Re: Notice of Ex Parte Meeting, Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, CG Docket No. 17-59
Ms. Marlene H. Dortch Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
45 L Street, NE
Washington, DC 20554
Dear Ms. Dortch:
On December 2, 2021, representatives of the American Bankers Association (ABA), ACA International (ACA), American Association of Healthcare Administrative Management (AAHAM), Credit Union National Association (CUNA) met telephonically with Diane Holland, Legal Advisor for Media and Consumer Protection for Commissioner Geoffrey Starks. On December 7, 2021, representatives of ABA, ACA, AAHAM, American Financial Services Association, CUNA, National Council of Higher Education Resources, and National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions (collectively, the Associations) met telephonically with Danielle Thumann, Legal Advisor to Commissioner Brendan Carr. During the meetings, the Associations discussed USTelecom’s Petition for Reconsideration and recent ex parte communications regarding the requirement in the Fourth Report and Order that voice service providers that block calls (Voice Service Providers) must notify callers of the block using SIP Codes 607 and 608 and, for TDM networks, ISUP Code 21 beginning on January 1, 2022.
During the meetings, the Associations respectfully urged the Commission to retain the specific notification mechanisms required by the Fourth Report and Order and listed above, and not replace those requirements with a requirement to use SIP Code 603 to signal network-level blocked calls. Should the Commission allow use of SIP Code 603 for this purpose, it should specify a date certain by which the telecommunications industry must finalize operational standards for SIP Codes 607 and 608, require periodic status reports on industry’s progress toward developing those standards, and sunset SIP Code 603 concurrently with implementation of SIP Codes 607 and 608.
As the record demonstrates, SIP Code 603 does not provide “actionable” information — that is, information that the recipient of the code (the company making the call or its telecommunications provider) recognizes immediately as requiring the caller to take action to address the blocking. SIP Code 603 signals that the recipient declined the call, not that the call was subject to blocking, which is the intended purpose of SIP Codes 607 and 608. One large bank has reported that, based on a sample of phone numbers dialed, the bank receives 300-500 SIP 603 response codes per hour when making outbound calls using different calling line identification (CLI) numbers from the bank’s U.S.-based voice platforms to its customers. It is not feasible, even for a large bank, to sift through each of these responses to determine the nature of the call failure – especially because Voice Service Providers do not use the SIP Code 603 response uniformly. Smaller financial institutions, health care providers, retail outlets, and others will have even less capacity to sort out the basis for a SIP 603 response. Because SIP Code 603 does not provide sufficient information to alert the caller to the reason for the uncompleted call, it does not provide adequate notice to callers that their call has been blocked by the Voice Service Provider. As such, SIP Code 603 does not satisfy the notification standard mandated by the TRACED Act, which requires that call blocking services provide “transparency and effective redress options for . . . callers . . . .”
In light of concerns raised by certain Voice Service Providers that SIP Codes 607 and 608 will not be ready to be implemented by the January 1, 2022 deadline, eight trade associations representing a wide range of financial and healthcare companies, including the Associations, proposed a six-month extension of the deadline, provided that the Commission receive status reports at reasonable intervals to track Voice Service Providers’ progress in implementing SIP Codes 607 and 608. However, if the Commission determines to permit Voice Service Providers to use SIP Code 603 to provide notification of blocking, the Commission should continue to maintain the January 1, 2022 deadline for Voice Service Providers to provide immediate notification. The Commission also should make clear that the only appropriate response codes for blocking are SIP Codes 603, 607, and 608.
Over the longer term, SIP Code 603 is not an adequate substitute for SIP Codes 607 and 608, for the reasons stated above. If the Commission permits use of SIP Code 603 in the interim to satisfy the immediate notification requirement, we urge the Commission to require that Voice Service Providers implement SIP Codes 607 and 608 by a date certain, and provide periodic status reports stating the progress that Providers have made toward adopting operational standards.
Thank you for your consideration of these views.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Thessin
Vice President/Senior Counsel
Consumer & Regulatory Compliance
Regulatory Compliance and Policy
