Reply comments to Federal Communications Commission present clear data on blocking of outbound calls from the accounts receivable management industry and call mislabeling.
3/2/2020 9:00
ACA International filed additional comments with the Federal Communications Commission Feb. 28 with supplemental information about industry harm as a result of overbroad call blocking efforts—based on data directly from professionals working with consumers.
“As demonstrated in the record, systemic problems exist with current call authentication and blocking regimes,” said ACA’s Vice President and Senior Counsel of Federal Advocacy Leah Dempsey. “Many commenters widely agree that voice service providers are over blocking and mislabeling lawful, legitimate calls and failing to provide adequate redress so that calls may be unblocked in a timely fashion.”
This is reflected in data on call blocking and labeling. Objective research, conducted independent of ACA’s analysis submitted to the FCC, from Number Sentry shows that “more than 21% of calls from lawful, legitimate callers were blocked; more than 25% of the calls that were not blocked were nevertheless labeled; and more than 24% of labeled calls were mislabeled.”
Number Sentry LLC, in the Accounts Receivable Management Outbound Calling Study, evaluated more than 220,000 outbound calls placed by 561 telephone numbers over a three-week period and evaluated voice service providers call-blocking and labeling practices.
The FCC’s review of the call blocking tools, Caller ID Authentication and SHAKEN/STIR, is to inform a report required through the commission’s approval of call blocking as the default option to reduce automated, unwanted robocalls.
“The study also revealed a concerning level of inconsistency regarding the analytics that voice service providers rely upon—12.6% of numbers change their labeled or blocked status each month,” Dempsey said, citing ACA’s comments. “The Number Sentry study provides additional compelling evidence that the commission must include in its report and raises serious questions [about] whether voice service providers can reliably be expected to block unlawful calls using ‘reasonable analytics.’”
ACA believes the FCC should also take additional steps promptly to protect consumers against over blocking and mislabeling.
“For example, to hold voice service providers accountable for such high error rates, the commission should reject the proposed call blocking safe harbors,” Dempsey said. “Furthermore, the commission should collect better data and require voice service providers to implement procedural reforms that offer lawful, legitimate callers adversely affected by voice service providers’ blocking and labeling practices an opportunity to remedy the errors promptly.”
ACA’s reply comments filed Feb. 28 are a follow up to a first round of comments filed in January outlining that call blocking tools authorized by the FCC continue to limit much-needed communication to consumers and restrict and mislabel lawful, legitimate calls—in one instance 97,006 outbound calls in a week for a member company, ACA previously reported.
ACA also outlined how new requirements in the TRACED Act law aimed at mitigating illegal robocalls mandate that carriers provide transparency and redress options for callers and directs unblocking to be done at no cost to callers.
As an overarching matter, ACA is concerned that most of the questions posed in seeking feedback for the FCC’s report are aimed at voice service providers, with minimal fact-finding about the June 6 Declaratory Ruling’s impact on legitimate callers placing lawful calls.
The FCC, to further rectify the problems with its call blocking and labeling systems, should rescind its 2019 call blocking declaratory ruling.
Additional feedback to the FCC from ACA’s reply comments includes:
- Voice service providers’ efforts to provide redress for wronged callers and consumers remain inadequate. ACA’s members and other legitimate callers have received no notice when calls are blocked and mislabeled.
- When callers do discover their calls are being blocked, often on their own, there is also limited recourse. As one example, an ACA member reported that a voice service provider and its call blocking partner mislabeled outbound calls and then requested a $500 monthly fee to fix the issue, in violation of the TRACED Act’s directive that callers and consumers should not be charged for unblocking calls.
- The FCC should reject any proposed safe harbor from liability for blocking lawful calls unless and until providers offer an effective redress mechanism. The proposed safe harbor is too broadly worded and would continue to give voice service providers excessive discretion in determining how calls get labeled and which calls get blocked, for example.
- The FCC cannot move forward with any safe harbor without first addressing the myriad complains and statistical evidence of overbroad call blocking and mislabeling practices.
ACA also supports proposals of many commenters for the FCC to collect better data on call blocking and labeling, which can help reduce illegal robocalls while protecting consumers and legitimate callers.
Overall, ACA strongly urges the FCC to consider providing more uniform requirements for unblocking calls and further consideration to this major problem for its report and before issuing a final order concerning SHAKEN/STIR.
For more information on the impact of call blocking and labeling, members may view the Accounts Receivable Management Outbound Calling Study, sponsored by Number Sentry LLC, Calling Number Solutions. The study and analysis by Number Sentry is independent of ACA's comments to the FCC.
ACA’s advocacy team will be meeting with regulators including the FCC during the Washington Insights Fly-In May 19-21 and invites members to attend this important advocacy event to advance messaging about the impact of call blocking and labeling. Visit the Washington Insights Fly-In website to register and for exciting updates on event speakers.
Related content from ACA International:
FCC Opens Call Blocking Comment Period; ACA Continues Advocacy for Members
TRACED Act Timeline: What’s Next for the Legislation in 2020