Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up,
it unlocks many cool features!
- Media Contact:
- Will Wiquist
- For Immediate Release
- FCC PLANS TO REMOVE COMPANIES FROM KEY DATABASE FOR
- NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ANTI-ROBOCALL RULES
- Companies Removed from Robocall Mitigation Database Can No Longer Hand Off
- Call Traffic to Other Networks
- -WASHINGTON, October 3, 2022—The FCC’s Robocall Response Team today announced
- first-of-their-kind Enforcement Bureau orders to begin removing seven voice service providers
- from the agency’s Robocall Mitigation Database. Providers must take key robocall mitigation
- steps – including implementing STIR/SHAKEN throughout their IP networks – and if they fail
- to demonstrate that they have met these requirements, they can be removed from the database
- and other networks will no longer take their traffic.
- FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel:
- “This is a new era. If a provider doesn’t meet its obligations under the law, it now faces
- expulsion from America’s phone networks. Fines alone aren't enough. Providers that don't
- follow our rules and make it easy to scam consumers will now face swift consequences.”
- What’s New:
- Today’s Enforcement Bureau orders demanded that Akabis, Cloud4, Global UC, Horizon
- Technology Group, Morse Communications, Sharon Telephone Company, and SW Arkansas
- Telecommunications and Technology show cause within 14 days as to why the FCC should not
- remove them from the database. Removal from the database would require all intermediate
- providers and terminating voice service providers to cease carrying the companies’ traffic. If
- that were to occur, all calls from these providers’ customers would be blocked and no traffic
- originated by the provider would reach the called party.
- “These and other recent actions reflect the seriousness with which we take providers’
- obligations to take concrete and impactful steps to combat robocalls,” said Loyaan A. Egal,
- acting Chief of the Enforcement Bureau. “STIR/SHAKEN is not optional. And if your
- network isn’t IP-based so you cannot yet use these standards, we need to see the steps taken to
- mitigate illegal robocalls. These providers have fallen woefully short and have now put at risk
- their continued participation in the U.S. communications system. While we’ll review their
- responses, we will not accept superficial gestures given the gravity of what is at stake.”
- How We Got Here:
- The FCC launched the Robocall Mitigation Database in which voice service providers must
- file certifications to inform the agency of their STIR/SHAKEN implementation status and, in
- some cases, their robocall mitigation efforts. Voice service providers certifying to anything
- short of full STIR/SHAKEN implementation must describe the robocall mitigation steps they
- are taking to ensure they are not the source of illegal robocalls. If a voice service provider does
- not file or does not adequately file in the database, other voice service providers must block the
- noncompliant provider’s calls.
- The Bigger Picture:
- Under Chairwoman Rosenworcel, the Robocall Response Team was created to serve as an
- FCC staff working group that pulls together expertise from across the agency to leverage the
- talents of enforcers, attorneys, policy makers, engineers, economists, and outreach experts to
- combat the unyielding menace of illegal spoofed, scam, robocalls.
- This effort has resulted in:
- • record-breaking spoofing and robocall fines;
- • closing gateways used by international robocallers to reach Americans’ phones;
- • widespread implementation of STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication standards to
- help traceback illegal calls and improve blocking tools to protect consumers;
- • the signing of robocall investigation partnerships with 43 states plus the District of
- Columbia and Guam; and
- • unprecedented policy proposals to combat the rising threat of bogus robotexts.
- ###
- Media Relations: (202) 418-0500 / ASL: (844) 432-2275 / Twitter: @FCC / www.fcc.gov
- This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes official
- action. See MCI v. FCC, 515 F.2d 385 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment