The petition, one of several the FCC has received, is from the political campaign for former U.S. Sen. David Perdue. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.
7/8/2021 10:00
The campaign for former U.S. Sen. David Perdue is requesting a declaratory ruling from the Federal Communications Commission that a ringless voicemail (RVM) directly to a voicemail box does not constitute a call under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Georgia republican lost the runoff election in January to U.S. Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga.
“RVM technology allows for the delivery of a voice message directly to voters’ voicemail boxes without placing a ‘call’ ‘to any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call.’ Therefore, RVM technology falls outside of the TCPA’s regulatory scope and the FCC’s rules on making wireless calls using either ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice,” the petition states.
The Petition for Declaratory Ruling from Perdue for Senate Inc. includes three primary arguments in line with past petitions on the topic that were eventually withdrawn.
- RVM transmissions are not “functionally equivalent” to a traditional call/text. Perdue argues that RVM transmissions do not use a wireless network to transmit messages and do not implicate the same consumer privacy harms as traditional phone calls or text messages. Furthermore, RVM technology does not annoy the consumer (e.g., the called party’s phone does not ring, the voicemail may contain important election-related information).
- RVM technology does not use wireless networks to complete direct-to-voicemail transmission. Perdue states that RVM direct-to-voicemail technology does not operate over a wireless network. Instead, RVM technology employs server-to-server communications, which bypass the potential voter’s cellular network and establish a direct communication between the RVM vendor and the potential voter’s voicemail provider. Therefore, because there is never an active call being processed by a switch or server on a wireless network, RVM technology is not subject to the TCPA.
- Third, RVM direct-to-voicemail messaging technology does not fall under the TCPA because RVM technology does not bill potential voters for receiving messages. Perdue claims that if a call is not made to a consumer’s cellphone, liability only exists under the TCPA if a call is made to “any [other] service for which the party is charged.” Therefore, because the consumer is not charged for delivery of the message, RVM technology does not fall under the TCPA.
Read the complete petition here. At press time, the FCC had not issued a public notice for comments on the petition.