ABA and Other Trade Groups Urge FCC to Limit Telephone Companies’ Call-Blocking Authority in Meeting with Commissioner Starks' Staff

Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Room TW-A325
Washington, DC 20554

Dear Ms. Dortch:

On March 16, 2020, representatives from the American Bankers Association, American Association of Healthcare Administrative Management, American Financial Services Association, ACA International, Credit Union National Association, National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions, and National Council of Higher Education Resources (collectively, the Associations) met by telephone with Dianne Holland, Media and Consumer Protection Advisor for Commissioner Geoffrey Starks. A full list of meeting participants is provided in Appendix A.

During the meetings, the Associations expressed support for the Commission’s goal to reduce illegal automated calls and acknowledged the myriad efforts by companies that provide voice telephony services (Voice Service Providers or Providers) to help combat this problem. We also reiterated points made in our recent ex parte filings of March 4, 2020 and March 13, 2020, which summarized the firsthand and statistical evidence in the record demonstrating the substantial blocking and mislabeling of lawful calls, including calls implicating public safety and health.

When outbound calling numbers used by legitimate businesses are mislabeled, or calls from those numbers are blocked, consumers are harmed because they may not receive lawful calls affecting their health, safety, or financial well-being. These calls include, for example, safety alerts, fraud alerts, data security breach notifications, product recall notices, healthcare and prescription reminders, and power outage updates. It is critical that these calls be completed without delay. The Associations’ March 4 letter identified a number of steps that Voice Service Providers should take to minimize or remediate the blocking of lawful calls, including providing real-time notification and establishing transparent and effective redress mechanisms.

The Associations believe that full implementation of the STIR/SHAKEN call authentication framework represents an important step toward achieving the shared goal of eliminating illegal automated calls. We applauded the Commission’s draft Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which implements provisions of the TRACED Act requiring deployment of STIR/SHAKEN in the IP networks of Voice Service Providers. As reflected in the draft Order, however, deployment of STIR/SHAKEN will occur in stages. Some of the major Providers have already implemented the framework for residential and consumer wireless calls within or between their networks. Many other Voice Service Providers, as the TRACED Act recognizes, will need more time.

If a Provider that carries a call is not able to validate the origin of the call because the Provider has not fully deployed STIR/SHAKEN, that call may not be validated by other Providers in the call’s pathway and instead be blocked. Moreover, there is still no industry consensus on addressing the “signing” of calls originating from business establishments or time-division multiplexing (TDM) networks. These factors suggest that serial implementation of STIR/SHAKEN could exacerbate the blocking of lawful calls.

The Associations therefore ask the Commission to revise its draft Order to require Voice Service Providers not to block unsigned calls until the STIR/SHAKEN framework has been fully implemented. Moreover, the Commission should permit Voice Service Providers that have fully implemented the framework to block only calls that have not been properly authenticated 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 Associations also expressed concern regarding the Commission’s determination at paragraph 54 of the draft Order to give Voice Service Providers free reign in displaying call authentication information to their subscribers. We recognize that informing call recipients that the number displayed on the recipient’s caller ID has been authenticated is an important component of the STIR/SHAKEN framework. However, as described above, many Voice Service Providers have not yet begun to implement the framework, and certain calls cannot be validated, including calls originating from TDM networks or business establishments. Under these circumstances, the presence of a “green checkmark” to represent a validated call could lead call recipients to conclude incorrectly that the absence of a checkmark means the call was placed illegally.

Moreover, there is no consensus in the telecommunications industry for how to display STIR/SHAKEN information, nor has the issue been addressed through the Internet Engineering Task Force, a standards body composed of network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers. There are also no defined criteria that Voice Service Providers must apply in displaying authentication information. For example, it is uncertain whether Voice Service Providers will provide a “green checkmark” only for calls receiving an “A-Level” attestation (the highest level of validation) or will provide a checkmark based on unvetted analytics, supplanting the role of STIR/SHAKEN for determining the authentication status of the call. It also is not clear how Providers will assess calls that originate from other Providers that have not been able to implement STIR/SHAKEN but that otherwise lack indicia that the call was placed unlawfully or fraudulently.

In light of these open questions, the Associations request that the Commission seek further comment on the display of STIR/SHAKEN information to called parties. The Commission and all stakeholders will benefit from a more detailed record regarding the criteria Providers will apply in labeling outbound calling numbers, the effect on consumer behavior of the information displayed in the recipient’s caller ID, and whether derogatory call labels are being displayed for lawful calls, including lawfully spoofed calls.

Thank you for your consideration of these requests. We look forward to continuing to work with the Commission to combat illegal automated calls, while ensuring that the lawful, and often time-sensitive, calls that our members place are not erroneously blocked.

Respectfully submitted,

American Association of Healthcare Administrative Management
American Bankers Association
American Financial Services Association
ACA International Credit Union National Association
National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions
National Council of Higher Education Resources