FTC Staff, CTIA Wary of FCC Robocalling Action to Speed Unblocking of Calls Blocked in Error
Some voiced skepticism about possible FCC robocalling actions to speed unblocking of erroneously blocked calls. FTC staff and CTIA said new requirements weren't justified, though a Maryland county consumer office was supportive. Comments were posted this week in docket 17-59 on a November Further NPRM attached to an order (see 1711160054 and 1711200055).
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.
FTC staff noted it backed the order encouraging providers that block calls under new authority to identify and quickly correct any erroneous blocking. "The type of call-blocking authorized by the [order]," staff commented, "is limited in scope and it is not clear to FTC staff, based on the current record, that there is a need to require a formal challenge mechanism for errors resulting from provider-based call blocking authorized by this [order]."
CTIA said regulation "is premature," even though the Further NPRM raised important issues. The wireless group "agrees that carriers should respond appropriately when calls originating from a blocked number are legitimate," it said: Don't mandate "particular mechanisms to require carrier unblocking of calls allegedly blocked in error or impose reporting requirements." It said the FCC should "adopt a safe harbor to mitigate risks and encourage voluntary blocking, work internationally to reduce illegal robocalls, and continue effective enforcement."
Voice service providers need "flexibility to develop the processes that work best for them to resolve complaints about wrongfully blocked calls," said the Voice on the Net Coalition. "The Commission should not mandate mechanisms for unblocking, but the existing informal complaint process could serve as a backstop to resolve disputes, as needed." Opposing new reporting obligations for voice providers, VON said the commission should rely on data from FCC and FTC "complaint databases to measure the effectiveness of permissive blocking."
Noble Systems urged the FCC to require carriers providing call-blocking services to offer certain mitigation services, including to provide "information of blocked calls to both callers and called parties," "mechanisms for both callers and called parties to inquire as to the blocking status of a number," and "mechanisms for both callers and called parties to request a change to the blocking status of a number." It said the FCC "should not shy away from requiring reporting mechanisms that allow the relative performance of the blocking services to be compared. However, the Commission should be cautious in imposing any complex reporting obligations on carriers and should ensure that the purpose and metrics are carefully defined."
Montgomery County, Maryland, Office of Consumer Protection Director Eric Friedman cited a previous FTC comment that "false positives" under the order are likely to be de minimus. "For the same reasons, the OCP supports the simple mechanism outlined by that agency for formal challenges to provider call blocking," he said. "This can include a third-party challenge if their calls are being blocked to consumers as well as consumer challenges if their calls are being blocked. As Consumers Union and the National Consumer Law Center note, such challenges should include some due diligence to ensure that the challenge and request to un-block are not mere evasion tactics."
Also filing: Encore Capital Group, First Orion and ZipDX.