Telecom, Financial Services Spar Over Call Blocking Safe Harbor Rules

Secure telephone identity revisited and signature-based handling of asserted information using tokens authentication should be considered as part of reasonable analytics protocol, but it shouldn’t be the only means, said USTelecom Senior Vice President-Policy and Advocacy Patrick Halley. Even if a call is fully authenticated under Stir/Shaken, it doesn’t mean it’s not illegal, he said. He said in the cases carriers can determine phone traffic is highly likely to be illegal, safe harbor protections against litigation should be expanded. Not only should no consumers receive such calls, Halley said, no consumers should be allowed to opt in for such calls. “Carriers should just be able to block those calls at the network level,” he said.

USTelecom, CTIA and NCTA met jointly with FCC officials to seek changes in the draft order. "Some providers have already developed network-level blocking programs that operate on curated network intelligence and highly experienced fraud investigators to target suspected illegal high-volume calling events," they wrote.

ACA Connects recommended the FCC "clarify that a voice provider that blocks unwanted robocalls through the use of a third-party robocall blocking technology" may rely on mechanisms it implemented to investigate and resolve call-blocking disputes on the voice providers behalf. ACA spoke with Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau officials including CGB Chief Patrick Webre.

Incompas backs the “measured, incremental approach” in the draft, said Policy Adviser Chris Shipley. Some Incompas members work with enterprise customers that make legitimate calls that could get swept up in an overbroad safe harbor, he said: They are concerned legitimate internationally generated calls and those with low-level attestations could too easily get blocked. “Put as much transparency on false positives as possible,” Shipley said of the draft's tack. In the order, formalize a single point of contact where a call originator, consumer or network manager can bring complaints about erroneous blocking or mislabeling, Shipley said. An electronic form should be provided “so providers can issue more scalable responses,” he said.

Financial and healthcare interests want to limit safe harbors for voice providers. “We’d like them to be explicit that they have to use the Stir/Shaken protocol,” said Richard Lovich, national legal counsel for the American Association of Healthcare Administration Management. Some member communications are patient follow-up calls as required under the Affordable Care Act, he said: “They’re not scam calls or robocalls.” Others are hospital bill collectors. “That’s why we get very concerned when our calls are blocked,” Lovich said. “We’re not just selling steak knives.”

The American Banking Association wants safe harbor protection to be conditioned upon formal redress measures. Requested redress includes requiring "an entity that blocks calls to notify callers immediately" it's doing so and clarifying that redress "applies equally to mislabeled outbound calling numbers."

Require voice providers to remove erroneous blocks within 24 hours and prohibit imposing a charge for doing so, said Celia Winslow, American Financial Services Association executive vice president-government affairs and legal: “Banks and financial institutions wanted it done immediately, but carriers said that’s not practical.” If redress isn’t quick, callers can’t notify their customers that a call has been blocked, she said. In describing meetings with FCC officials, Winslow said the agency was in “listening mode” and asked good questions.

CGB's Webre blogged on the call blocking item Thursday. The agency declined comment Monday.