Connect with us

FCC

Telephony Industry Rises to the Challenge of Robocalls, With Legislation, Regulation and Enforcement Close Behind

Drew Clark

Published

on

Photo of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai at the 2019 FCBA Chairman's Dinner by Drew Clark

WASHINGTON, December 13, 2019 – The industry group that is hammering out technical standards governing an anti-robocall framework announced Thursday that that the STIR/SHAKEN framework will launch on Monday, December 16, 2019.

The launch of STIR/SHAKEN calling verification service won’t be final word in ending robocalls. But the much-anticipated milestone does represent a significant achievement for the creation of an entirely new framework governing authenticated telephony.

The rampant rise of robocalls have made person-less phone calls uniquely despised. The widespread disgust associated with time-wasting, distracting and fraudulent calls highlights the one thing that Republicans, Democrats and independents can all agree upon: Government must stop robocalls.

Indeed, the announcement of Monday’s launch of the STIR/SHAKEN framework by the Secure Telephone Identity Governance Authority (STI-GA) is merely one of three forums in which the battle against robocalls is being waged.

“The successful launch of STIR/SHAKEN by the industry-led STI-GA is a major step in the fight to mitigate illegal robocalls and Caller ID spoofing,” STI-GA Chair Linda Vandeloop said Thursday.

In addition to the for-now-voluntary STIR/SHAKEN standard, legislation mandating the use of STIR/SHAKEN by the providers of telephone service is likely to be passed by Congress within the next week.

Even if legislation isn’t passed, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has done everything possible to rally responsible telephone providers against robocalling – up to and including Thursday’s $10 million fine against an allegedly illegal robocaller.

The origins of STIR/SHAKEN call authentication framework

STIR/SHAKEN is an industry-developed system to authenticate caller ID and hence address unlawful telephone call spoofing. It is designed to confirm that a call actually comes from the number indicated in the Caller ID, or – alternatively – at least to attest that the call entered the U.S. telephone network through a particular voice service provider or gateway.

STIR stands for Secure Telephony Identity Revisited, and is a standard developed by the Internet Engineering Task Force. The loosely-form acronym SHAKEN stands for the “Signature-based Handling of Asserted information using toKENs.”

It is this latter standard that has been the subject of intensive negotiation among telephony engineers in the STI-GA, which was formed to develop STIR/SHAKEN, as well as the non-profit telecom standards organization Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions.

Importantly, the STIR/SHAKEN framework only works on the internet protocol-based telephone networks, including Voice over Internet Protocol services, to which most enterprise callers have migrated.

Estimates vary widely, but a significant chunk of traffic of calls on the public switched telephone network – perhaps as much as half — remain non-IP-based calls. Robocallers, however, almost all use VoIP.

The fundamental idea behind STIR/SHAKEN is that, using public key cryptography, a telephony provider would “provide assurances that Caller ID information transmitted with a particular call is accurate,” according to the FCC’s June 7, 2019, declaratory ruling on robocalls. “Once an originating or gateway provider has implemented these standards, it should sign, or attest to, all IP-based calls originating on its IP-based network or entering the network through its gateway.”

There are three levels of attestation: Level A, or full attestation; Level B, or partial attestation; and Level C, or gateway attestation.

Level A is easy. When a customer using a telephony provider’s network originates a call, and the telephony provider knows that number is associated with a legitimate customer, the provider passes the Level A attestation to the receiving telephone network.

Level C is also pretty straightforward: It refers to the minimal level of attestation that is expected when, for example, a foreign-originating call enters the gateway to a U.S.-provider’s telephone network. The domestic telephone carrier would pass the “Level C” attestation to the terminating carrier, or the carrier of the person who receives the phone call.

Key determinations about attestation of STIR/SHAKEN have yet to be made

In announcing the availability of the calling number verification service, the industry groups STI-GA and ATIS were mum on one of the major issues still in dispute in regard to Level B attestation.

In other words, the rules that govern partial attestation – when the signing voice service provider has not established a verified association with the phone number, but has some other kind of direct relationship with the customer in question – have not yet been made clear.

Beginning on Monday, December 16, however, voice service providers can register with iconectiv, which is the Secure Telephone Identity Policy Administrator, to obtain credentials in order to acquire STI certificates from approved Certification Authorities.

These certificates will be used to authenticate Caller ID, inform customers if the Caller ID was spoofed and to facilitate tracing calls back to their origin.

“Setting SHAKEN into action completes a major milestone in an initiative that brought the industry together through ATIS to find a solution to address the formidable challenge of illegal robocalling,” said ATIS CEO Susan Miller. “This development advances a top industry priority critical to restoring consumer trust in the voice network.”

ATIS and the policy body STI-GA recommended that service providers read the Service Provider Guidelines before registering for the call verification service online. Once registered, service providers will be able to access a list of Certification Authorities that can assign digital certificates used to sign calls and authenticate Caller ID.

If industry self-regulation of robocalls falters, legislation is likely to mandate telephony rules

On Wednesday, December 4, 2019, on a 417-3 vote, the House approved passage of S. 151, the Pallone-Thune “Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act,” or the TRACED Act, sponsored by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, D-N.J., and former Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune, R-S.D.

The revised legislation built upon Thune’s TRACED Act, and effectively requires the implementation of the STIR/SHAKEN technology that is still under development. On December 4, the House incorporated some element of Pallone’s prior H.R. 3375, the Stopping Bad Robocalls Act – and which had not mentioned or mandated STIR/SHAKEN.

The House-passed bill, which now awaits passage by the Senate, “require[s] a provider of voice service to implement the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework in the internet protocol networks of the provider of voice service” within 18 months of the passage of the legislation.

There are, however, many reasons why certain call spoofing may be legitimate. At a June forum on the subject, Rebecca Thompson, the head of government affairs at Twilio, illustrated several examples. These include protecting Uber riders’ numbers, womens’ shelters and crisis counseling lines preserving safety and privacy. She also pointed out cases of legitimate robocalls, including notifications from schools or emergency providers, that could potentially be blocked.

The TRACED act includes a provision requiring the FCC to develop rules, no later than one year after passage, that would create a safe harbor “establishing when a provider of voice service may block a voice call based, in whole or in part, on information provided by the [STIR/SHAKEN] call authentication framework.”

Pai attempt bully-pulpit regulation and enforcement, even before TRACED Act’s passage

The legislation will give the FCC authority to prosecute robocallers that it might otherwise lack.

In a speech at an anti-robocall symposium on November 22, 2019, Pai said that while he was grateful for industry efforts to implement STIR/SHAKEN, “the reality is were are only seven weeks away from the end-of-the-year deadline, and we are not yet seeing sufficient implementation by all major voice providers.”

He continued: “To any carriers out there who might not be treating this deadline with the urgency it deserves, I am putting them on notice now: at my direction, Commission staff is actively working on developing regulations to make this happen. If industry doesn’t get the job done on time, I will not hesitate to call an FCC vote on these new rules.”

Even without authority to go after carriers who dally in implementing a still-incomplete STIR/SHAKEN, the FCC is taking enforcement action against robocallers using the authority granted from other legislation.

Indeed, on Thursday, the FCC imposed a $9,997,750 fine in issuing a “notice of apparent liability” against Kenneth Moser and his telemarketing company Marketing Support Systems.

The FCC said that he apparently made more than 47,000 unlawful spoofed robocalls over a two-day period by spoofing the telephone number assigned to another telemarketing company when transmitting prerecorded voice calls against a political candidate shortly before California’s 2018 primary election.

Moser, who was in the business of providing political robocall services, spoofed the number of another company that provides robocalling services to political candidates. The spoofing generated many complaints from consumers who received the calls, and a cease-and-desist letter from the candidate against whom the calls were allegedly made.

The California Secretary of State referred a complaint about the matter to the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau, and which used the Truth in Caller ID Act has the basis for the fine.

In addition to finding that Moser apparently violated the Truth in Caller ID Act, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau found that Moser sent more than 11,000 prerecorded voice messages to wireless phones, without consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s.

The Enforcement Bureau found that Moser also violated the TCPA’s requirement that prerecorded messages include the phone number and identity of the entity responsible for initiating the call. As a result, the Bureau also issued a citation for TCPA violations.

About the author:

Drew Clark, the Editor and Publisher of BroadbandBreakfast.com, is a nationally-respected telecommunications attorney at The CommLaw Group. He has closely tracked the trends in and mechanics of digital infrastructure for 20 years, and has helped fiber-based and fixed wireless providers navigate coverage, identify markets, broker infrastructure, and operate in the public right of way. Additionally, see a related advisory laying out some of the salient issues with SHAKEN/STIR that may be of interest to many providers of telecommunications and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services.

Drew Clark is the Editor and Publisher of BroadbandBreakfast.com and a nationally-respected telecommunications attorney at The CommLaw Group. He has closely tracked the trends in and mechanics of digital infrastructure for 20 years, and has helped fiber-based and fixed wireless providers navigate coverage, identify markets, broker infrastructure, and operate in the public right of way. The articles and posts on Broadband Breakfast and affiliated social media, including the BroadbandCensus Twitter feed, are not legal advice or legal services, do not constitute the creation of an attorney-client privilege, and represent the views of their respective authors.

FCC

Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr Optimistic About Finding Common Ground at Agency

Samuel Triginelli

Published

on

Screenshot of FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr from C-Span

March 24, 2021 — Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr said the regulator has since 2017 seen what he wanted: Broadband speed increases and lower prices.

“The approach we adopted in 2017 is working,” he said at the Free State Foundation’s 13th annual telecom policy conference on Tuesday. “Speeds have increased, prices are down, and we see more competition than ever before; we need to keep it that way,” he said, stressing the importance of reinforcing the good work the previous administration did and continues to do.

Carr, who has been a part of the FCC since 2012 in various capacities and through different compositions, said the transition into the new administration is going well.

In contrast to before, when it seemed as though the “sky was falling” and there were many problems with net neutrality, today’s reality is quite different, thanks to Acting Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, he said.

The chairwoman contacted him almost immediately after she asked him to participate an event together on telehealth. There have been a lot of conversations and compromises since that moment, he said.

He said elections do bring some consequences, and undoubtedly have shaken some of the agency’s previous standards with a different party in leadership. However, he said the FCC has been finding common ground, something that “has been all too rare in the past couple of years.”

He added that, in 2016, experts and analysts weren’t painting a very rosy picture for the US future leadership when it comes to 5G. One of the primary reasons cited was the cost and length of time to build out the Internet infrastructure in this country, he said.

“We went from 708 new cell sites in 2017 to over 46,000. The progress is astounding, and not only with towers but with fiber, as we built 450k miles of fiber in just one year alone.”

Spectrum auctions driving the agenda, Carr says

Optimistic on spectrum, he pointed out that at present, there is a lot of it available. “In 2017, the FCC had previously voted in a lot of higher band spectrum options.”

The work of initial prioritization was completed by us before 2017 when we moved in and noticed the lack of midband spectrum in the pipeline. We had to move fast, and we had the first auction for the midband in 2020, with frequencies ranging from 3.5 to 5.5 gigahertz.

Over the last couple of years, he said the FCC has opened that band to intensive use, pushing the midband spectrum a great deal. The future holds the need to create a spectrum calendar with a rough outline of spectrum auctions, including which bands are available for auction and when, he said. “I have already filled in that calendar.”

He said the regulator’s challenge is not with a lack of communication but with coordination.  “We need the FCC to take a step back and consider the public interest, how the agency can best achieve the federal missions and how it can best do this. Even if there are going to be disagreements, it is paramount to ensure that the American economy stays competitive.”

Looking ahead, Carr said the 5.9 gigahertz project, which last year was on trial to expand rural broadband access, would be a great beginning to prove that good leadership and compromise are possible between both parties.

Continue Reading

FCC

The $3.2 Billion Emergency Broadband Benefit Program: What’s In It, How to Get It?

Tim White

Published

on

Pool photo of FCC Acting Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel by Jonathan Newton

March 5, 2021 – Just shy of the 60-day deadline set by Congress, the Federal Communications Commission adopted an order on February 25, detailing how the new Emergency Broadband Benefit Program would work.

The $3.2 billion program was part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 that passed Congress in December 2020 and is allocated to the FCC to help low-income households with broadband access during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Broadband Breakfast Live Online will focus on the program on Wednesday, March 10, 2021: “The Emergency Broadband Benefit: How Will the $3.2 Billion Program Work?

The funding will provide up to $50 per month for eligible low-income households, increased to $75 per month for those living on native tribal lands. Rather than disbursing directly to consumers, the funds will be distributed to participating broadband providers, who in turn will grant the discounted internet access to qualifying households who apply.

The Emergency Broadband Benefit program is not to be confused with the Emergency Connectivity Fund currently being considered by Congress.

The Emergency  Broadband Benefit program also has a one-time reimbursement option of $100 for purchasing desktops, laptops or tablets for connecting to the internet, with a co-pay of between $10 and $50.

Households do not receive the reimbursement for buying a device separately: That is provided by the service providers through which the funding will be disbursed.

To qualify for the program, households must meet one of the following criteria:

  • Qualifies for the FCC Lifeline program
  • Is approved for the free or reduced-price school breakfast/lunch program
  • Demonstrates substantial documented loss of income since February 29, 2020
  • Received a federal Pell grant in the current award year
  • Qualifies for a participating provider’s existing low-income or COVID-19 relief program, subject to FCC approval.

To receive reimbursement for services and connected devices, participating service providers must register with SAM.gov, cannot be listed on the Department of the Treasury’s “do not pay” list, and must register with the FCC to receive a registration number. Similar to the Lifeline program, the EBBP will be provided to companies who participate through the Universal Service Administrative Company.

To participate, companies are not required to be eligible telecommunications carriers through Lifeline, but must apply through an “election notice” with USAC. They must also get prior approval from the FCC before filing their notice.

The application window for service providers to apply to the program opens on Monday, March 8, 2021, and ends March 22. The program should begin approximately April 25, or 60 days after the FCC published the order.

The service provider’s broadband plan must have been in place by December 1, 2020, to receive the discounted rate.

Unlike the FCC’s Lifeline program that has been in place for several years, this new funding is temporary and set to expire, either when the $3.2 billion are exhausted or six months after the Health and Human Services secretary declares that COVID-19 is no longer a health emergency.

Continue Reading

FCC

What You Need To Know About the More-Than-$7 Billion Emergency Connectivity Fund

Derek Shumway

Published

on

Photo of Kamala Harris proceeding to break the deadline on coronavirus relief deliberations from the Los Angeles Times

March 5, 2021 – The Senate on Thursday voted to begin debate on the $7.6 billion Emergency Connectivity Fund, which is part of the House-passed $1.9-trillion coronavirus stimulus bill.

Most of the 591-page bill adheres closely to what President Biden called for in his relief proposal in January 2021, as reported by CNN. The $7.6 billion Emergency Connectivity Fund includes funds for internet service, hot spots, and other devices to use at home. The larger coronavirus bill includes new rounds of stimulus checks, unemployment assistance, and healthcare support.

This comes after a coalition of education advocates in January 2021 petitioned the FCC to add in a provision for emergency E-rate funding. On Feb. 9, 2021, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone, D-N.J., announced the provision as part of the committee’s legislative recommendations for the COVID budget reconciliation legislation. The Federal Communications Commission would be tasked with implementing the $7.6-billion fund.

The potential fund of more than $7 billion fund in this Emergency Connectivity Fund is not to be confused with the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program, a new pot of broadband money allocated by the consolidated appropriations bill passed in December 2021.

Broadband Breakfast Live Online will focus on that other program on Wednesday, March 10, 2021: “The Emergency Broadband Benefit: How Will the $3.2 Billion Program Work?

The magnitude of the pandemic has sent schools scrambling to connect students to virtual learning. The Emergency Connectivity Fund would help connect some more than 15 million children and as many as 400,000 teachers, according to Common Sense and Boston Consulting Group.

But passage of the additional more-than-$7 billion in funding is not assured. Even to begin debate on the broader coronavirus relief package, Vice President Kamala Harris had to cast a tie-breaking vote because the Senate is even split with 50 senators who caucus with the Democrats and 50 Republicans.

Major tech priorities included in an earlier Senate draft of the bill appear unchanged in the official version of the bill introduced to the Senate yesterday. Funding for the Emergency Connectivity Fund is part of larger funding for the Technology Modernization Fund, as well as for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and other proposals.

President Biden originally proposed $10.2 billion of funding for the modernization fund and cybersecurity, but the Senate’s version includes just $1 billion. Additional, the Senate’s version includes  $7.17 billion for the Emergency Connectivity Fund, which was reduced by more than $400 million from the original $7.6 billion proposed figure.

Still, the fund represents the a very large tech investment to support broadband capabilities and remote learning in schools.

As Broadband Breakfast noted on Monday, the Emergency Connectivity Fund, previously signed into law in December 2020, secured $3.2 billion to expand broadband coverage to underserved communities and households in need. This internet service discounts of up to $50 per month for eligible consumers and up to $75 per month for those on tribal lands. Additional discounts on a computer or laptop device are also included.

As reported by MeriTalk, getting the Senate to bring its version of the $1.9 trillion stimulus bill to a vote later this week is imperative, as both chambers are pushing to get the bill signed into law before March 14, when some unemployment assistance programs will expire.

Presuming the Senate passes its version of the bill, it goes back to the House for a vote and then onto the White House for President Biden’s final signature.

Continue Reading

Recent

Signup for Broadband Breakfast

Get twice-weekly Breakfast Media news alerts.
* = required field

Trending