FCC Hears Many Concerns on Proposed Robocall Rules
Wireless carriers supported broad implementation of Shaken/Stir and said a safe harbor, based on the use of reasonable analytics, is critical. Companies concerned about reaching customers urged the FCC to build in safeguards that make sure only illegal and unwanted calls don’t get through. Some comments closely tracked concerns raised at the FCC’s recent summit on secure handling of asserted information using tokens (Shaken) and secure telephone identity revisited (Stir) (see 1907110023) Comments were due Wednesday in docket 17-59 (see 1907240047).
The FCC should mandate providers don’t block calls “until the SHAKEN/STIR framework has been fully implemented,” filed healthcare providers, pharmacies, electric utilities, grocers, retailers and banks and other financial services providers. Then, “permit Providers to block only calls that have not been properly authenticated under the framework or those that have been authenticated, but where the Provider has concluded with a high degree of certainty that the call was placed illegally."
The Professional Association for Customer Engagement expressed similar concerns. The proposed safe harbor “should incentivize carriers to only block calls as authorized by the called party using SHAKEN/STIR-based blocking systems and take every reasonable step to prevent erroneous blocking,” the group said. The Credit Union National Association said the rules must guard against “blocking or mislabeling of legitimate and often critical communications. Requiring providers to quickly unblock legal calls is necessary because the Commission has no authority to authorize the blocking of legal communications.”
“As the Commission recognizes, a safe harbor from strict liability for voice service providers’ good-faith efforts to curb abusive robocalls will give them certainty and incentives to more aggressively combat unwanted and illegal robocalls,” CTIA commented: “A safe harbor will also help set expectations so legitimate callers can avoid being mistaken for illegal callers and inadvertently blocked. A properly tailored safe harbor will help calling parties deliver the calls consumers want and will help voice service providers meaningfully reduce the number of illegal and unwanted calls that reach consumers.”
Verizon said if all providers don’t implement Shaken/Stir, the FCC should require them to do so. “Otherwise illegal robocallers will have an avenue to continue to spam consumers across the United States by sending their calls through providers that choose not to participate." Any provider that doesn’t should have to “confirm it has safeguards in place to avoid becoming a conduit that illegal robocallers can use to bypass the authentication framework,” Verizon said.
T-Mobile supported “industry-wide deployment of STIR/SHAKEN which, when fully implemented, should reduce incidences of illegal spoofing and allow fraudsters to be more readily identified.” T-Mobile said the proposed safe harbor isn’t broad enough. The FCC clarify that the safe harbor “will be applied on a provider basis” and broaden it to cover all providers that implement “reasonable analytics to block robocalls -- including implementation of STIR/SHAKEN,” T-Mobile said.
NCTA opposed a Shaken/Stir mandate, at least for now. “Cable operators and other voice providers have strong incentives to protect their customers from illegal and unwanted calls, and many of them -- including NCTA member companies Comcast, Charter, and Cox -- have already made significant strides in implementing the SHAKEN/STIR framework,” the association said. It sought “broad safe harbor” for providers and a critical calls list of numbers that can’t be blocked.
The Competitive Carriers Association said the FCC shouldn’t mandate any one solution now since “technologies are still developing.” CCA urged clarity on what constitutes an unwanted call: “Predictive algorithms will work best when applied to a clearly-defined set of criteria, and the risk of over- or under-inclusiveness may be exacerbated when applied to an inherently subjective standard of what is ‘unwanted.’”
WTA said some RLECs may face legitimate difficulty deploying Shaken/Stir, an issue raised repeatedly at the FCC summit. “Unlike larger providers, the typical WTA member is unable to spread large network upgrade costs in a reasonable and affordable manner over its smaller customer-base,” the group said.
Creating a safe harbor now makes no sense, with call-blocking technologies just being launched, Incompas said: “Industry should demonstrate that the occurrence of ‘false positive’ blocking has been appropriately minimized before a call blocking safe harbor is approved.” Incompas said the FCC's critical calls list should be expanded to ensure consumers receive “calls from emergency services as well as wanted robocalls that provide critical or time-sensitive information.”
The rules appear to, but shouldn’t, take in companies that use other networks and “cannot as a technical matter implement the authentication framework,” TracFone said. Shaken/Stir “can be implemented only at the network level,” it said: Non-facilities-based providers “do not control transmission facilities or other supporting infrastructure.”
NCTA opposed a Shaken/Stir mandate, at least for now. “Cable operators and other voice providers have strong incentives to protect their customers from illegal and unwanted calls, and many of them -- including NCTA member companies Comcast, Charter, and Cox -- have already made significant strides in implementing the SHAKEN/STIR framework,” the association said. It sought “broad safe harbor” for providers and a critical calls list of numbers that can’t be blocked.