84 FR 29387 - Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Call Authentication Trust Anchor

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.

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29387-29389]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[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