Re: Notice of Ex Parte Presentation
CG Docket No. 17-59; WC Docket No. 17-97
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Room TW-A325
Washington, DC 20554
Dear Ms. Dortch:
On March 2, 2020, representatives from the American Bankers Association, American Association of Healthcare Administrative Management, American Financial Services Association, ACA International, Consumer Bankers Association, Credit Union National Association, Edison Electric Institute, Mortgage Bankers Association, National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions, and National Council of Higher Education Resources (collectively, the Associations) met with staff from the Federal Communication Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau and the Wireline Competition Bureau. A full list of meeting participants is provided in Appendix A.
During the meeting, 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 noted that the Commission has received numerous reports in the record of erroneous blocking of lawful calls. These reports include important and time-sensitive communications, such as:
The Commission has statistical evidence corroborating these first-hand examples in the form of a study conducted by Number Sentry in February 2020. Number Sentry evaluated more than 220,000 outbound accounts receivable calls placed by 561 telephone numbers over a three-week study period and found that:
Consistent with the Number Sentry study, the Associations expressed concern that outbound calling numbers used to place important—and often time-sensitive—non-telemarketing calls were being mislabeled as “Potential Spam,” “Suspected Spam,” “Spam Number,” “Nuisance Label,” or other derogatory labels, and that calls from those numbers were being blocked.
When a call is incorrectly labeled, the customer is discouraged from answering the phone and may decide to block the call (and subsequent calls from the same number) based on the erroneous label. Thus, a mislabeled call can be tantamount to a blocked call. In other instances, the customer’s Voice Service Provider or that Provider’s third-party call-blocking service provider may impose the blocking directly, based on an incorrect understanding of the origin of the call. When outbound calling numbers used by legitimate businesses are mislabeled and 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.
To address the mislabeling of outbound calling numbers and the erroneous blocking of lawful calls placed from those numbers, the Associations urged the Commission to require that Voice Service Providers take the following steps. Providers should implement these requirements as part of any program to block or label calls, but at a minimum, any safe harbor that the Commission grants a Provider for the blocking of lawful calls should be conditioned on the Provider’s implementation of these requirements.
The Associations appreciate the Voice Service Providers’ efforts to reduce illegal automated calls and acknowledge the daunting technical and operational challenges that an error-free blocking and labeling regime will require. Nevertheless, callers and consumers are not receiving proper notice or procedural protections in connection with blocked or mislabeled calls. If left unchecked, these issues will have significant, negative impacts on consumers and the public switched telephone network. Accordingly, the Associations urge the Commission to adopt modest guardrails to minimize the incidence of mislabeling and over-blocking, especially as the Commission considers any safe harbor for the blocking of lawful calls. The measures we suggest will, in turn, ensure that consumers can receive important, time-sensitive communications without interruption while furthering the Commission’s important mission to eliminate illegal automated calls.
Respectfully submitted,
American Association of Healthcare Administrative Management
American Bankers Association
American Financial Services Association
ACA International
Consumer Bankers Association
Credit Union National Association
Edison Electric Institute
Mortgage Bankers Association
National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions
National Council of Higher Education Resources