FCC Robocall Proceeding: New Coalition Of Consumer-Focused Providers Calls For Balanced, Privacy-Protective Rules

Marashlian & Donahue, PLLC (The CommLaw Group) filed Reply Comments with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") on behalf of the Consumer Access & Choice Coalition ("CACC") in a major multi-docket robocall and caller authentication rulemaking proceeding.

CACC supports the FCC's goal of combating illegal and unwanted robocalls and restoring trust in voice networks. However, CACC cautioned that several proposals under consideration, particularly those involving conditioning A-level call attestations on mandatory caller identification data collection, real-time location sharing, and foreign-origin labeling, risk imposing costly, technically infeasible, and privacy-eroding mandates that would disproportionately harm small providers serving individual consumers.

Who is the Consumer Access & Choice Coalition (CACC)?

The CACC is a coalition of consumer-focused communications service providers, including providers of nomadic Voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP") services, over-the-top ("OTT") communications applications, and other similar technology-enabled voice and messaging solutions that serve individual end users and small consumer accounts.

CACC was formed to ensure that the voice of small and mid-sized, consumer-serving innovators is not drowned out in policy debates increasingly dominated by large incumbents and well-funded enterprise stakeholders. While CACC supports robust and effective efforts to combat unlawful robocalls and protect consumers from unwanted marketing and scam traffic, the Coalition recognizes that well-intentioned regulatory initiatives can sometimes evolve into overreach, imposing sweeping technical mandates, identity collection requirements, or compliance burdens that do little to stop bad actors, yet threaten the survival of legitimate, compliant providers delivering services consumers want and rely upon.

Through CACC, similarly-situated providers can work together to advocate for sane, rational, balanced, and technically feasible laws, regulations, and policies that protect consumers without eliminating competition, suppressing innovation, or eroding privacy.

Importantly, CACC also provides a mechanism for providers to engage in advocacy through the cloak of anonymity, allowing companies to participate in sensitive regulatory debates without exposing themselves to reputational risk, retaliation, commercial targeting, or unfair scrutiny simply for challenging flawed regulatory proposals. In addition, the Coalition structure allows members to share the costs of advocacy, ensuring that even small providers, who might otherwise be unable to afford sustained representation in Washington, D.C. or in statehouses, have a meaningful seat at the table when decisions are made that directly affect their ability to operate.

CACC members fill a critical segment of the marketplace by delivering:

• Affordable, consumer-demanded voice solutions
• Competitive alternatives to large incumbent offerings
• Services that often support underserved and vulnerable populations
• Flexible, modern services that enable users to communicate wherever broadband connectivity is available

CACC's mission is to promote innovation, competition, affordability, and connectivity, while maintaining high standards of compliance and performance across the telecommunications ecosystem and ensuring that consumer choice is preserved through thoughtful, balanced policymaking.

The FCC Proceeding: What is being considered?

The Reply Comments were filed in response to the FCC's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("FNPRM") in multiple related proceedings addressing robocall mitigation and call authentication, including:

• Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls (CG Docket No. 17-59)
• Call Authentication Trust Anchor (WC Docket No. 17-97)
• Rules and Regulations Implementing the TCPA (CG Docket No. 02-278)
• Dismissal of Outdated or Otherwise Moot Robocalls Petitions (CG Docket No. 25-307)

The FCC's FNPRM explores whether to adopt new rules that would expand caller authentication and identity information associated with calls. These proposals are intended to reduce fraud and help consumers make more informed call-answering decisions.

What rules is the FCC considering adopting (and why CACC is concerned)?

1. Mandatory caller identification requirements that may entrench incumbents

CACC urged the FCC to avoid prematurely locking the industry into rigid, prescriptive mandates that would favor incumbent providers or a narrow set of vendor-driven solutions. The Coalition emphasized that the call-labeling and analytics marketplace remains evolving, and competition among approaches is essential to outpace changing fraud tactics.

CACC supports a flexible, technology-neutral framework rather than rules that "pick winners" and make it harder for smaller providers to compete.

2. Location-sharing mandates (technically infeasible for nomadic VoIP)

CACC explained that nomadic VoIP providers cannot reliably determine a caller's physical location in real time because customers can connect from anywhere and may use VPNs or other privacy tools that obscure location signals.

CACC warned that conditioning enhanced attestation or authentication requirements on real-time location would:

• Create a competitive distortion favoring fixed-location and mobile incumbents
• Provide little real consumer benefit because fraudsters can evade or spoof location
• Punish compliant providers rather than stop illegal robocallers

3. "Foreign-origin" labeling requirements that generate false positives

CACC also cautioned against requirements to label calls as "foreign," explaining that legitimate users frequently travel internationally while keeping U.S. numbers and service. Nomadic VoIP customers may also call from abroad for ordinary personal and business reasons.

A foreign-origin label regime risks:

• Flagging legitimate calls incorrectly
• Training consumers to distrust lawful communications
• Eroding trust in labeling systems due to false positives

4. Eliminating the STIR/SHAKEN exemption for providers without control of IP network infrastructure

CACC urged the FCC to preserve the existing STIR/SHAKEN exemption for providers that do not control the IP network elements necessary to implement STIR/SHAKEN (including pure resellers).

CACC explained that imposing direct STIR/SHAKEN implementation obligations on such providers is not just burdensome but can be technically infeasible, and could effectively eliminate the resale model and raise consumer costs.

5. Forcing providers to control handset display outcomes they don't control

CACC highlighted a practical issue: voice service providers do not control how caller information is displayed on handsets, because device manufacturers (and their operating systems) determine the consumer-facing presentation.

CACC urged coordination with handset manufacturers rather than imposing unworkable obligations on providers.

Why CACC seeks accommodations for its segment of the marketplace

CACC's central message is straightforward: the FCC should fight illegal robocalls aggressively, but in a way that targets the actual sources of abuse without destroying legitimate, consumer-focused competitors.

CACC urged the FCC to adopt a framework that is:

• Voluntary and risk-based, not rigid and one-size-fits-all
• Focused on high-risk enterprise activity, not individual callers and small providers
• Protective of consumer privacy, including through "generic labels" for individual callers rather than forcing verified legal names into the call chain
• Designed to avoid pushing the market toward consolidation by imposing compliance costs only the largest providers can absorb

A major theme: privacy, constitutional protections, and statutory authority

CACC's Reply Comments emphasize that proposals requiring mandatory collection/transmission of individuals' names (and potentially location) raise serious issues, including:

• The right to anonymous speech and association
• Conflicts with privacy and data protection laws and principles
• Increased data breach risks created by expanded identity repositories

CACC also argues the FCC lacks clear congressional authority to mandate collection and transmission of expanded caller identification information in the manner proposed.

State-by-state regulation is accelerating, and it threatens nationwide consistency

CACC warned that a growing patchwork of state caller ID and authentication legislation is creating uncertainty and imposing inconsistent compliance burdens, particularly for providers operating across jurisdictions.

CACC urged the FCC to preserve uniform national standards and consider preemption of conflicting state mandates that threaten interstate, IP-enabled services and the FCC's carefully calibrated federal framework.

Call to Action: Join the Coalition and participate in future advocacy

The Consumer Access & Choice Coalition is continuing to expand its advocacy efforts to ensure that small, consumer-focused service providers are not regulated out of existence under the banner of robocall mitigation.

If you are a similarly-situated provider, particularly a consumer-oriented, nomadic VoIP provider, reseller, or other communications service provider concerned about the FCC's direction in this proceeding, now is the time to get involved.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.