Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Call Authentication Trust Anchor, 29387-29389 [2019-13270]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 121 / Monday, June 24, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket No. 17–59, WC Docket No. 17–
97; FCC 19–51]
Advanced Methods To Target and
Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Call
Authentication Trust Anchor
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Declaratory ruling.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC or
Commission) clarifies that voice service
providers may offer consumers
programs to block unwanted calls
through analytics (call-blocking
programs) on an informed opt-out basis
and may block calls from numbers not
in a consumer’s contact list (white-list
programs). The Commission also
reminds voice service providers that
protecting emergency communications
is paramount. Finally, the Commission
directs the Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau (CGB), in consultation
with the Wireline Competition Bureau
(WCB) and Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau (PSHSB), to prepare
two reports on the state of deployment
of advanced methods and tools to
eliminate such calls.
DATES: This declaratory ruling is
effective June 7, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jerusha Burnett, Consumer Policy
Division, CGB, at (202) 418–0526, email:
Jerusha.Burnett@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s
Declaratory Ruling, in CG Docket No.
17–59, WC Docket No. 17–97; FCC 19–
51, adopted on June 6, 2019 and
released on June 7, 2019. The Third
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(FNPRM) that was adopted concurrently
with the Declaratory Ruling is published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register.
SUMMARY:
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
Congressional Review Act
The Commission will not send a copy
of the Declaratory Ruling pursuant to
the Congressional Review Act, because
the Commission adopted no rules
therein. See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Synopsis
1. The Commission believes the
clarification it makes that voice service
providers may immediately start
offering call-blocking services by
default—while giving consumers the
choice to opt out—is essential to curtail
illegal calls.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Jun 21, 2019
Jkt 247001
2. The Commission has repeatedly
stated that offering call-blocking
services does not violate voice service
providers’ call completion obligations
under section 201(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (the Act), and that consumers
have a right to block calls. Nonetheless,
uncertainty regarding when voice
service providers may implement callblocking programs remains. The
Commission issues the Declaratory
Ruling to resolve uncertainty and make
clear the call-blocking tools that voice
service providers can offer.
Call-Blocking Programs
3. Call-blocking programs have
become more prevalent over the past
several years. But many voice service
providers appear to offer call-blocking
programs only on an opt-in basis—
limiting the impact of such programs on
consumers. Setting a call-blocking
program as the default can significantly
increase consumer participation while
maintaining consumer choice.
4. Inertia may be an obstacle for
consumers who might otherwise
participate in a call-blocking program,
and convincing consumers to
affirmatively sign up for a call-blocking
program (rather than offering it as the
default) can be costly, especially for
smaller providers.
5. Against this background, the
Commission again reiterates that ‘‘there
appears to be no legal dispute in the
record that the Communications Act or
Commission rules do not limit
consumers’ right to block calls, as long
as the consumer makes the choice to do
so.’’ Nor has the Commission identified
any provision of the Communications
Act or any Commission rule that would
limit consumers to exercising such
consent on an opt-in basis. Although the
Commission’s 2015 declaratory ruling
on robocalls and call blocking (2015
TCPA Order), published at 80 FR 61129,
October 9, 2015, in a single sentence,
referred to opt-in call-blocking
programs, it did not suggest that such a
narrow ruling was required, nor did it
claim to prohibit opt-out call-blocking
programs. Accordingly, the Commission
clarifies that voice service providers
may offer consumers call blocking
through an opt-out process. Or to use
the language of the Act, the Commission
finds that opt-out call-blocking
programs are generally just and
reasonable practices (not unjust and
unreasonable practices) and
enhancements of service (not
impairments of service).
6. The Commission believes
consumers would welcome this
blocking choice and that it should
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
29387
therefore be offered to existing
subscribers of a given voice service
provider, rather than only new
subscribers. The Commission
encourages voice service providers to
offer these tools immediately to their
customers, and where they already
provide opt-in call-blocking programs,
to make them the default for all
consumers. The Commission encourages
voice service providers to make
consumers aware of the programs’
availability and, for that limited subset
of consumers who do not want to
participate, make the opt-out process
simple and easily accessible.
7. The Commission next turns to the
scope of this declaration. First, the
Commission clarifies that voice service
providers offering opt-out call-blocking
programs must offer sufficient
information so that consumers can make
an informed choice as to whether they
wish to remain in the program or opt
out. Voice service providers should
clearly disclose to consumers what
types of calls may be blocked and the
risks of blocking wanted calls, and they
should do so in a manner that is clear
and easy for a consumer to understand.
At a minimum, the Commission would
expect each voice service provider to
describe in plain language how the callblocking program makes the
determination to block certain calls, the
risks that it may block calls the
consumer may want, and how a
consumer may opt out of the service.
8. Second, the Commission clarifies
that voice service providers may offer
opt-out call-blocking programs based on
any reasonable analytics designed to
identify unwanted calls. The
Commission recognizes that limiting
opt-out call-blocking programs to rigid
blocking rules that prescribe in detail
when a voice service provider may
block is unnecessary when consumers
have the option to opt out, could enable
callers to evade blocking, and could
impede the ability of voice service
providers to develop dynamic blocking
schemes that evolve with calling
patterns. And to the extent certain
callers claim that consumers do indeed
want to receive calls from them, the
Commission believes the ability for
consumers to opt out of call-blocking
programs adequately addresses such
concerns.
9. In line with the record, the
Commission notes several examples of
call-blocking programs that may be
effective and would be based on
reasonable analytics designed to
identify unwanted calls. For example, a
call-blocking program might block calls
based on a combination of factors, such
as: Large bursts of calls in a short
E:\FR\FM\24JNR1.SGM
24JNR1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
29388
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 121 / Monday, June 24, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
timeframe; low average call duration;
low call completion ratios; invalid
numbers placing a large volume of calls;
common Caller ID Name (CNAM) values
across voice service providers; a large
volume of complaints related to a
suspect line; sequential dialing patterns;
neighbor spoofing patterns; patterns that
indicate TCPA or other contract
violations; correlation of network data
with data from regulators, consumers,
and other carriers; and comparison of
dialed numbers to the National Do Not
Call Registry. Similarly, a call-blocking
program might be designed to block
callers engaged in war dialing, unlawful
foreign-based spoofing, or one-ring
scams and might be designed to
incorporate information about the
originating provider, such as whether it
has been a consistent source of
unwanted robocalls and whether it
appropriately signs calls under the
SHAKEN/STIR framework. Although
the Commission suggests these as
examples of potentially effective opt-out
call-blocking programs, this list is not
exhaustive. To be reasonable, however,
such analytics must be applied in a nondiscriminatory, competitively neutral
manner.
10. Third, the Commission reaffirms
its commitment to safeguarding calls
from emergency numbers. The
Commission cautions voice service
providers using call blocking tools by
default to avoid blocking calls from
‘‘public safety entities, including
PSAPs, emergency operations centers,
or law enforcement agencies.’’ The
Commission emphasizes that voice
service providers should make all
feasible efforts for those tools to avoid
blocking emergency calls.
11. Fourth, the Commission reaffirms
its commitment to safeguarding calls to
rural areas. The Commission does not
expect that this holding will have any
negative impact on rural call completion
rates given that opt-out call-blocking
programs would be offered by
terminating providers (i.e., those with a
direct relationship to the called party).
But the Commission nonetheless
reminds all voice service providers that
call-blocking programs may not be used
to avoid the effect of the rural call
completion rules.
12. Fifth, while some parties have
expressed concern about blocking of
calls required for compliance with other
laws, rules, or policy considerations, the
Commission believes that a reasonable
call-blocking program instituted by
default would include a point of contact
for legitimate callers to report what they
believe to be erroneous blocking as well
as a mechanism for such complaints to
be resolved. Further, callers who believe
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Jun 21, 2019
Jkt 247001
their calls have been unfairly blocked
may seek review of a call-blocking
program they believe to be unreasonable
by filing a petition for declaratory ruling
with the Commission. The Commission
also encourages voice service providers
that block calls to develop a mechanism
for notifying callers that their calls have
been blocked. The Commission notes
that industry has been active in
developing solutions that allow callers
to communicate with voice service
providers and analytics companies to
identify themselves and share their call
patterns that might otherwise seem to
indicate illegal call activity. Moreover,
the Commission believes that reducing
the number of unwanted calls that
consumers receive will make it more
likely that they will answer their
phones, thus making it easier for
legitimate callers to reach people. Thus,
the Declaratory Ruling will ultimately
increase call completion rates for
legitimate callers.
13. The Commission believes that the
benefit to consumers of voice service
providers offering opt-out blocking
services will exceed any costs incurred.
Indeed, the Commission expects these
blocking services will yield an overall
reduction in costs incurred by voice
service providers as illegal and
unwanted calls will consume less of
their network capacity, which can then
be devoted more fully to calls and other
services that consumers value.
14. The Commission also believes that
the costs to the voice service provider,
for its own analytics program or one
outsourced, if amortized against a large
percentage of their customer base, is far
less expensive than the costs of allowing
unwanted calls to bother its subscribers.
The record to date also indicates that
voice service providers believe a critical
mass of served consumers would
subscribe to call blocking services on an
opt-out basis.
15. Finally, the Commission
understands the cost of handling
customer service calls from consumers
annoyed by illegal robocalls can be
more than ten dollars per consumer call.
Further, the Commission anticipates
that the authorization of opt-out
blocking would impose no mandatory
costs on voice service providers because
implementation is voluntary, not
required. As such, the Commission
would expect voice service providers to
offer an opt-out service for free, as many
already do, with no line-item charge.
White-List Programs
16. As with the call-blocking
programs discussed above, white-list
blocking stops unwanted calls on the
voice service provider’s network before
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the calls reach the consumer’s phone,
providing an added level of protection
from unwanted calls and the
frustrations that go with them. But
unlike one-ring and analytics programs,
a white-list program requires consumers
to specify the telephone numbers from
which they wish to receive calls.
17. The Commission notes that some
voice service providers already offer
similar services. To ensure that
regulatory uncertainty does not deter
such offerings, the Commission makes
clear that nothing in the Act nor the
Commission’s rules prohibits a voice
service provider from offering an opt-in
white list program using the consumer’s
contact list. Note that the Commission is
in no way limiting the consumer’s
ability to use phone-based applications
installed, for example, by the consumer,
the phone manufacturer, or bundled by
the service provider where the data in
the consumer’s contact list never leaves
the device. For a whitelist program that
transfers the consumer’s contact list to
a service provider, provides access to
the contact list by the service provider,
or otherwise stores the consumer’s
contacts with the service provider or its
designees, consumers need to
understand they are disclosing the
telephone numbers contained in their
phone’s contact lists with their voice
service providers. The Commission
limits this Declaratory Ruling to whitelist programs requiring informed, opt-in
consent. Voice service providers should
disclose the risks of blocking wanted
calls and the scope of information
disclosed in a manner that is clear and
easy for a consumer to understand.
Legal Authority
18. The Commission believes that it
has ample legal authority to issue the
Declaratory Ruling. Section 554(e) of the
Administrative Procedure Act
authorizes the Commission to issue a
declaratory ruling to terminate a
controversy or remove uncertainty. And
§ 1.2 of the Commission’s rules provides
that ‘‘The Commission may . . . on
motion or on its own motion issue a
declaratory ruling terminating a
controversy or removing uncertainty.’’
In issuing the Declaratory Ruling, the
Commission notes that a necessary
corollary of permitting consumer-driven
call blocking is that such blocking must
be consistent with provisions in Title II,
including section 201(b) and section
214(a) of the Act. As explained above,
the Commission has previously held
that consumers have a right to block
certain calls and that offering callblocking services to consumers is a just
and reasonable practice under section
201(b) of the Act. The Commission also
E:\FR\FM\24JNR1.SGM
24JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 121 / Monday, June 24, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
finds that consumer-driven call blocking
is an enhancement of service, not a
discontinuance or impairment of
‘‘service’’ to a ‘‘community, or part of a
community,’’ within the meaning of
section 214(a) of the Act. In any event,
because the Commission’s discussion in
the 2015 TCPA Order focusing on optin call blocking programs created
uncertainty as to the call-blocking tools
that voice service providers can offer
their customers, the Commission is
expressly authorized to issue a
declaratory ruling here to clarify that
voice service providers’ long-recognized
ability to block unlawful calls
encompasses the right to block calls
where the customer chooses on an
informed opt-out basis. In short, as
stated above, the Commission finds that
opt-out call-blocking programs are
generally just and reasonable practices
(not unjust and unreasonable practices)
under section 201 of the Act and
enhancements of service (not
impairments of service) under section
214 of the Act.
Reports on Deployment and
Implementation of Call Blocking and
Caller ID Authentication
19. In order to measure the
effectiveness of efforts of the
Commission and industry to thwart
illegal robocalls and empower
consumers, the Commission directs
CGB, in consultation with the WCB and
PSHSB, to prepare two reports on the
state of deployment of advanced
methods and tools to eliminate such
calls, including the impact of call
blocking on 911 and public safety. The
reports shall be submitted to the
Commission no later than June 23, 2020,
for the first report, and no later than
June 23, 2021, for the second report.
20. Specifically, the Commission
adopts the recommendation of its
Consumer Advisory Committee dated
September 18, 2017, to study the
implementation and effectiveness of
blocking measures, to include:
[T]he availability to consumers of call
blocking solutions; the fees charged, if
any, for call blocking tools available to
consumers; the proportion of
subscribers whose providers offer
and/or enable call blocking tools; the
effectiveness of various categories of call
blocking tools; and an assessment of the
number of subscribers availing
themselves of available call blocking
tools.
21. The Commission recognizes that
to determine the ‘‘effectiveness of
various categories of call blocking
tools,’’ as the Consumer Advisory
Committee recommended, it may be
necessary for CGB to collect additional
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Jun 21, 2019
Jkt 247001
information and data from voice service
providers. The Commission explicitly
delegates authority to CGB, in
consultation with WCB and PSHSB, to
collect any and all relevant information
and data from voice service providers
necessary to complete these reports.
Following delivery of the first report,
the Commission will assess whether,
contrary to expectation, consumers are
being charged and, if so, the
Commission will seek comment on rules
requiring providers that offer these
services to do so for free.
Ordering Clause
22. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201,
and 214 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i),
154(j), 201, 214, and §§ 1.2 and 64.1200
of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.2,
64.1200, the Declaratory Ruling in CG
Docket No. 17–59 is adopted.
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2019–13270 Filed 6–21–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
48 CFR Part 808
[Docket VA–2019–VACO–0018]
Issuance of Class Deviation From VA
Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) Part
808—Required Sources of Supplies
and Services and Conforming
Amendments
AGENCY:
Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA).
Temporary rule; request for
comments.
ACTION:
VA provides notification that
the agency has issued a class deviation
from VA Acquisition Regulation
(VAAR) Part 808—Required Sources of
Supplies and Services. VA is amending
the VAAR to implement the Federal
Circuit’s mandate. VA has determined
that publication of this notification in
the Federal Register would be beneficial
to both the agency’s acquisition
workforce and industry stakeholders.
The class deviation, which is effective
May 20, 2019, was issued to
immediately implement the Federal
Circuit’s mandate, and this publication
is to further notify the public in order
to avoid confusion regarding applicable
policy and to make conforming
amendments to the CFR. The public is
invited to submit comments on VA’s
approach to implementing the Federal
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
29389
Circuit mandate, as set forth in the class
deviation and the conforming
amendments to the CFR set forth in this
publication.
DATES: The rule is effective June 24,
2019 through July 1, 2021. The class
deviation is effective as of May 20, 2019.
Comments: Interested parties are invited
to submit comments in writing by July
24, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be
submitted through https://
www.regulations.gov; by mail or hand
delivery to the Director, Office of
Regulation Policy and Management
(00REG), Department of Veterans
Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW,
Room 1064, Washington DC 20420; or
by fax to 202–273–9026. Comments
should indicate that they are submitted
in response to Docket #VA–2019–
VACO–0018, titled—‘‘Issuance of Class
Deviation from VA Acquisition
Regulation (VAAR) Part 808 — Required
Sources of Supplies and Services.’’
During the comment period, comments
may also be viewed online through the
Federal Docket Management System at
www.regulations.gov. The full class
deviation text is available at: https://
www.va.gov/oal/docs/business/pps/
deviationVaar20190520.PDF.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sheila P. Darrell, Ph.D., CFCM, Office of
Acquisition and Logistics (003A),
Procurement Policy and Warrant
Management Service (003A2A) via
email at VA.Procurement.Policy@va.gov
or (202) 632–5288. (This is not a tollfree number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
October 17, 2018, the Federal Circuit,
which has nationwide appellate
jurisdiction over challenges to federal
agency procurement decisions, issued a
decision in PDS Consultants, Inc., v.
The United States, Winston-Salem
Industries for the Blind (PDS
Consultants), 907 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir.
2018). In the decision, the Federal
Circuit noted that in 2016 the United
States Supreme Court, in its decision in
Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v.
United States, held that, ‘‘[e]xcept when
the [VA] uses the noncompetitive and
sole-source contracting procedures in
subsections (b) and (c), § 8127(d)
requires the [VA] to use the Rule of Two
before awarding a contract to another
supplier.’’ However, the Federal Circuit
acknowledged that Kingdomware did
not directly address the interaction
between 38 U.S.C. 8127 and the JavitsWagner O’Day Act (JWOD), 41. U.S.C.
8504, and, instead focused on whether
VA had the discretion to place orders
under a preexisting Federal Supply
E:\FR\FM\24JNR1.SGM
24JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29387-29389]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13270]
[[Page 29387]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket No. 17-59, WC Docket No. 17-97; FCC 19-51]
Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Call
Authentication Trust Anchor
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Declaratory ruling.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC
or Commission) clarifies that voice service providers may offer
consumers programs to block unwanted calls through analytics (call-
blocking programs) on an informed opt-out basis and may block calls
from numbers not in a consumer's contact list (white-list programs).
The Commission also reminds voice service providers that protecting
emergency communications is paramount. Finally, the Commission directs
the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), in consultation
with the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) and Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB), to prepare two reports on the state
of deployment of advanced methods and tools to eliminate such calls.
DATES: This declaratory ruling is effective June 7, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerusha Burnett, Consumer Policy
Division, CGB, at (202) 418-0526, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Declaratory Ruling, in CG Docket No. 17-59, WC Docket No. 17-97; FCC
19-51, adopted on June 6, 2019 and released on June 7, 2019. The Third
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) that was adopted
concurrently with the Declaratory Ruling is published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register.
Congressional Review Act
The Commission will not send a copy of the Declaratory Ruling
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, because the Commission
adopted no rules therein. See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Synopsis
1. The Commission believes the clarification it makes that voice
service providers may immediately start offering call-blocking services
by default--while giving consumers the choice to opt out--is essential
to curtail illegal calls.
2. The Commission has repeatedly stated that offering call-blocking
services does not violate voice service providers' call completion
obligations under section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (the Act), and that consumers have a right to block calls.
Nonetheless, uncertainty regarding when voice service providers may
implement call-blocking programs remains. The Commission issues the
Declaratory Ruling to resolve uncertainty and make clear the call-
blocking tools that voice service providers can offer.
Call-Blocking Programs
3. Call-blocking programs have become more prevalent over the past
several years. But many voice service providers appear to offer call-
blocking programs only on an opt-in basis--limiting the impact of such
programs on consumers. Setting a call-blocking program as the default
can significantly increase consumer participation while maintaining
consumer choice.
4. Inertia may be an obstacle for consumers who might otherwise
participate in a call-blocking program, and convincing consumers to
affirmatively sign up for a call-blocking program (rather than offering
it as the default) can be costly, especially for smaller providers.
5. Against this background, the Commission again reiterates that
``there appears to be no legal dispute in the record that the
Communications Act or Commission rules do not limit consumers' right to
block calls, as long as the consumer makes the choice to do so.'' Nor
has the Commission identified any provision of the Communications Act
or any Commission rule that would limit consumers to exercising such
consent on an opt-in basis. Although the Commission's 2015 declaratory
ruling on robocalls and call blocking (2015 TCPA Order), published at
80 FR 61129, October 9, 2015, in a single sentence, referred to opt-in
call-blocking programs, it did not suggest that such a narrow ruling
was required, nor did it claim to prohibit opt-out call-blocking
programs. Accordingly, the Commission clarifies that voice service
providers may offer consumers call blocking through an opt-out process.
Or to use the language of the Act, the Commission finds that opt-out
call-blocking programs are generally just and reasonable practices (not
unjust and unreasonable practices) and enhancements of service (not
impairments of service).
6. The Commission believes consumers would welcome this blocking
choice and that it should therefore be offered to existing subscribers
of a given voice service provider, rather than only new subscribers.
The Commission encourages voice service providers to offer these tools
immediately to their customers, and where they already provide opt-in
call-blocking programs, to make them the default for all consumers. The
Commission encourages voice service providers to make consumers aware
of the programs' availability and, for that limited subset of consumers
who do not want to participate, make the opt-out process simple and
easily accessible.
7. The Commission next turns to the scope of this declaration.
First, the Commission clarifies that voice service providers offering
opt-out call-blocking programs must offer sufficient information so
that consumers can make an informed choice as to whether they wish to
remain in the program or opt out. Voice service providers should
clearly disclose to consumers what types of calls may be blocked and
the risks of blocking wanted calls, and they should do so in a manner
that is clear and easy for a consumer to understand. At a minimum, the
Commission would expect each voice service provider to describe in
plain language how the call-blocking program makes the determination to
block certain calls, the risks that it may block calls the consumer may
want, and how a consumer may opt out of the service.
8. Second, the Commission clarifies that voice service providers
may offer opt-out call-blocking programs based on any reasonable
analytics designed to identify unwanted calls. The Commission
recognizes that limiting opt-out call-blocking programs to rigid
blocking rules that prescribe in detail when a voice service provider
may block is unnecessary when consumers have the option to opt out,
could enable callers to evade blocking, and could impede the ability of
voice service providers to develop dynamic blocking schemes that evolve
with calling patterns. And to the extent certain callers claim that
consumers do indeed want to receive calls from them, the Commission
believes the ability for consumers to opt out of call-blocking programs
adequately addresses such concerns.
9. In line with the record, the Commission notes several examples
of call-blocking programs that may be effective and would be based on
reasonable analytics designed to identify unwanted calls. For example,
a call-blocking program might block calls based on a combination of
factors, such as: Large bursts of calls in a short
[[Page 29388]]
timeframe; low average call duration; low call completion ratios;
invalid numbers placing a large volume of calls; common Caller ID Name
(CNAM) values across voice service providers; a large volume of
complaints related to a suspect line; sequential dialing patterns;
neighbor spoofing patterns; patterns that indicate TCPA or other
contract violations; correlation of network data with data from
regulators, consumers, and other carriers; and comparison of dialed
numbers to the National Do Not Call Registry. Similarly, a call-
blocking program might be designed to block callers engaged in war
dialing, unlawful foreign-based spoofing, or one-ring scams and might
be designed to incorporate information about the originating provider,
such as whether it has been a consistent source of unwanted robocalls
and whether it appropriately signs calls under the SHAKEN/STIR
framework. Although the Commission suggests these as examples of
potentially effective opt-out call-blocking programs, this list is not
exhaustive. To be reasonable, however, such analytics must be applied
in a non-discriminatory, competitively neutral manner.
10. Third, the Commission reaffirms its commitment to safeguarding
calls from emergency numbers. The Commission cautions voice service
providers using call blocking tools by default to avoid blocking calls
from ``public safety entities, including PSAPs, emergency operations
centers, or law enforcement agencies.'' The Commission emphasizes that
voice service providers should make all feasible efforts for those
tools to avoid blocking emergency calls.
11. Fourth, the Commission reaffirms its commitment to safeguarding
calls to rural areas. The Commission does not expect that this holding
will have any negative impact on rural call completion rates given that
opt-out call-blocking programs would be offered by terminating
providers (i.e., those with a direct relationship to the called party).
But the Commission nonetheless reminds all voice service providers that
call-blocking programs may not be used to avoid the effect of the rural
call completion rules.
12. Fifth, while some parties have expressed concern about blocking
of calls required for compliance with other laws, rules, or policy
considerations, the Commission believes that a reasonable call-blocking
program instituted by default would include a point of contact for
legitimate callers to report what they believe to be erroneous blocking
as well as a mechanism for such complaints to be resolved. Further,
callers who believe their calls have been unfairly blocked may seek
review of a call-blocking program they believe to be unreasonable by
filing a petition for declaratory ruling with the Commission. The
Commission also encourages voice service providers that block calls to
develop a mechanism for notifying callers that their calls have been
blocked. The Commission notes that industry has been active in
developing solutions that allow callers to communicate with voice
service providers and analytics companies to identify themselves and
share their call patterns that might otherwise seem to indicate illegal
call activity. Moreover, the Commission believes that reducing the
number of unwanted calls that consumers receive will make it more
likely that they will answer their phones, thus making it easier for
legitimate callers to reach people. Thus, the Declaratory Ruling will
ultimately increase call completion rates for legitimate callers.
13. The Commission believes that the benefit to consumers of voice
service providers offering opt-out blocking services will exceed any
costs incurred. Indeed, the Commission expects these blocking services
will yield an overall reduction in costs incurred by voice service
providers as illegal and unwanted calls will consume less of their
network capacity, which can then be devoted more fully to calls and
other services that consumers value.
14. The Commission also believes that the costs to the voice
service provider, for its own analytics program or one outsourced, if
amortized against a large percentage of their customer base, is far
less expensive than the costs of allowing unwanted calls to bother its
subscribers. The record to date also indicates that voice service
providers believe a critical mass of served consumers would subscribe
to call blocking services on an opt-out basis.
15. Finally, the Commission understands the cost of handling
customer service calls from consumers annoyed by illegal robocalls can
be more than ten dollars per consumer call. Further, the Commission
anticipates that the authorization of opt-out blocking would impose no
mandatory costs on voice service providers because implementation is
voluntary, not required. As such, the Commission would expect voice
service providers to offer an opt-out service for free, as many already
do, with no line-item charge.
White-List Programs
16. As with the call-blocking programs discussed above, white-list
blocking stops unwanted calls on the voice service provider's network
before the calls reach the consumer's phone, providing an added level
of protection from unwanted calls and the frustrations that go with
them. But unlike one-ring and analytics programs, a white-list program
requires consumers to specify the telephone numbers from which they
wish to receive calls.
17. The Commission notes that some voice service providers already
offer similar services. To ensure that regulatory uncertainty does not
deter such offerings, the Commission makes clear that nothing in the
Act nor the Commission's rules prohibits a voice service provider from
offering an opt-in white list program using the consumer's contact
list. Note that the Commission is in no way limiting the consumer's
ability to use phone-based applications installed, for example, by the
consumer, the phone manufacturer, or bundled by the service provider
where the data in the consumer's contact list never leaves the device.
For a whitelist program that transfers the consumer's contact list to a
service provider, provides access to the contact list by the service
provider, or otherwise stores the consumer's contacts with the service
provider or its designees, consumers need to understand they are
disclosing the telephone numbers contained in their phone's contact
lists with their voice service providers. The Commission limits this
Declaratory Ruling to white-list programs requiring informed, opt-in
consent. Voice service providers should disclose the risks of blocking
wanted calls and the scope of information disclosed in a manner that is
clear and easy for a consumer to understand.
Legal Authority
18. The Commission believes that it has ample legal authority to
issue the Declaratory Ruling. Section 554(e) of the Administrative
Procedure Act authorizes the Commission to issue a declaratory ruling
to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty. And Sec. 1.2 of the
Commission's rules provides that ``The Commission may . . . on motion
or on its own motion issue a declaratory ruling terminating a
controversy or removing uncertainty.'' In issuing the Declaratory
Ruling, the Commission notes that a necessary corollary of permitting
consumer-driven call blocking is that such blocking must be consistent
with provisions in Title II, including section 201(b) and section
214(a) of the Act. As explained above, the Commission has previously
held that consumers have a right to block certain calls and that
offering call-blocking services to consumers is a just and reasonable
practice under section 201(b) of the Act. The Commission also
[[Page 29389]]
finds that consumer-driven call blocking is an enhancement of service,
not a discontinuance or impairment of ``service'' to a ``community, or
part of a community,'' within the meaning of section 214(a) of the Act.
In any event, because the Commission's discussion in the 2015 TCPA
Order focusing on opt-in call blocking programs created uncertainty as
to the call-blocking tools that voice service providers can offer their
customers, the Commission is expressly authorized to issue a
declaratory ruling here to clarify that voice service providers' long-
recognized ability to block unlawful calls encompasses the right to
block calls where the customer chooses on an informed opt-out basis. In
short, as stated above, the Commission finds that opt-out call-blocking
programs are generally just and reasonable practices (not unjust and
unreasonable practices) under section 201 of the Act and enhancements
of service (not impairments of service) under section 214 of the Act.
Reports on Deployment and Implementation of Call Blocking and Caller ID
Authentication
19. In order to measure the effectiveness of efforts of the
Commission and industry to thwart illegal robocalls and empower
consumers, the Commission directs CGB, in consultation with the WCB and
PSHSB, to prepare two reports on the state of deployment of advanced
methods and tools to eliminate such calls, including the impact of call
blocking on 911 and public safety. The reports shall be submitted to
the Commission no later than June 23, 2020, for the first report, and
no later than June 23, 2021, for the second report.
20. Specifically, the Commission adopts the recommendation of its
Consumer Advisory Committee dated September 18, 2017, to study the
implementation and effectiveness of blocking measures, to include:
[T]he availability to consumers of call blocking solutions; the
fees charged, if any, for call blocking tools available to consumers;
the proportion of subscribers whose providers offer and/or enable call
blocking tools; the effectiveness of various categories of call
blocking tools; and an assessment of the number of subscribers availing
themselves of available call blocking tools.
21. The Commission recognizes that to determine the ``effectiveness
of various categories of call blocking tools,'' as the Consumer
Advisory Committee recommended, it may be necessary for CGB to collect
additional information and data from voice service providers. The
Commission explicitly delegates authority to CGB, in consultation with
WCB and PSHSB, to collect any and all relevant information and data
from voice service providers necessary to complete these reports.
Following delivery of the first report, the Commission will assess
whether, contrary to expectation, consumers are being charged and, if
so, the Commission will seek comment on rules requiring providers that
offer these services to do so for free.
Ordering Clause
22. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201, and 214 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 201,
214, and Sec. Sec. 1.2 and 64.1200 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR
1.2, 64.1200, the Declaratory Ruling in CG Docket No. 17-59 is adopted.
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2019-13270 Filed 6-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
