Industry Expects Approval of Controversial Call Blocking Order With Tweaks

An industry official active in the proceeding said the Republican commissioners appear to have First Amendment issues associated with blocking, “but those concerns weren't identified as being attached to any specific portion of the item.”

“Many of the robocall-related votes are unanimous, and I would expect this one to also be," said Brownstein Hyatt’s Leah Dempsey, who represents ACA International in the proceeding. Commissioners approved the NPRM, which led to the order, in a unanimous vote last year (see 2305180036).

The draft proposes allowing all providers in the call path to block calls that are highly likely to be illegal based on a reasonable do not originate (DNO) list. Requiring additional providers to block based on that list “will ensure that more consumers are protected from illegal calls,” the draft suggests. It also proposes text-blocking rules and using session initiation protocol code 603+ to notify consumers of blocked calls when blocking is based on analytics.

“DNO is a powerful tool for fighting robocalls, but Somos’ real world experience is that many providers are just defaulting to the 2,000 numbers” in the Industry Traceback Group list, said Joel Bernstein, Somos head-U.S. public policy and government affairs. Somos is one of the companies seeking tweaks (see 2409190024).

If the industry “wants to really reduce robocalls, they would block the 70% of possible number combinations that are not currently in any carrier’s inventory, and not just use the ITG list,” Bernstein told us. “Since most are not doing that voluntarily, the FCC needs to force their hand. I never want to see another reported scammer with the caller ID of 800-123-4567.”

The Cloud Communications Alliance and Incompas raised concerns about the "exclusive use" of SIP Code 603+ for notification of analytics-based blocking proposed in the draft. SIP Code 603+ “is not really a separate code" and “simply ensures that certain specified additional information is included,” the groups posted Friday in docket 17-59: “This will leave the calling carrier in the position of examining potentially millions of 603 notifications each month in an attempt to identify which of those are for calls blocked based on analytics.”

Incompas is “encouraged to see industry raise concerns about legitimate call blocking and the detrimental effect this can have on reliability in the network and believes the commission should adjust its proposals accordingly to prevent such blocking,” emailed Chris Shipley, Incompas executive director-public policy. Incompas “welcomes commission action to provide immediate notification of analytics-based call blocking, but we urge the commission to give continued consideration to SIP Code 608 and to speed up the implementation timeline for the agency's chosen solution,” Shipley added.

Groups representing banks and other creditors urged the FCC to speed up a timeline in the draft. They asked that the commission require implementation of the 603+ code within six months rather than one year as proposed. “The Draft Order appropriately concludes that resolution of this issue has taken too long and that ‘providers should adopt and implement a code quickly’ and no longer than ‘absolutely necessary,’” the groups advised: “We agree. But delaying implementation of SIP Code 603+ by another year is longer than necessary.” The American Bankers Association, ACA International, America’s Credit Unions, the American Financial Services Association, the National Council of Higher Education Resources and the Student Loan Servicing Alliance made the filing.

“This is a common sense ask that I am hopeful the commission could address in a bipartisan way,” Dempsey told us. “However, it's not uncommon for them not to make changes, even common-sense ones, from the draft to the final.”

USTelecom argued that the expansion of the call-blocking requirement is “unnecessary and potentially counterproductive.” Providers “already block calls from invalid, unallocated, and unused numbers, as well as from numbers on a DNO list including the one managed” by the USTelecom-led ITG, USTelecom said: “A mandate that would remove provider flexibility and instead require blocking of all invalid numbers, all numbers in area codes not assigned, all numbers in blocks not yet assigned, and numbers for which the subscriber has requested call origination blocking poses substantial risks to the completion of lawful calls, including emergency calls.”

Among other recent filings, the Competitive Carriers Association said smaller carriers need “sufficient time” to implement the proposed new requirements. “The Commission characterizes the new requirements as ‘modest extensions of existing Rules’ but for many small carriers, each new obligation places an additional strain on their already limited resources and personnel,” CCA said.

Among the issues CCA raises, the group asked the FCC to mandate compliance with the DNO blocking requirement on a longer timeline than 30 days after notification that the OMB has completed its review. The draft proposes that carriers block text messages from a particular source following notification from the FCC within 180 days of the order’s publication in the Federal Register, CCA said: “However, CCA members believe that extending the requirement to originating providers is more complex than the existing requirement for terminating providers” and “would be difficult to complete in a 180-day period.”

CTIA has also raised concerns (see 2409190020).

The American Bankers Association, the American Financial Services Association and the Bank Policy Institute supported FCC efforts to address illegal text messages. The draft proposes requiring that mobile wireless providers offer email-to-text as an opt-in service, the financial groups said: “We support this provision and believe it will significantly reduce the use of email-to-text to send illegal text messages.” They also applauded expansion rules that require originating providers, not just terminating providers, to “block all texts from a particular number when notified by the Commission of illegal texts from that number.”