Democrats still do support that. None ever supported a wall.
Semantics and nothing more, childish word play. Wall, fence who cares what you call it, it's a barrier on the border either way, Trump doesn't care, if you want to call it something other than a wall, just cough up the 5.6 billion for a physical barrier on the border and we are good, the government can get restarted and federal workers paid in about an hour. You don't have to call it a wall if that's what's eating you, just call it a border barrier or a solid fence, pick something.
How can you refuse... Oh yea, because you don't want Trump to be able to make the claim he built the wall.... How childish are we getting here?
The Wall won't work, not just imperfect, but a waste. Money taken and stolen for no real purpose.
Walls don't work? Tell Israel that, their walls seem to be pretty effective in the multiple places they got built recently. There are LOTS of examples of walls that help border security, many of which are currently being successfully used right NOW (even on our border, shown by Jim Acosta just yesterday). Not to mention that I heard multiple border portal officers in DHS calling for a wall, saying that they make their work easier and safer just yesterday when the president visited...
Stop lying about the wall's effectiveness. They work and once you accept that, it's obvious they are efficient uses of money, allowing you to focus your manpower resources to places where you simply cannot build walls (such as in the middle of a river and the like). Surely we can build something more effective than a barbed wire fence where we don't have more than that...
Besides, we've wasted more than the requested amount of money on stuff your side wanted when I thought it was frivolous and ineffective without this much trouble. Don't try and claim you somehow are deficit hawks now. So just spend the money and be done with it, then beat up Trump when it doesn't work.. Or are you afraid it might actually work or something...
Let's see... Democrats have cycled though the following arguments so far..
1. It costs TOO much, look at the deficits, we cannot afford a 5.6 Billion outlay right now! (Early in December)
2. It's immoral to build walls! (Last month)
3. Walls don't work! (a week ago)
4. Trump is inventing a crisis..(started about 2 days ago)
5. Federal workers are not getting paid! (today)
Pick something and stick with it.. :)
Did I miss something they've used?
So post some links or give us some dates and times so we can find the transcripts..
I'm aware that folks believe that he said this, but finding the actual quotes is quite a bit more complex than what you think.
PLUS, I don't see how the second promise (who pays) has all that much to do with the first (build the wall). We are talking about 5.6 billion in federal funds and you cannot seriously think that's going to break the bank bad enough to justify all this do you? Or do you?
IF Trump is really being unreasonable, then just fund the stupid all, prove it doesn't work and reap rewards at the ballot box... What do you have to lose? Oh yea, the next election that's what..
Again, boo hoo... And what do you expect they are going to do over in the Senate?
I'm sorry, but the Democratic Senate leadership refused to take up anything Obama would veto too. I didn't like the game then, but I didn't claim it was somehow dirty pool or immoral on the democrats part. I understood why they where doing it and that they had the power to if they wished. I didn't complain then so you don't have to like it, but your complaints will fall on my deaf ears now.
Transcript? Sound bite? Date and time? When did Trump actually SAY this? Do be specific...
But like I've said to the other poster. Building the wall was one promise, Mexico paying for it another. Right now we are dealing with the first promise, Trump is trying to deliver a wall, unlike many democrats who previously promised to support the idea and are trying to ignore the promise they made.
Let's build the wall, THEN you can try to hold Trump's feet to the fire on who paid for it.. OK?
Or would you like to suggest that we fund the wall though a new tariff for stuff coming and going to Mexico? That way we can get the government open for you. Oh, wait...
Sound bite of this? Even a transcript of a Trump speech where he says this?
A campaign memo isn't a Trump promise, it's a memo. Promises have to come from the horse's mouth you know.
But even then, the wall is one promise and Mexico paying for it is another. He's trying to fulfill the "build a wall" promise. Which is a refreshing change from most politicians who claim they want a wall during the campaign, then forget they said anything of the sort when it comes time to actually cast a vote that counts towards actually doing it. (Here's looking at a lot of democrats..)
You are changing the argument now?
We where discussing if walls work and if they are efficient use of funds...
Walls do work, BECAUSE they funnel those who wish to get around the wall to specific points where the wall cannot be built. Those areas where no wall exists can then be manned easier because they can be stationed where the wall isn't. Walls help, recent history and examples show this.
What your argument really turns out to be here is that a wall isn't perfect. It won't be 100% effective. You are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
What alternate facts?
I've literally heard recordings of Nancy, Chuck, Hillary and even Barrack himself claiming we needed this from only a few short years ago. What gives? Where they for it before they decided it was a bad idea it or some such nonsense?
I think one side IS inventing facts here, but in this case it's not who you seem to think.
Well, maybe in December they did, but now in January the issue is falling squarely on the House...
Is it worth 5.6 billion to ya? No? Then we wait some more.... But truth be told, Trump was right, he is not a dictator, cannot make law by the force of his will alone, Congress must participate, the very thing he told Nancy and Schumer in their first meeting.
Ah.. Boo Hoo... Seems the Democrat tactic from the Obama years is being used by the Republicans...
Remember all the "Give me a CLEAN CR!" statements from Obama when the Republican house was trying to get concessions on the ACH and the Budget from him? The house kept passing bills and the Senate kept ignoring them and we shutdown the government then too.
It's how the game is played by both sides, so cry into your beer if you have to but your complaints are falling on deaf ears here.
BTW.. How'd that all turn out? The House republicans caved, passed a clean CR and we moved on. I suspect the House will lose this fight too, but that's just my guess based on history.
LOL, I thought Mexico was going to pay for it. And do the work themselves.
And how secure is the rest of the country when even illegals work in the White House?
As the president said yesterday, he never said HOW Mexico would pay for it, nor did he say they'd be building it. Further, the president claims that the NAFTA replacement deal is already getting Mexico to pay for it, indirectly...
Yea, the method Trump is claiming for Mexico's funding the wall is very indirect and the argument is pretty thin, but anybody who was actually listening and thinking during the campaign never expected Mexico would be writing a check or something. Only folks who think Trump is an idiot thought he was saying that, or folks who wanted to make Trump look bad. His supporters surely didn't expect *direct* payments from Mexico for the wall... At least this one never did.
border security YAY, Wall = monument to waste. They don't work.
Ah yes, the democrat talking point sans any actual facts. Actually, Walls DO work and they work quite well, there are multiple modern examples that show this (Including Acosta's news report from south Texas yesterday).. PLUS, if you build them properly, they have very little maintenance costs compared to "other" means of securing the border which all require larger amounts of man power to remain effective. So they are actually NOT wasteful, but quite efficient over time as they reduce manpower costs significantly over the long term. So you are wrong on both points.
So can we PLEASE drop the pretense here and just admit that this is a political fight... Democrats simply CAN NOT allow Trump to be able to claim success on "the wall" or they are sunk with their voters come 2020 and Trump cannot give in with his demands for a similar reason. The question has become more about a political win than protecting the border, and the democrats are clearly the ones who are inventing stupid stuff like "walls don't work" in their PR campaign. You tell me who's coming out on top here...
In Europe, Calling Party Pays, is the rule, so spammers don't like to make spam calls to cell phones because it costs them money over POTS calls.
The phone system in the US suffers from being "first" and needing to provide backwards compatibility. We also have "called party pays" for cell phones, which means the spammers are free to call any phone number without any added cost.
So I'm not so quick to disparage the US's system, but obviously there are technologic solutions we need to apply here. I'm for requiring the verification and registration of all spoofed numbers, if it's not in the list and doesn't belong to you and you attempt to spoof a number, it gets routed to the great bit bucket and you get the "I'm sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialed..." intercept.
Either the business owns the number or they don't. This requires some infrastructure on the carrier side to determine whether the number should be allowed to be set by the PBX. Doesn't mean the PBX should be allowed to spoof numbers willy-nilly. If there's some weird use case where a company wants to use numbers it doesn't own (maybe an outsourced call center, who knows) - too bad, so sad - they can always set their number as missing. And then people being called are free to ignore those calls.
They can also just forward the inbound call from specific numbers to the outsourced call center themselves. Yea it burns up two trunk lines per inbound call, but (as you say) to bad, so sad, consider it a cost of doing business.
If you answer, is there a person on the other end pretending to be you?
Can I then talk to myself and not be considered crazy? THAT's The real question.
This is how mass confusion ensues and how you break cell calling...
Cell calls are routinely routed all over the place using source and destination numbers that only have a passing association with your handset. Unless you happen to be in your handset's home MSC (unlikely) then when you make a call, the ANI is not going to be your actual phone number, but a transitory number assigned by the MSC to the call you are making. For the voice circuits to get setup, this number has to map to a specific MSC so the switches can select the physical trunks to route the circuit onto. Your phone number only routes to your home MSC, from there it's remapped for routing purposes, same in reverse, when you call out.
Unfortunately this won't be an easy thing to change.
Yup.. The only 100% solution (or the only one that could possibly be 100%) is to *require* any call that enters a switch be from either a trusted source (such as another switch who only accepts trusted calls itself) or from untrusted PBX's for which you have validated the ANI, DNS, Billing number to be associated with that PBX's owner. That way spammers cannot spoof any number they want, but only numbers they are registered for or the call won't be routed.
This problem is not unique to cell calls, it happens on POTS lines too. It's been around for decades.