What will the FCC be tackling next?
Chairman Pai’s theme for the September 30th Open Meeting is “A Big Fall Kickoff,” celebrating the return of professional (and fantasy) football. In keeping with his theme, he noted that ”[i]n this spirit, the FCC’s September agenda looks like a well-balanced fantasy team. Just as you would assemble a fantasy roster with a quarterback, running backs, receivers, a tight end, a kicker, and a defense, we’re rolling out a diverse lineup featuring at least one item from each of the Commission’s seven bureaus.” With such a robust agenda, I’ll focus on the ones most directly affecting competitive carriers: additional rules to stop illegal robocalling and require broad-based implementation of STIR/SHAKEN; reform of the so-called team telecom review process; and an inquiry into 911 fee diversion.
Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls
The TRACED Act provided the FCC with various tools to fight unwanted and illegal robocalls and the FCC has previously adopted rules implementing the Act, including requiring implementation of STIR/SHAKEN in the IP portion of voice service providers’ networks by June 30, 2021. It proposes to take the next steps in implementing that law by adopting a Second Report and Order. As with prior orders, a voice service provider is any entity originating, carrying, or terminating voice calls through TDM, VoIP (including one-way VoIP), or CMRS.
The Second Report and Order would:
- Require intermediate providers to implement the STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication framework in the IP portions of their networks by June 30, 2021.
- Require voice service providers to either upgrade their non-IP networks to IP and implement STIR/SHAKEN, or work to develop a non-IP caller ID authentication solution. Providers working to develop a non-IP caller ID solution must maintain and be ready to provide the FCC, on request, documented proof that it is participating, either on its own or through a representative (including third party representatives), as a member of a working group, industry standards group, or consortium that is working to develop a non-IP caller identification authentication solution, or actively testing such a solution.
- Prohibit providers from adding any line item charges to the bills of consumer or small business customer subscribers for caller ID authentication technology.
- Extend the June 30, 2021 caller ID authentication implementation deadline for small voice service providers, voice service providers that are currently incapable of obtaining a “certificate” necessary to implement STIR/SHAKEN, services scheduled for discontinuance, and non-IP networks. Specifically:
- For small providers, defined as those that have 100,000 or fewer voice service subscriber lines (counting the total of all business and residential fixed subscriber lines and mobile phones and aggregated over all of the provider’s affiliates), the new implementation deadline would be June 30, 2023.
- For providers unable to obtain a SPC token due to Governance Authority policy, the exemption will remain in effect until they are capable of obtaining a SPC token.
- Services which are subject to a pending application for permanent discontinuance of service filed as of June 30, 2021 would be exempt from the requirement through June 30, 2022.
- Those portions of a provider’s network that rely on technology that cannot initiate, maintain, and terminate SIP calls would be deemed subject to a continuing extension so long as they comply with the requirement to work to develop a non-IP caller ID authentication solution.
All voice service providers subject to an extension would nevertheless be required to implement a robocall mitigation program on the non-STIR/SHAKEN-enabled portions of their networks. The program must include reasonable steps to avoid originating illegal robocall traffic as well as a commitment to cooperate with and respond fully and in a timely manner to all traceback requests from the FCC, law enforcement, and the industry traceback consortium.
Additionally, all voice service providers, including those subject to an extension, would be required to file a certification with the FCC describing the status of the STIR/SHAKEN implementation in their network. If a provider has not fully implemented STIR/SHAKEN, it would also have to provide information about how it is acting to stem the origination of illegal robocalls by having in place a Robocall Mitigation Program. The filing must be updated within 10 business days of a change.
Beginning thirty days after the deadline for filing the above certification, intermediate providers and voice service providers would only be allowed to accept calls directly from a voice service provider if that voice service provider’s filing appears in the Robocall Mitigation Database. For purposes of this prohibition, a voice service provider includes a foreign voice service provider that uses North American Numbering Plan resources that pertain to the United States to send voice traffic to residential or business subscribers in the United States.
The Order would also establish a process by which providers that make early progress on caller ID authentication implementation can obtain an exemption from the June 30, 2021 deadline.
Foreign Ownership Review
For over 20 years, the FCC has referred certain applications that have reportable foreign ownership to several Executive Branch agencies for their review of any national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, or trade policy issues related to those applications. This is often referred to a “team telecom” review. In April 2020, Executive Order No. 13913 established the Committee for the Assessment of Foreign Participation in the United States Telecommunications Services Sector (the Committee). It also set out timeframes for the Committee’s review of certain FCC applications and the types of recommendations the Committee can make to the FCC in response to referred applications.
The Report and Order would adopt rules and procedures, consistent with the Executive Order, to improve the timeliness and transparency of the process by which the FCC coordinates its consideration of applications with Executive Branch agencies. Among other things, it would:
- Establish timeframes (120-day initial review, and if necessary, 90-day secondary assessment) for the Executive Branch agencies to complete their review
- Continue generally to refer for Executive Branch review three types of applications where the applicants have reportable foreign ownership: (1) applications for international Section 214 authorizations or to assign or transfer control of these authorizations; (2) applications for a submarine cable landing license or to assign or transfer control of such a license; and (3) petitions seeking a foreign ownership ruling under Section 310(b) of the Communications Act for broadcast, common carrier wireless, or common carrier earth station applicants and licensees.
- Require applicants to make certifications to help protect national security and law enforcement interests and assist the FCC in its ongoing regulatory obligations.
- Require applicants with reportable foreign ownership to file with the Committee—prior to or at the same time as they file their application with the FCC—responses to a standardized set of national security and law enforcement questions. Those questions would be developed following an opportunity for public comment.
911 Fee Diversion
The FCC is required to file annual reports with Congress on the collection and expenditure of 911 fees by states and territories. These reports show that despite the critical importance of funding for 911 services, some states divert a portion of the funds collected for 911 to other purposes. The Notice of Inquiry would seek comment on the effects of this fee diversion and on the most effective ways to dissuade states and jurisdictions from diverting 911 fees.
Among other things, the Notice would:
- Seek comment on the specific effect that 911 fee diversion has had on the provision of 911 services and the transition to NG911 in states that have diverted fees.
- Examine whether mechanisms, such as restrictions on federal grant funding for diverting states, could be incorporated into programs administered by the FCC and/or interagency efforts in this area.
- Seek comment on regulatory steps the FCC could take to discourage fee diversion, such as exercising its truth-in-billing authority to address the description of 911 fees on consumer bills when diversion occurs or conditioning state eligibility for FCC licenses, programs, or other benefits on the absence of fee diversion.
- Ask questions about how the FCC could encourage states to pass legislation or adopt rules that would end 911 fee diversion.
Other items on the agenda include two mid-band spectrum orders, an order addressing disputes between video programmers and cable operators, an order revising the information cable operators must keep on file; and an order reducing IP-CTS compensation rates over the next two years.
Ending his blog, Chairman Pai recognized the work of the various FCC Bureaus saying: “I’m not sure how my fantasy football teams will shape up this year. But I can say for certain that the Commission is stacked with a stellar roster of Bureaus.....This September, each of them has stepped up to make sure we start the fall with victories for U.S. consumers and innovators.”
