You will find more information about the most significant items on the June meeting agenda after the break:

Securing the Communications Supply Chain – The NPRM and NOI would seek comment on a proposal to prohibit all future authorizations for equipment on the FCC’s Covered List under the Secure and Trusted Communications Act. The NPRM would seek comment on whether, and how, the FCC should revoke any current authorizations for equipment included on the Covered List, and if it should revise the rules to no longer permit exceptions for equipment authorizations on the Covered List. It would also propose to require participants in any upcoming FCC auctions to certify that their auction bids do not and will not rely on financial support from any entity that the agency has designated as a national security threat to the communications supply chain. The NOI would seek comment on how the FCC can leverage its equipment authorization program to encourage manufacturers to consider cybersecurity standards and guidelines when building devices that will connect to U.S. networks.

Modernizing Equipment Marketing and Importation – The Report and Order would adopt changes to the equipment authorization rules to allow expanded marketing and importation of radiofrequency (“RF”) devices prior to certification, with conditions. The Order would add a new condition to allow importation of up to 12,000 RF devices for certain pre-sale activities prior to authorization. It would additionally amend the FCC’s rules to allow conditional sales of RF devices prior to authorization, so long as those devices will not be delivered to consumers until they are authorized. The Order includes labeling, recordkeeping, and other conditions to ensure that RF devices are not sold or operated prior to equipment authorization.

Improving Emergency Alert Systems – The Report and Order and FNPRM would adopt the rule changes proposed in the FCC’s March 2021 NPRM to update the EAS and WEA systems rules, pursuant with the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) requirements. The Order would create a new category of non-optional “National Alerts,” combining WEA Presidential Alerts with FEMA Administrator Alerts, which may be nationally or regionally distributed. States would be encouraged to establish a state EAS plan checklist for State Emergency Communications Committees (“SECCs”), or otherwise establish an SECC if not already formed. This Report and Order would also enable FEMA to report false EAS and WEA alerts and to repeat certain EAS messages if necessary. The FNPRM would seek comment on whether to remove or refine certain EAS emergency event codes that are irrelevant or confusing, and on whether to update the EAS to include a more persistent display and notification of emergency messages for more severe events.

Implementing the TRACED Act – The Report and Order would establish rules pursuant to the TRACED Act to create a process that streamlines the ways in which a private entity may report robocalls or spoofed caller ID to the FCC. The Commission would create on online portal where private entities, meaning any entity other than an individual person or public entity, could submit suspected violations directly to the Enforcement Bureau. The Order clarifies that the new portal would not affect the existing consumer complaint process, and the agency will still use the consumer complaint portal for individual consumer complaints.

Connected Care Pilot Program – The Second Report and Order offers further guidance on the Commission’s Connected Care Pilot Program, including on the Pilot Program budget and administration, eligible services, competitive bidding instructions, invoicing, and data reporting for selected participants. Notably, the Order clarifies that the Pilot Program will reimburse network equipment purchases necessary to make both broadband and connected care information services functional, even if the Pilot Program is not directly supporting the costs of those services. The FCC announced earlier this year that an initial 23 applicants had been selected, with more selected applications to be announced at a later date, and selected applicants could begin the funding request process once this Report and Order becomes effective.

You will find more details about these items on the May meeting agenda after the break.

Reducing Interstate Rates and Charges for Incarcerated People – The Third Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Fifth FNPRM all have different purposes related to reducing the telephone service rates for inmate phone calls. The Third Report and Order would lower the interstate interim rate caps to $0.12 per minute for prisons and $0.14 per minute for jails with populations of 1,000 or more. It would permit an additional allowance of $0.02 for negotiated site commission payments, and eliminate the separate interstate collect calling rate cap. The Report and Order would cap international calling rates, change ancillary service charge rules for third-party financial transaction fees, and adopt a new mandatory data collection to gather data and set permanent rates. The Report and Order would also reaffirm providers’ obligations regarding access for incarcerated people with disabilities. The Order on Reconsideration would reaffirm the FCC’s findings in the 2020 Inmate Calling Services Order that the jurisdictional nature of a telephone call for purposes of charging consumers depends on the physical location of the originating and terminating endpoints of the call. The FNPRM seeks comment on the provision of communications services to incarcerated individuals with disabilities, permanent interstate and international rate caps, and reforms to site commission payments and rules regarding ancillary service charges.

Strengthening Support for Video Relay Service – The NPRM suggests a continued use of a tiered rate structure for the next VRS compensation plan. It also seeks comment on whether to adjust tiered rate levels, bring average provider compensation closer to allowable costs, or defer rate changes for two years while waiting for a resolution of uncertainty about post-pandemic changes in VRS costs and demands. The Order would extend current VRS compensation rates through December 31, 2021, or the effective date of compensation rates adopted by the NPRM, whichever is earlier.

Shortening STIR/SHAKEN Extension for Small Providers Likely to Originate Robocalls – The Third FNPRM proposes to shorten the extension for small voice service providers that are most likely to originate illegal robocalls. These small providers would have to implement STIR/SHAKEN in the IP portions of their networks by June 30, 2022—shortening the extension by one year. The FNPRM seeks comment regarding the best methods to identify and define the small voice service providers that are at a heightened risk or originating an especially large amount of illegal robocall traffic. It proposes three measures to identify such providers that would be subject to a shortened implementation deadline:

• small voice service providers that originate more than 500 calls per day for any single line in the normal course of business;
• small voice service providers that receive more than half their revenue from customers purchasing services that are not mass market services; or
• small voice service providers that offer certain service features to customers commonly used for unlawful robocalls, such as the ability to display any number in the called party’s caller ID, or to upload and broadcast a prerecorded message.

Section 214 Petition for Partial Reconsideration for Mixed USF Support Companies – The Order on Reconsideration addresses a request related to a transaction involving a Section 214 transfer of control. The Order would grant the petition and exclude the petitioner from the mixed support condition because the cost shifting harm that the mixed support condition was designated to address is not present in the current case. The Order would also reaffirm the FCC’s delegation of authority to the Wireline Competition Bureau to continue applying the mixed merger condition where it is deemed necessary to remedy a potential public interest harm.

FCC regulatory activity likely will slow in the immediate lead-up to and aftermath of the 2020 general election. As a result, the September agenda may represent the FCC’s last big push on major reforms for the year. You will find more details on the significant September meeting items after the break:

Repurposing 3 GHz Band Spectrum: The draft Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would eliminate the non-federal radiolocation and amateur allocations from the 3.30-3.55 GHz band as a first step toward future sharing of the spectrum between federal incumbents and commercial wireless providers. However, the FCC would allow incumbent non-federal licensees to continue in-band operations until it finalizes its plans to reallocate the spectrum operations to below 3.0 GHz. The FCC would propose making 100 megahertz of spectrum in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band available for flexible use wireless service throughout the contiguous United States. To facilitate such wireless operations, the FCC would propose adding a co-primary, non-federal fixed and mobile (except aeronautical mobile) allocation to the band. It would also seek input on the appropriate licensing, auction, spectrum sharing, and technical rules for the band, and on relocation procedures for the non-federal relocation operators.

Commercial Access to the 4.9 GHz Band: The draft Sixth Report and Order and Seventh Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would allow one statewide 4.9 GHz band licensee per state to lease some or all of its spectrum rights to third parties, including commercial users. Lessees would be required to comply with the same spectrum coordination procedures as public safety licensees in the band. In addition, the FCC would seek comment on establishing a Band Manager in each state to coordinate and authorize new operations in the 4.9 GHz band. The agency also would request input on how to ensure robust use of the 4.9 GHz band, including through dynamic spectrum sharing technologies and cross-state collaborations.

Implementing STIR/SHAKEN Framework: The draft Second Report and Order would require voice service providers to either upgrade their non-IP networks to IP and implement the STIR/SHAKEN framework or develop a non-IP caller ID authentication solution by June 30, 2021. The FCC would adopt extensions of the June 30, 2021 deadline for: (1) small providers (two-year extension); (2) providers that currently cannot get a digital certificate necessary to implement STIR/SHAKEN because they do not obtain direct access to telephone numbers or other technical issues (indefinite extension); (3) services scheduled for discontinuance (one-year extension); and (4) non-IP network services (indefinite extension). The Commission would require all providers subject to an extension to implement a robocall mitigation plan for the parts of their networks where STIR/SHAKEN is not implemented and certify that they implemented such mitigation measures with the FCC. Moreover, the FCC would require intermediate providers to either pass along caller ID authentication information for authenticated calls or authenticate the caller ID information for unauthenticated calls they receive by June 30, 2021. Intermediate providers would be relieved of the independent authentication requirement if they register with the industry traceback consortium or respond to all traceback consortium information requests. Finally, the FCC would prohibit providers from adding line item charges to subscribers for providing caller ID authentication.

Streamlining Foreign Ownership Reviews: The draft Report and Order would establish rules and timeframes for the Committee for the Assessment of Foreign Participation in the United States Telecommunications Service Sector (Committee) to complete its review of certain applications posing potential foreign ownership concerns (i.e., the applicant has a 10% or greater direct or indirect foreign investor). Specifically, the Committee would be required to complete its initial application review within 120 days and, if necessary, its supplemental application review within 90 days. Affected applicants would be required to provide responses to a standardized set of national security and law enforcement questions regarding: (1) corporate structure and shareholder information; (2) relationships with foreign entities; (3) financial condition; (4) compliance with applicable laws and regulations; and (5) business and operational information. The standardized questions would be developed in a subsequent proceeding following public notice and comment. The new rules would apply to applications: (1) for international Section 214 authorizations or to assign/transfer control of such authorizations; (2) for submarine cable landing licenses or to assign/transfer control of such licenses; and (3) to exceed the foreign ownership limits under Section 310(b) of the Communications Act.

Reforming IP CTS Rates and Standards: The draft Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would establish a compensation rate of $1.30/minute for IP CTS providers through a two-step transition process. The first step would transition from the current $1.58/minute rate to a $1.42/minute rate for the remainder of fund year 2020-21 (effective December 1, 2020), while the second step would transition the rate to $1.30/minute for fund year 2021-22. The FCC would also propose to adopt service standards for IP CTS captioning delay and accuracy, and seek comment on appropriate metrics. The Commission would request input on appropriate IP CTS service standard testing procedures, including sample size and call methodology. In addition, the FCC would ask whether it or a third-party organization should be responsible for such testing.

Reviewing 911 Fee Diversion: The draft Notice of Inquiry would request input on the effects of 911 fee diversion, specifically from states, on the provision of 911 services and the transition to next-generation 911 services. The FCC also would seek comment on how it can use its regulatory authority to discourage 911 fee diversion, including by conditioning state eligibility for FCC licenses, programs, or other benefits on the absence of fee diversion. The FCC would further ask about measures it can take to discourage fee diversion under the Commission’s authority, and how it can encourage states to pass legislation or adopt rules that would prohibit 911 fee diversion.

You will find more details on the significant January meeting items after the break:

Expanding Anti-Spoofing Enforcement: The draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would seek comment on adopting anti-spoofing reforms mandated by the RAY BAUM’s Act passed last year. Specifically, the FCC plans to extend its authority to punish anti-spoofing violations for communications originating from foreign points to recipients within the United States. The FCC would argue that its existing authority, which is limited to communications initiated within the country, has hampered enforcement efforts against foreign operations that generate consumer complaints. The FCC also would seek comment on amending its anti-spoofing rules to cover some of the most widely-used forms of text messaging as well as all voice services that connect to the public switched telephone network. The FCC’s proposal would maintain the exemption for IP-enabled messaging services, such as the popular iMessage, Google Hangouts, WhatsApp, and Skype, which do not rely on the traditional telephone network. Finally, the FCC would ask what other changes it should adopt to better prevent the transmission of inaccurate or misleading caller ID information.

IP CTS User Registration and 911 Calling: The draft Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Order would require IP CTS providers to submit user data to the FCC’s database currently used to register users of the similar Video Relay Service. The draft argues such action is necessary to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the program, which has seen exponential growth in spending. Over a six-month period, all IP CTS providers (there currently are five) would be required to collect and submit user information like name, address, unique IP CTS equipment identifier, last four digits of social security number, and other data. The database would conduct an identity verification check and IP CTS providers would only be able to seek compensation for providing service to verified users. The FCC also would seek comment on streamlining the transmission of 911 calls made through IP CTS by reducing the information collection requirements currently imposed on service providers. Instead of having to provide detailed caller information to the relevant public safety answering point, service providers would instead connect the 911 call, provide a callback number for the user, and ensure the user receives captions on any callback. The FCC plans to waive the caller detail requirements for IP CTS service providers while it considers the proposed rule changes.

CAF Phase-Down and Transition: The draft Report and Order would establish a schedule to end CAF Phase I support for price cap carriers and competitive carriers that provided service to fixed locations under the old “identical support rule,” transitioning such support to the winners of the CAF Phase II auction that concluded in August 2018. Phase I support currently received by price cap carriers would be eliminated beginning on the first day of the month following another provider’s authorization to receive Phase II support in an area. If the existing price cap carrier was the winning bidder in the Phase II auction, its support would be converted to Phase II support once the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau authorizes support distribution for the area. Meanwhile, Phase I support currently received by the competitive carriers would be phased down over the course of two years. For the first 12 months following the authorization of a new CAF Phase II service provider for the area, the carrier would receive two-thirds of its current support. The following 12 months, the carrier would receive one-third of its current support. The support then would terminate. The FCC would continue to provide Phase I support to existing service providers in areas that did not receive any winning bids in the CAF Phase II auction. The FCC would offer legacy support recipients the option to decline further support, freeing them from many (but not all) of their existing high-cost service obligations.

Note that the FCC may revise its meeting agenda to add or remove items – or reschedule the meeting entirely – depending on how long the shutdown lasts. The shutdown prevents stakeholders from meeting with FCC staff about the proposed items and, while the FCC’s comment system remains open to accept new filings, the dockets will not be updated until after the agency resumes normal operations.

The FCC’s rules require carriers to transmit a calling party’s number on interstate calls to interconnecting carriers, which is generally displayed to the called party when using appropriate equipment. However, the FCC recognized that there may parties who have a legitimate privacy interest in keeping the number they are calling from anonymous. The FCC’s rules incorporate privacy options that enable the calling party to dial *67 for carriers using signaling system 7 (SS7) and have that code be recognized as a request to block the calling party’s number from being passed on to the called party. Similarly, carriers that provide line blocking services recognize *82 as a request to block the number. The current rules prohibit carriers from overriding these requests except in the extremely limited circumstances proscribed in the rules, such as delivering the number to a public agency emergency line or in conjunction with 911.

In the NPRM, the FCC seeks to insert some flexibility in this rule to allow carriers to pass on the calling party number in a broader set of emergency circumstances. The FCC notes that “[i]n recent years, media and law enforcement reports indicate that the number of threating calls” have increased dramatically and they often cause disruption to schools and communities but law enforcement has no recourse to access the calling party number when it is blocked.

The FCC proposes to amend its rules to include an exemption for “calls that contain a threat of a serious nature” to section 64.101(b)’s prohibition on overriding a caller’s privacy indicator request. A threatening call would be defined as “any call that includes a threat of serious and imminent unlawful action posing substantial risk to property, life, safety, or health.” The FCC also seeks comment on the best way to make a determination about whether a particular case meets the proposed definition. One option being considered is only enforcing the exemption when a law enforcement officer has confirmed the serious nature of the threat. Additionally, the FCC seeks input on how to ensure the exemption is not abused and privacy interests continue to be protected.

This NPRM also maintains an earlier temporary waiver of the rules, following a series of bomb threats against Jewish community centers across the country.

Comments will be due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register; and Reply Comments will be due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Check back later for additional analysis of the orders, but in the meantime, we will hit a few of the highlights.

In the Report and Order, the FCC largely tracks its proposal in the NPRM. The Commission prohibited the "knowing" transmission of misleading information with an intent to defraud, and clarified that to be liable the person possessing the fraudulent intent must also cause the transmission of misleading information.

Notably, the FCC adopted its proposal to take direct enforcement action against entities that violate the rules, even if those entities are not Commission licensees or holders of Commission authorizations. This side-steps the "warn first" regime that applies to other violations.

The Commission denied the Department of Justice's requests to extend liability to VoIP providers not meeting the FCC's existing definition of "interconnected VoIP" service and to impose additional verification obligations on third-party spoofing providers.

In the Report to Congress, the FCC recommends several changes to strengthen the Act, including expansion of the Act to reach non-interconnected VoIP and to address text-messaging services. As summarized in the Report, the Commission recommended the following:

Legislative recommendations include clarifying the scope of the Truth in Caller ID Act to include (1) persons outside the United States, (2) the use of IP-enabled voice services that are not covered under the Commission’s current definition of interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service, (3) appropriate authority over third party spoofing services, and (4) SMS-based text messaging services.

In its comments in response to the FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Department urged the FCC to adopt rules regulating Caller ID spoofing providers directly. It contends that this authority is rooted in the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009 itself and in the Commission's "ancillary" authority over non-common carriers (the same authority at issue in the Comcast net neutrality case). The Department does not explicitly mention non-interconnected VoIP providers or one-way VoIP providers in its comments, but its arguments would extend to any service provider offering spoofing services.

The Department's comments are available here.

USF Enforcement. The Enforcement Bureau entered into a consent decree with Allegiance Communications, LLC, a cable TV provider in Shawnee, Oklahoma. The Bureau's investigation concerned failures to pay Universal Service, TRS, NANPA and LNP fees, all of which are billed based on the FCC Form 499-A. The action is a settlement, so we do not know all of the facts. Nevertheless, it is clear that at one time Allegiance Communications had not paid these contributions, but "as of March 25, 2011," Allegiance had made its past due payments and submitted all required filings. In stark contrast to other USF actions where the Commission imposed substantial fines for such activities, here, the Enforcement Bureau agreed to a fine of $20,000, payable in two installments. Allegiance Communications is very fortunate, indeed.

"Robocall" Telemarketing Violations. In Security First of Alabama, the FCC proposed a $342,000 Notice of Apparent Liability for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA). This case involved 43 unsolicited pre-recorded advertising messages ("robocalls") delivered to 33 consumers. For 16 of the calls, the FCC proposes its standard fine of $4,500 per call. However, it also concludes that Security First "spoofed" its caller ID display, which the FCC concluded was an egregious violation worthy of a $10,000 fine per call.

"Junk Fax" Forfeitures. The FCC continues to clear its decks of allegations that entities were engaging in unsolicited facsimile advertising ("junk" faxing). In two forfeiture orders released last week, the FCC fined Mexico Marketing and Travelcomm for sending unsolicited faxes to consumers. In Mexico Marketing, the Commission issued a fine of $1.6 million for 89 violations. In Travelcomm, the Commission issued a fine of $72,000 for 15 violations. These orders were resolutions of several Notices of Apparent Liability issued in 2007 and 2008 against the companies.

The NPRM contains a surprising proposal to bypass the ordinary enforcement processes the Commission uses. See below for that and other highlights of the proposal.

With respect to the caller's liability, the NPRM closely tracks the statutory language. The Commission proposes a new rule to prohibit any person or entity from displaying misleading or inaccurate caller ID information "with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value."

With respect to the service provider's liability, the Commission seeks comment on the Department of Justice's proposal to require service providers to verify that the subscriber has authority over the number to be transmitted via the service. The Commission did not take a stance on the merits of the proposal in the NPRM, however.

With respect to VoIP services, the Commission disagreed with the Department of Justice -- which sought an interpretation that would apply the rules to non-interconnected VoIP -- and proposed to apply the rules only to those services meeting its existing definition of interconnected VoIP.

Most notably, however, the Commission proposes new enforcement provisions that expand the FCC's traditional jurisdiction over entities that do not hold FCC licenses or authorizations. As we've noted before, for non-licensed entities, the FCC ordinarily must proceed via a warning first, and may impose a fine only for conduct that occurs after the warning. With respect to spoofing, however, the FCC concludes that the lack of a reference to this procedure in the Truth in Caller ID Act "suggests that Congress intended to give the Commission the authority to proceed expeditiously to stop and, were appropriate, assess a forfeiture against," unlawful spoofing. Therefore, the FCC proposes that it may impose fines for first-time violations of the Act's restrictions.

Comments on the proposal are due April 18; replies on May 3.

The NPRM is available here. An Erratum also was released by the FCC.

The DOJ letter is described in more detail below. Most notably, DOJ recommends verification obligations be imposed on providers of spoofing services and proposes an expansive definition of "IP-enabled Voice Service" that would impose obligations on services heretofore not subject to FCC regulations. If the FCC agrees, new classes of entities would be subject to compliance obligations relating to Caller ID spoofing.

The DOJ letter is available in full here. The DOJ supports regulations in the following areas:

1. Spoofing Service Providers. Citing to a floor statement by the Truth in Caller ID Act's sponsor, now ex-Representative Rick Boucher (D-Va), DOJ supports the imposition of verification obligations on providers of spoofing services. Specifically, DOJ recommends:

The Commission should consider the feasibility of requiring public providers of Caller ID spoofing services to make a good-faith effort to verify that a user has the authority to use the substituted number, such as by placing a one-time verification call to that number.

DOJ also recommends technical standards that would allow law enforcement to trace such calls to their true originating number upon appropriate authority.

2. Law Enforcement Exception. The Act excludes any spoofing conducted by any "lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence agency." DOJ recommends specific language to implement this provision.

3. Applicability to IP-Enabled Services. The Act provides that it applies to the use of "any telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service." With respect to IP-enabled voice services, the Act provides that the term "has the meaning given to that term by Section 9.3 of the [FCC's] regulations." Section 9.3, however, defines "interconnected VoIP" services, which are a subset of IP-enabled services.

Noting the lack of a definition of "IP-enabled voice service," the DOJ argues for a definition that will expand the reach of the Caller ID regulations. The DOJ's proposed definition would reach one-way VoIP services, Skype's service (which Skype contends does not meet the FCC's definition of "interconnected VoIP" service) and possibly other uses of VoIP, such as in video conferencing or gaming. Specifically, the DOJ proposes the following definition of "IP-enabled voice services:"

The term 'IP-enabled voice service' means the provision of real-time voice communications offered to the public, or such class of users as to be effectively available to the public, transmitted through customer premises equipment using TCP/IP protocol, or a successor protocol, (whether part of a bundle of services or separately) with interconnection capability such that the service can originate traffic to, or terminate traffic from, the public switched telephone network, or a successor network.

The Department states that this definition is based on 18 U.S.C. 1039(h)(4), which protects the confidentiality of telephone records under the Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006.

According to the FTC, not all businesses abide by the these Caller ID requirements. Recent FTC cases have charged telemarketers pitching fraudulent extended auto warranties and credit card interest rate reduction programs with violating the Caller ID requirements. The FTC’s request for comments notes that “spoofing” or manipulating Caller ID names and numbers may become more common as telemarketers increasingly use advanced telecommunications technologies. The FTC’s Notice details specific areas of inquiry but does not propose specific rule changes. It can be found here. Those interested in filing public comments on the issue must do so by Friday, January 28, 2011.

Descriptions of both developments are provided below.

Truth in Caller ID Act. On December 22, President Obama signed into law the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009 [sic]. The Act makes it unlawful for any person to cause any caller ID system "to knowingly transmit misleading or inaccurate caller identification information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value." The prohibition applies to caller ID used in connection with both telecommunications services and IP-enabled services (VoIP).

The FCC has 6 months to enact regulations to implement the prohibition. In addition, the FCC must submit a recommendation whether additional legislation is necessary to prohibit the provision of inaccurate caller ID information in technologies that are successors to traditional telecommunications or VoIP.

FTC Rulemaking to Strengthen Caller ID. On December 7, the FTC released a public notice seeking comment on ways to strengthen the caller ID provisions of its Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). According to the FTC, "spoofing" has become more common and it is seeking comment on ways to strengthen the rules to prohibit the practice. The FTC specifically identified the following issues for comment:

* How widespread is consumer use of Caller ID services to screen unwanted calls, and do consumers use other services that rely on the transmission of calling party numbers (CPN), such as call-blocking equipment, to avoid unwelcome telemarketing calls?
* Would changes to the Telemarketing Sales Rule improve the ability of Caller ID services to accurately disclose the source of telemarketing calls or improve the ability of service providers to block calls in which information on the source of the call is not available, or has been spoofed?
* Should the FTC amend the Caller ID provisions of the Rule to recognize or anticipate specific developments in telecommunications technologies relating to the transmission and use of Caller ID information, and if so, how?
* Should the FTC amend the Caller ID provisions of the Rule to further specify the characteristics of the phone number that a telemarketer must transmit to a Caller ID service? For example, should the Rule require that the phone number transmitted be one that is listed in publicly available phone directories, a number with an area code and prefix that are associated with the physical location of the telemarketer’s place of business, a number that is answered by a live representative, or automated service that identifies the telemarketer by name?
* Should the FTC amend the Caller ID provisions to allow a seller or telemarketer to use trade names or product names, rather than the actual name of the seller or telemarketer, in the name information displayed by Caller ID services?

Comments are due before the FTC by January 28. Links to relevant FTC sites are available in our Resource Center.