Federal Trade Commission Comment to the Federal Communications Commission Supporting the FCC’s Proposed Expansion of Provider-Based Call-Blocking Authority in Order to Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls

1
Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20554
In the Matter of
Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful
Robocalls
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CG Docket No. 17-59
FCC 16-39
To: 	The Federal Communications Commission
Date: 	July 3, 2017
Comment of the Federal Trade Commission
INTRODUCTION
American consumers continue to be plagued with unwanted and illegal telemarketing
calls. The Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) extensive study of this problem and its
vigorous law enforcement efforts have shown that law enforcement alone cannot completely
solve the problem of illegal calls. Rather, the illegal call problem will require technological
solutions, and robust call-blocking technology is an integral part of those solutions.
In 2016, industry came together to form the Robocall Strike Force (“Strike Force”), the
purpose of which is to “accelerate the development and adoption of new tools and solutions to
abate the proliferation of illegal and unwanted robocalls,” to promote consumer choice over the
calls they receive, and to make recommendations on how government can help in these efforts.1
The Strike Force noted that, while several providers and third parties offer call-blocking
products, there is no widespread call-blocking solution spanning the networks.2 In order to
provide proactive call-blocking services to customers, the Strike Force sought clarification from
the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) that “blocking presumptively illegal calls is
one of the tools carriers are permitted to use to provide consumers additional relief.”3 In
1 ROBOCALL S TRIKE FORCE , ROBOCALL S TRIKE FORCE REPORT, at 1 (2016) [hereinafter “S TRIKE FORCE REPORT I”],
available at https://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/Robocall-Strike-Force-Final-Report.pdf.
2 Id.
3 STRIKE F ORCE REPORT I, supra note 1, at 40.

2
response, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) and Notice of Inquiry
(“NOI”) on Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls.4
The NPRM seeks comment on rulemaking proposals that would authorize two categories
of provider-based call blocking: (1) when the subscriber to a particular telephone number
requests that calls originating from that number be blocked; and (2) when the originating number
is invalid, unallocated or unassigned.5 The NOI also seeks information on how best to authorize
providers to block “presumptively illegal” calls.6
The FTC has long been a proponent of provider-based call-blocking services as a critical
tool to reduce unwanted calls and robocalls.7 Stopping illegal calls before they reach a consumer
is the most efficient way to protect a consumer’s privacy and to prevent telemarketing fraud.
Importantly, provider-based blocking has the potential to stop illegal calls from reaching all end-
users, regardless of whether they have a mobile device, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
service, or a traditional landline telephone. The FTC supports the NPRM’s proposed expansion
of provider-based call-blocking authority and offers comment in response to specific questions
raised regarding unwanted calls and other consumer protection concerns.
I. 	PROVIDER-BASED CALL BLOCKING IS INTEGRAL TO SOLVING
THE PROBLEM OF ILLEGAL CALLS.
Illegal telemarketing calls remain a significant consumer protection problem because they
repeatedly disturb consumers’ privacy and frequently market fraudulent goods and services that
cause significant economic harm. An increasing number of complaints to the FTC demonstrate
continued consumer frustration—in 2015, the FTC received over 3.6 million Do-Not-Call
complaints, 2.2 million of which involved a robocall.8 In 2016, those numbers continued to
climb, and the FTC received over 5.5 million Do-Not-Call complaints, over 3.4 million of which
involved a robocall.9 The 2016 complaint totals represent a 49% increase over total Do-Not-Call
4 Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of
Inquiry, CG Docket No. 17-59, FCC 17-23 (released Mar. 23, 2017) [hereinafter “NPRM”], published in 82 Fed.
Reg. 22625 (May 17, 2017). The Notice of Inquiry is part of the NPRM. We sometimes refer to the NOI separately
from the NPRM within the text in the interest of clarity.
5 NPRM, supra note 4, at ¶ 11.
6 NPRM, supra note 4, at ¶¶ 27-28.
7 See e.g., FTC Staff, Comments Before the Federal Communications Commission on Public Notice DA 14-1700
Regarding Call Blocking, CG Docket No. 02-278; WC Docket No. 07-135 (Jan. 23, 2015), available at
https://www.ftc.gov/policy/policy-actions/advocacy-filings/2015/01/ftc-staff-comment-federal-communications-
commission; Letter from Chairwoman Edith Ramirez to the Honorable Charles E. Schumer (April 5, 2016)
(promoting carrier adoption of widespread call-blocking technology).
8 See infra Attachment A.
9 Id. The average total number of Do-Not-Call complaints per month in 2016 was 459,207, and among these were an
average of 290,734 complaints about robocalls.

3
complaints filed in 2015.10 And the complaints are not letting up: in four of the first five months
of 2017, the FTC received more than 600,000 Do-Not-Call complaints each month and 61% of
the monthly complaints—over 300,000—involve robocalls. Illegal calls are, by far, the largest
category of complaints that the Commission receives from consumers.11
The FTC has undertaken vigorous law enforcement efforts against those making illegal
calls. The FTC has brought 131 law enforcement actions against more than 750 companies and
individuals that the agency alleged were responsible for placing billions of unwanted
telemarketing calls to consumers in violation of the Do-Not-Call provisions of the Telemarketing
Sales Rule.12 The FTC has obtained more than $1.5 billion in judgments against these violators
and banned many of them from making robocalls in the future. As just one recent example, in
January 2017, the Commission filed two lawsuits, FTC v. Ramsey and FTC v. Jones, which shut
down operations responsible for billions of illegal robocalls that bombarded consumers with
pitches for home security systems and extended auto warranties.13 The agency also has
spearheaded coordinated law enforcement initiatives targeting illegal robocalls.14
Increasing levels of Do-Not-Call complaints and rising levels of consumer frustration,
however, make clear that the FTC’s law enforcement efforts alone cannot completely solve the
10 See Id. From October 2013 to September 2014, the FTC received an average of 261,757 Do-Not-Call complaints
per month, of which approximately 55% (144,550 per month) were complaints about robocalls. See National Do
Not Call Registry Data Book FY 2014 at 5 (Nov. 2014), available at
http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/national-do-not-call-registry-data-book-fiscal-year-
2014/dncdatabookfy2014.pdf.
11 See Consumer Sentinel Network Data Book for January –December 2016 at 2 (Mar. 2017), available at
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/consumer-sentinel-network-data-book-january-december-
2016/csn_cy-2016_data_book.pdf (“The Consumer Sentinel Network (CSN) contains more than 13 million
complaints dating from calendar year 2012 through calendar year 2016. (In addition, the CSN contains over 20
million Do-Not-Call complaints from this same time period.)”).
12 Among these law enforcement actions, 45 cases focused on companies and individuals collectively responsible for
many billions of illegal robocalls. A listing of recent actions the FTC has taken against violators of the Do-Not-Call
provisions, including those sending out illegal robocalls can be found at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-
resources/do-not-call-registry/enforcement and https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/do-not-call-
registry/robocalls (last visited June 7, 2017).
13 FTC v. Ramsey, 9:17-cv-80032-KAM (S.D. Fl. Jan. 13, 2017), available at
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/132-3254/justin-ramsey; FTC v. Jones, 8:17-cv-00058 (C.D. Fl.
Jan. 13, 2017), available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/152-3152/allorey-inc.
14 See, e.g., Press Release, FTC, Florida Attorney General Take Action Against Illegal Robocall Operation (June 14,
2016), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/06/ftc-florida-attorney-general-take-action-
against-illegal-robocall; Press Release, FTC Leads Joint Law Enforcement Effort Against Companies that Allegedly
Made Deceptive “Cardholder Services” Robocalls (Nov. 1, 2012), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-
events/press-releases/2012/11/ftc-leads-joint-law-enforcement-effort-against-companies; Press Release, FTC
Settlements Put Debt Relief Operations Out of Business (May 26, 2011), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-
events/press-releases/2011/05/ftc-settlements-put-debt-relief-operations-out-business; Press Release, FTC Sues to
Stop Robocalls with Deceptive Credit Card Interest-Rate Reduction Claims (Dec. 8, 2009), available at
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2009/12/ftc-sues-stop-robocalls-deceptive-credit-card-interest-rate.

4
growing problem of illegal telemarketing calls. Existing technology makes it inexpensive and
easy for callers to make an enormous number of calls from anywhere in the world for little cost
while remaining anonymous. Comprehensive technological solutions are required, and call-
blocking technology is an integral part of that technological solution.
To spur innovation and potential technological solutions, the FTC led four public
challenges to tackle unlawful robocalls.15 Those contests challenged the American public to
develop innovative methods to block calls, to create a “honeypot” to gather data on calls, to
analyze honeypot data, and to develop algorithms to predict robocalls. The winner of the first
Robocall Challenge, a product called “NomoRobo,” has blocked over 239 million calls, is being
offered directly to consumers by a number of telecommunications providers, and is now
available as an app on iPhones.16 The challenges demonstrated that call-blocking technology is
viable, scalable, and capable of working in a real-world setting.17
Consumers will benefit from the widespread availability of provider-based call-blocking
solutions. Congress has long recognized that consumers should be free from abusive telephone
calls that impinge on consumers’ privacy,18 and better call-blocking technology would satisfy
strong consumer demand for a solution to curb the barrage of unwanted calls.19 In addition,
widespread call blocking has the potential to drive up costs for illegal telemarketing operations
and thus reduce the economic incentive to make illegal calls. Currently, the cost of placing large
numbers of calls is so low that illegal calling operations can blast out millions of calls but still
make a profit by making sales to the small fraction of call recipients who agree to purchase the
purported goods or services offered. Call-blocking technology, if implemented on a widespread
basis, could reduce revenues for illegal telemarketing operations, thereby making it more
difficult to operate profitably.
15 For more information on the FTC’s four public challenges, see https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-
releases/2013/04/ftc-announces-robocall-challenge-winners (describing the first FTC Robocall challenge);
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/contests/zapping-rachel (describing the Zapping Rachel challenge);
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/contests/detectarobo (describing the Detectarobo challenge);
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/contests/robocalls-humanity-strikes-back (describing the Robocalls: Humanity
Strikes Back challenge).
16 See https://www.nomorobo.com (last visited June 7, 2017) and ROBOCALL STRIKE FORCE , ROBOCALL S TRIKE
FORCE REPORT, at 17-18 (April 28, 2017), available at https://www.fcc.gov/file/12311/download.
17 See also Comments of Matt Stein at FTC Robocall Summit (Oct. 18, 2012), Tr. at 218-227, available at
www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_events/robocalls-all-rage-ftc-
summit/robocallsummittranscript.pdf.
18 See 15 U.S.C. 6102(a)(3) (directing the Federal Trade Commission to include in the Telemarketing Sales Rule
provisions prohibiting telemarketers from “undertaking a pattern of unsolicited telephone calls which the reasonable
consumer would consider coercive or abusive of such consumer’s right to privacy”).
19 Consumers have registered more than 226 million telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry and
expressed their affirmative choice to stop unsolicited telemarketing calls—consumer demand for a stop to these calls
is high. See National Do Not Call Registry Data Book FY 2016 at 3 (Dec. 2016), available at
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/national-do-not-call-registry-data-book-fiscal-year-
2016/dnc_data_book_fy_2016_post.pdf.

5
II. 	DEFINING ILLEGAL CALL
As a threshold matter, the FCC seeks comment on how to define the term “illegal
robocall” for purposes of the NPRM.20 The FCC’s tentative proposal is to adopt the definition
recommended by the Strike Force: “an ‘illegal robocall’ is one that violates the requirements of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, the related FCC regulations implementing the
Act, or the Telemarketing Sales Rule, as well as any call made for the purpose of defrauding a
consumer, prohibited under a variety of federal and state laws and regulations, including the
federal Truth in Caller ID Act.”21 The FTC supports the proposed definition.
The FCC may also wish to consider broadening the term “illegal robocall” to “illegal
call.” As the definition conveys, the problematic calls here are not limited to just robocalls, but
also abusive, fraudulent, or unlawful calls that are “live.” As noted above, while the majority (60
percent) of Do-Not-Call complaints the FTC receives each month are about robocalls, “live”
calls still generate hundreds of thousands of complaints each month—provider-based blocking
would not be complete without the ability to block illegal “live” calls that target numbers
registered on the Do-Not-Call Registry. Further, one of the largest categories of Do-Not-Call
complaints that the FTC receives are impostor calls. In approximately one-third of those
complaints,22 consumers have indicated the call was not a robocall. Expanding the defined term
to include all illegal calls would allow providers to block campaigns of “live” calls that are
determined to be unlawful.23
III. 	NPRM BLOCKING PROVISIONS
A. 	Blocking at the Request of the Subscriber to the Originating Number
The FTC supports the FCC’s proposal to codify the Public Notice issued by the FCC’s
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau on September 30, 2016 that authorized voice
service providers to block calls using a spoofed Caller ID number if requested by the subscriber
to that number.24 The FTC concurs that, where the subscriber to the originating number did not
consent to their number being spoofed to make outgoing calls, there is a high likelihood both that
the call is made with the intent to defraud and that no reasonable consumer would want to
20 NPRM, supra note 4, at ¶ 13.
21 Id.
22 On September 28 2016, the FTC updated its Do-Not-Call complaint intake process to provide a drop-down list of
possible call categories for consumers to choose from and provided the category “calls pretending to be government,
business, or family or friends” to capture impostor calls.
23 In addition, the NPRM questions whether the proposed definition of “illegal robocall” might be too narrow and
precludes providers from blocking calls that are not lawful because they are prohibited by an anti-stalking law or a
court order. NPRM, supra note 4, at ¶ 13. Calls that violate an anti-stalking law or court order would likely be
covered by the proposed definition because they would be “prohibited under a variety of federal and state laws and
regulations,” but such calls are also likely to be “live” calls, not just robocalls.
24 NPRM, supra note 4, at ¶ 14.

6
receive such a call. FTC staff worked with a major provider and federal law enforcement
partners to help block IRS scam calls that were spoofing well-known IRS telephone numbers.
The widespread adoption of that practice through the Strike Force’s Do Not Originate trial saw
nearly a complete cessation of attempts to use the blocked IRS telephone numbers by the
scammers. Allowing blocking at the request of the subscriber can be particularly useful for
inbound only numbers such as the IRS telephone numbers that were being spoofed.
The FTC has also received requests for guidance from businesses whose telephone
numbers have been spoofed and has received Do-Not-Call complaints from consumers whose
telephone numbers are being spoofed and used in a scam, leading to multiple return calls from
the individuals targeted by the scam. Short-term blocking of calls made from the spoofed phone
numbers could provide relief to businesses and individuals who are affected. This type of
blocking would be most effective and have the least amount of negative impact on consumers, if
providers could isolate and block calls spoofing a subscriber’s Caller ID, while allowing the
subscriber’s legitimate calls to go through. Analysis of whether the spoofed calls originate from
a different provider or take a distinct path across the network would be helpful. The FTC
encourages providers to communicate to their subscribers that they can request this type of
blocking if their telephone number is being spoofed and establish a process to verify and grant
such requests.25
The FCC also seeks comment on issues related to information sharing by providers to
best effectuate subscriber requests to block their numbers, particularly what measures, if any, the
FCC should consider to facilitate providers’ sharing such requests with other providers.26 The
FTC concurs that information sharing by providers at the subscriber’s request appears to be
consistent with the FCC’s Customer Proprietary Network Information (“CPNI”) rules. In
addition, when a subscriber requests that a provider block the subscriber’s number because of
unlawful spoofing, the subscriber is almost certainly seeking to have the number blocked by as
many providers as possible. Accordingly, the FTC supports providers’ interpreting a request
from a subscriber to block outbound calls from the subscriber’s number as a request for the
provider to share information, consistent with the CPNI rules, with other providers for
widespread blocking.
B. 	Blocking Invalid, Unallocated or Unassigned Numbers
In response to a request from the Strike Force for the FCC to clarify that provider-based
blocking is permissible where the call purports to originate from a number that the provider
knows to be unassigned, the NPRM proposes three categories of unassigned numbers that
providers are authorized to block.27 Those categories are: 1) numbers that are invalid under the
North American Numbering Plan (NANP), including numbers with unassigned area codes; 2)
25 The FTC would work to provide consumer guidance to ensure that consumers are aware of the blocking options
and related assistance available to them from their providers.
26 NPRM, supra note 4, at ¶ 15.
27 NPRM, supra note 4, at ¶ 16.

7
numbers that have not been allocated by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator
(NANPA) or the National Number Pool Administrator (PA) to any provider; and 3) numbers that
the NANPA or PA has allocated to a provider, but the provider has not currently assigned to a
subscriber (collectively “unassigned” numbers).28 The FTC supports the NPRM’s proposal to
authorize provider-based blocking of all three “unassigned” categories—use of these numbers is
a strong indication that the calling party is spoofing the Caller ID to make an unlawful call as
part of an effort to defraud a consumer.
The FTC further supports providers’ sharing information about these “unassigned”
numbers to facilitate call blocking. In response to the FCC’s question regarding whether it
should mandate that providers share information about “unassigned” numbers to facilitate
appropriate call blocking,29 the FTC urges the FCC to consider methods to encourage maximum
provider-participation in such sharing.
The FCC also seeks comment on whether end-user consumer consent is necessary for
provider-based blocking of unassigned numbers.30 The FTC supports the FCC’s proposal not to
require providers to obtain an opt-in from consumers to block these categories of calls and agrees
it is highly unlikely that consumers would want to receive calls purporting to be from unassigned
or invalid numbers.
While the FTC strongly supports expansion of provider-based blocking, we are also
mindful of minimizing any possible collateral effects to consumers from these efforts. As the
NPRM notes, Caller ID spoofing of unassigned numbers is often done to make illegal—and in
many instances fraudulent—calls. Blocking these numbers may drive up the costs incurred by
callers using unassigned numbers to make illegal calls and reduce the ease with which they can
spoof Caller IDs. Experience tells us, however, that the fraudsters and telemarketers who make
illegal calls are likely to regroup and devise another tactic to call consumers. Increased blocking
of unassigned numbers could result in increased spoofing of valid telephone numbers. When a
scammer spoofs a legitimate telephone number, the consumer or business which subscribes to
that number can be bombarded by return calls and complaints. Providers must be ready to assist
individuals and businesses whose telephone numbers may be unlawfully spoofed by providing
clear guidance regarding what to do if this happens and prompt action to resolve the issue.
Examples of actions providers could take include temporarily blocking calls purporting to
originate from the subscriber’s number or blocking calls that appear to originate from the
subscriber’s number that do not originate from the subscriber’s carrier.
28 The NPRM would enable providers to block calls purporting to originate from these “unassigned” categories
based on the number’s “unassigned” status and would not require a request from a subscriber.
29 NPRM, supra note 4, at ¶ 22.
30 NPRM, supra note 4, at ¶ 25.

8
IV. 	NOTICE OF INQUIRY QUESTIONS REGARDING “PRESUMPTIVELY
ILLEGAL” CALLS
In the NOI, the FCC indicates a willingness to authorize provider-based blocking of
illegal calls on a wider basis than the categories outlined in the NPRM and calls for the
development of “objective standards that would indicate to a high degree of certainty that a call
is illegal.”31 The NOI pointed to the NPRM categories of unassigned numbers as an example of
the type of objective standards the FCC is seeking for determining a reasonably high degree of
certainty that a call is illegal.32 The NOI also seeks comment on whether to adopt a safe harbor
to give providers certainty that they will not be found in violation of the call completion and
other FCC rules when they engage in provider-based blocking.33
A. 	Effective Call-Blocking Requires Flexibility
The FTC urges the FCC to allow for flexibility in developing standards to guide provider-
based blocking of “presumptively illegal” calls. Determining whether a call is likely illegal is a
dynamic process that can require analyzing multiple sets of available data, making reasonable
judgments based on current and past data, adjusting analysis to stay ahead of illegal call tactics,
and continual development of new techniques to detect illegal calls.34 This dynamic process
necessitates giving providers a measure of flexibility, which can be difficult to capture through a
fixed set of objective standards. In addition, and as the NOI acknowledges in its discussions
regarding possible safe harbor provisions, the standards should not serve as a roadmap for the
makers of illegal calls to circumvent provider call blocking.
Accordingly, the FTC encourages the FCC to consider developing flexible standards
incorporating the requisite level of due diligence it expects the providers to engage in before
blocking a call, rather than a set of rigid standards. For example, the FCC could require that to
be eligible for any safe harbor for blocking presumptively illegal calls, providers must develop
an internal protocol that relies on multiple data points for flagging a presumptively illegal call, is
managed by a dedicated team, and includes an effective mechanism to address inadvertent
blocking of legitimate callers.
31 NPRM, supra note 4, at ¶¶ 27-28.
32 NPRM, supra note 4, at ¶ 28.
33 Id.
34 The Strike Force presented examples of efforts that providers undertake as part of this dynamic process to
determine if a call is illegal, including: “soliciting and reviewing information from other carriers, performing
historical and real time call analytics, making test calls, contacting the subscriber of the spoofed number, inspecting
the media for a call (audio play back of the Real Time Protocol stream to understand the context of the call), and
checking customer complaint sites.” S TRIKE FORCE REPORT I, supra note 1, at 40.

9
B. 	Determining Legality of Telemarketing Robocalls
In seeking input on standards for provider-based blocking, the NOI seeks comment on
whether some methods more accurately identify illegal calls than other methods.35 One category
of illegal calls—telemarketing robocalls—can be identified with a relatively high degree of
certainty. Under the Telemarketing Sales Rule, telemarketing robocalls are illegal unless the
company has the consumer’s express written consent to receive robocalls from that specific
caller.36 Because the overwhelming majority of consumers do not knowingly consent to receive
robocalls, legitimate telemarketing operations cannot use robocalls on a widespread basis
without violating the law.37 Any of the methods used to determine if a call is part of a large-
scale robocall campaign, combined with verification from consumer complaint data that the
subject of the calls is telemarketing sales, can be used to identify illegal telemarketing robocalls
with a high degree of certainty.
C. 	Protections for Legitimate Callers
The NOI seeks comment on ensuring protections for legitimate callers whose calls are
inadvertently blocked through enhanced provider-based call blocking. The FTC supports
requiring providers to develop clear and specific procedures to address complaints from
individuals and businesses whose calls are inadvertently blocked. The FTC, however, urges the
FCC to be cautious in establishing a mechanism, such as a white list, to address concerns set
forth in the NOI such as “high-volume callers that properly obtain prior express consent [who]
might run afoul of call-per-minute restrictions even though all calls made are legal.”38 As
explained above, from FTC staff’s experience, there are very few telemarketing sales robocall
campaigns in which the caller has obtained prior express written consent and white lists for
telemarketers making sales calls or lead generation calls would require providers to assess the
consent the caller purportedly obtained from the call recipient. Cross-referencing the subject
matter of the calls described in consumer complaints should help providers to avoid blocking
robocalls that do not violate the TSR, such as political calls, survey calls, pure informational
calls, charitable donation calls to current and past donors, and business-to-business calls.39
35 NPRM, supra note 4, at ¶ 30.
36 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(v).
37 Both the TSR and the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
(“TCPA”) prohibit telemarketing robocalls to residential or wireless lines, unless the caller has the express prior
written consent of the call recipient. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(v); 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1200(a)(1)-(3). The TCPA also
requires consent for calls that fall outside the scope of the TSR’s robocall provisions, such as all charitable calls to
wireless numbers and all non-sales robocalls to wireless lines. Compare 16 C.F.R. § 310 with 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.
38 NPRM, supra note 4, at ¶ 37.
39 As noted above, calls that do not violate the TSR may still violate the TCPA.

10
CONCLUSION
The FTC supports the FCC’s efforts to facilitate an expansion of provider-based call
blocking to curb illegal telemarketing. The suggestions provided in this comment are intended to
assist with this facilitation, while being mindful of the potential consequences that might arise
from increased call blocking. The FTC stands ready to provide further information and
assistance as needed.

ATTACHMENT A

CY 2015 and CY 2016 DNC & Robocall Complaints: By Month
Calendar Year 	2015
Month 	Jan 	Feb 	Mar 	Apr 	May 	Jun 	Jul 	Aug 	Sept 	Oct 	Nov 	Dec
Number of DNC
Registry
Complaints 	282,833 	285,063 	339,126 	341,163 	301,065 	300,195 	322,865 	316,044 	315,073 	312,017 	297,305 	292,337
Number of DNC
Prerecorded
Calls
Complaints 	169,592 	170,046 	203,169 	206,054 	177,082 	174,890 	194,336 	187,173 	188,320 	188,748 	167,258 	176,533
Percentage of
DNC
Prerecorded
Calls
Complaints 	60% 	60% 	60% 	60% 	59% 	58% 	60% 	59% 	60% 	60% 	60% 	60%
Calendar Year 	2016
Month 	Jan 	Feb 	Mar 	Apr 	May 	Jun 	Jul 	Aug 	Sept 	Oct 	Nov 	Dec
Number of DNC
Registry
Complaints 	374,507 	439,500 	486,410 	464,708 	511,017 	514,725 	484,584 	623,464 	557,660 	368,586 	341,351 	343,969
Number of DNC
Prerecorded
Calls
Complaints 	234,641 	276,042 	311,415 	295,422 	325,943 	329,598 	313,153 	416,914 	365,947 	218,897 	196,978 	203,863
Percentage of
DNC
Prerecorded
Calls
Complaints 	63% 	63% 	64% 	64% 	64% 	64% 	65% 	67% 	66% 	59% 	58% 	59%

CY 2015 and CY 2016 DNC & Robocall Complaints: Totals and Monthly Average
CY-2015 	CY-2016
Total # of DNC Complaints 	3,687,080 	5,510,481
Total # of Pre Recorded Call
Complaints 	2,203,198 	3,488,813
Average # of DNC Complaints per
month 	307,257 	459,207
Average # of Pre Recorded Call
Complaints per month 	183,600 	290,734