Justice Department, VoIP Providers Clash over Caller ID ‘Spoofing’ Rules
The FCC should use its ancillary authority under Section 154(i) of the Telecom Act to apply anti-Caller-ID “spoofing” rules to VoIP providers, the Department of Justice said in a filing at the FCC. “Although the Commission has not classified interconnected VoIP service as a telecommunications service for the general purposes of Title II, it has previously used its ancillary authority … to extend many common carrier obligations to VoIP providers,” said criminal division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein in Justice’s comments. “Here, the Commission’s ancillary authority under Section 154(i), in conjunction with the provisions of the Truth in Caller ID Act, is sufficient to empower the Commission to regulate such providers.” The commission is in the midst of a rulemaking on how to implement the 2009 Act, and comments came pouring into docket 11-39 this week.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Caller ID “spoofing poses a significant threat to public safety,” Weinstein said. “Unless the Commission implements reasonable rules to govern the activities of caller ID spoofing services, it will be difficult for the Commission -- or for the Department of Justice … -- to vindicate the Congressional mandate in the Truth in Caller ID Act.” The National Emergency Number Association agreed, urging the commission to “read the term ‘IP-Enabled Voice Service’ broadly.” NENA cited “the need for VoIP rules that look to the substance rather than the marketing of VoIP services, and commend to the Commission’s considerations the reasonable and logical proposal submitted by the Department of Justice as one example of a workable definition of ‘IP-Enabled Voice Service.'"
But the Voice on the Net Coalition said Justice’s recommendations would “create a new regulatory framework for services previously not subject to regulation.” The Truth in Caller ID Act refers to “any telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service,” the Coalition said. “The VON Coalition contends that slight variation in descriptive terms does not render the terms ‘IP-enabled voice service’ and ‘interconnected VoIP’ as inconsistent or evidence of Congressional intent to expand liability beyond the codified definition of interconnected VoIP,” said Coalition Executive Director Glenn Richards in his comments. The commission’s own rulemaking shows that “the proposed rules would apply to calls made using either type of service,” Richards said: “To retain consistency in the Commission’s proceedings, the VON Coalition believes that the terms used in the proposed rule are sufficient to meet Congressional intent."
In other comments, TelTech Systems asked the commission to “create an explicit exemption” for Caller ID spoofing services. “Congress did not intend to create liability for service providers -- whether carriers, interconnected VOIP providers, information services providers such as TelTech, or businesses operating PBXes -- that are merely transmitting information selected by a caller,” TelTech said. The Student Loan Servicing Alliance said it was worried about the pending rules’ impact on “normal and helpful business practices that are designed to facilitate communications with consumers.” The National Network to End Domestic Violence said “any ‘Victim Service Provider,’ as defined in the Violence Against Women Act of 1994,” should be exempted from anti-spoofing rules. The Network also urged the commission to “define ‘harm’ to include stalking, harassment, and the violation of protection and restraining orders.”