Robocall Rule Affects Industry; Consumers Not So Much

Few consumers' phone service will likely be affected if their provider hasn't filed in the FCC robocall mitigation database, experts said in recent interviews. Some had raised concerns that consumers may be unable to make calls if their provider failed to file in the database by the June 30 deadline (see 2104200042).

Nearly 4,800 providers were listed in the database Tuesday. Intermediate and terminating voice service providers were required to not accept traffic from providers that didn't certify Stir/Shaken caller ID authentication or file a robocall mitigation plan in the database beginning Tuesday.

“Today’s deadline establishes a very powerful tool for blocking unlawful robocalls,” said FCC acting Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel Tuesday: “We will continue to do everything in our power to protect consumers against scammers who flood our homes and businesses with spoofed robocalls.” Consumers “should contact their provider and encourage them to file immediately” if calls aren't completing because the provider is not listed in the database, emailed an FCC spokesperson Tuesday.

It's unclear how many providers failed to meet the filing deadline or how many consumers may be unable to complete calls as a result. The 4,800 companies listed are likely a combination of originating and intermediate providers, said ACA Connects Senior Vice President-Government Affairs Ross Lieberman. Smaller carriers that didn’t comply or were unaware of the deadline are most likely to be affected, Lieberman said: "Even if it's a smaller number, the consequences can be significant" for providers that failed to registered. “I would think that most telephone companies … will quickly file the certificate” if their consumers begin reporting issues over the next week, Lieberman said.

There are "still a series of questions with respect to database compliance, provider liability, call blocking notification, and enforcement that need to be addressed by the commission," emailed Incompas Attorney-Policy Adviser Christopher Shipley. Incompas and its members "are concerned that industry will have to muddle its way through these issues for the foreseeable future and that more legitimate voice traffic may be blocked" without "more explicit guidance" from the FCC, Shipley said.

One concern is whether intermediate and terminating providers have been regularly checking the database for updates if providers filed in the database between June 30 and Tuesday. There was “some ambiguity” when the FCC created the database because it didn’t “impose any obligations” on those providers to periodically update or check it, said Pillsbury telecom attorney Glenn Richards.

It “probably could be an issue” for some consumers if their provider failed to comply with the June 30 deadline or an intermediate or terminating provider “hasn’t necessarily done their due diligence” by checking the database, said WTA Senior Vice President-Government and Industry Affairs Derrick Owens. The FCC addressed this concern by announcing an email subscription service so intermediate and terminating voice providers can "keep track of what entities are in the Robocall Mitigation Database without manually reviewing the database for changes," said a public notice posted Tuesday in docket 17-97.

There’s some ambiguity on whether certain types of non-facilities-based providers had to register, Richards said. The likelihood of these kinds of calls not being completed is “pretty minimal,” he said: But there may be “some isolated cases where this goes awry.”

Foreign voice service providers with North American numbering plan numbers "may have a higher likelihood of having those calls blocked” than domestic providers because they’re not registered and have had problems doing so, Richards said. Commissioners are expected to vote on a Further NPRM during their Thursday meeting addressing robocalls that originate abroad (see 2109240060).