ABA/Joint Trades' Ex Parte Letter re: Rosenworcel Meeting re: SIP Code 603

Ms. Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
45 L Street, NE
Washington, DC 20554

Dear Ms. Dortch:

On July 5, 2022, Jonathan Thessin with the American Bankers Association; Leah Dempsey with ACA International; Celia Winslow with the American Financial Services Association; Elizabeth Sullivan with the Credit Union National Association (CUNA); Michael Pryor, outside counsel to CUNA; Ann Petros with the National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions; and Shelly Repp with the National Council of Higher Education Resources (the Associations) met by Zoom with Priscilla Argeris, Chief Legal Advisor to Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, and David Strickland, Chairwoman Rosenworcel’s Legal Advisor for Consumer, Enforcement, and International issues. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss how the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) can best ensure that the Associations’ members and other lawful callers are provided with meaningful, immediate notification when their outbound calls are blocked by telephone companies utilizing analytics.

The TRACED Act requires the Commission to "ensure . . . robocall blocking services . . . are provided with transparency and effective redress options for . . . callers . . . ." During the meeting, the Associations explained that many time-sensitive calls are being wrongly blocked by voice service providers' use of analytics engines. These erroneously blocked calls include emergency calls from public safety organizations, anti-fraud messages, safety recall messages, research calls on behalf of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and necessary account updates and reminders needed to maintain financial health and well-being.

In the Commission’s Order on Reconsideration issued on December 30, 2021, the Commission permitted voice service providers to use SIP Code 603, in addition to SIP Codes 607 or 608, to satisfy the Commission’s requirement that a Provider immediately notify callers when it has blocked the caller’s call. However, SIP Code 603 was initially designed to signal that the recipient "decline[d]" the call. Therefore, a caller receiving a SIP Code 603 response would not be able to understand whether the response code signaled that the call’s recipient declined the call or that the provider blocked the call in the network. During the meeting, the Associations emphasized our continued support for the adoption of SIP Code 608 — which was "designed to be used for call blocking" — to provide immediate notification of analytics-based blocking, and that SIP Code 608 could be implemented without the need to encrypt information regarding the blocking entity through the "J-Card."

At the same time, we have been informed that the standards-setting body ATIS/SIP Forum NNI Task Force (Task Force) is advancing an enhanced SIP Code 603 (603+ Code) and has prioritized completion of the standard for this code ahead of the standard for SIP Code 608. While we oppose any effort to delay development of the 608 standard, we have nevertheless initiated a dialogue with the Task Force to provide constructive feedback, including input on the functionalities necessary to produce a potentially actionable standard for the 603+ Code. Among those functionalities and features are that 603+ must: (1) utilize a standardized word or phrase indicating that the call was blocked in the network based on analytics; (2) provide a standardized format for identifying the blocking entity; (3) be machine readable; and (4) consider the costs of modifying or reprogramming caller equipment so that it can receive the notification and act on the notification through automated processes. We also emphasized the need for the Task Force to work with our members and others to test SIP Code 603+ prior to its implementation, and to do so as soon as possible.

Without these functionalities and features, 603+ Code notifications will only cause confusion and perpetuate the inappropriate blocking of calls that benefit consumers. Any standard for the 603+ Code that would impose undue or excessive costs on callers to replace, reprogram, or retrofit equipment wholesale would impermissibly shift costs onto small businesses in violation of the TRACED Act and would prolong the timeframe for operational viability.

We understand that the standard for SIP Code 603+ is projected to be published as early as this month. We encourage the Task Force to continue their development work as quickly and efficiently as possible. We urge these bodies — and their members in the voice service provider industry — to announce the expected date for completing the relevant notification standard, to work with appropriate entities to ensure robust testing of the standard, and to identify deadlines by which any new code could be widely operationalized.

Sincerely,
Jonathan Thessin
Vice President/Senior Counsel
Consumer & Regulatory Compliance
Regulatory Compliance and Policy