FTC Staff Comment Before the Federal Communications Commission On Public Notice DA 14-1700, Regarding the Issues Relating To Carrier Implementation of Call-Blocking Technology

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Federal Trade Commission
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580
Bureau of Consumer Protection
Bureau of Economics
January 23, 2015
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12 th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
Re: 	CG Docket No. 02-278; WC Docket No. 07-135;
Federal Trade Commission Staff’s Comments on Public Notice DA
14-1700 Regarding Call Blocking
Dear Secretary Dortch:
The Federal Trade Commission staff (“FTC staff”)1 appreciates the opportunity to
comment on the issues relating to carrier implementation of call-blocking technology, as raised
in the September 9, 2014 letter from the National Association of Attorneys General (“NAAG
Letter”). The FCC’s Notice2 seeks comment on whether there are any legal or regulatory
prohibitions that prevent telephone carriers from offering consumers call-blocking technology –
i.e., technology that can identify unwanted calls and block them from ringing consumers’
phones. As discussed in more detail below, it is the FTC staff’s view that no legal barriers or
policy considerations prevent common carriers from offering technology that allows their
customers to block unwanted calls.
American consumers continue to be plagued with unwanted telemarketing calls, which in
many cases violate the law. The FTC’s extensive study of this problem and its vigorous law
enforcement efforts have shown that law enforcement alone cannot solve the problem of illegal
calls. Rather, technological solutions are needed, and call-blocking technology is an integral part
of those solutions. Congress has long recognized that consumers should be free from abusive
1 These comments represent the views of the staff of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of
Consumer Protection, Bureau of Economics, and Office of Policy Planning. The letter does not
necessarily represent the views of the Federal Trade Commission or of any individual
Commissioner. The Commission has, however, voted to authorize staff’s submission of these
comments.
2 Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks Comment on Robocalls and Call-Blocking
Issues Raised by the National Association of Attorneys General on Behalf of Thirty-Nine
Attorneys General, DA 14-1700 (Nov. 24, 2014) (“FCC/CGB Public Notice”).

-2-
telephone calls that impinge on consumers’ right to privacy,3 and call-blocking technology
would satisfy strong consumer demand for a solution that will stop the barrage of unwanted calls.
An FCC ruling affirming that common carriers can offer call-blocking services to their
customers without violating their common carriage obligations is likely to make call-blocking
technology more widely available to consumers. Such a ruling will allow common carriers to be
more responsive to consumer demand and join other entities that already offer these services;
will increase the likelihood that major US telephone carriers develop and actively market call-
blocking technology to their large customer bases; will allow consumers who value this option to
select telephone providers that offer call-blocking services; and will facilitate competition and
innovation among carriers, as well as non-carriers, for new and better call-blocking technologies.
Ultimately, widespread availability and use of call-blocking technology will substantially reduce
the number of unwanted and illegal telemarketing calls received by consumers.
I. 	Call-Blocking Technology Is Integral To Solving the Problem of Illegal Calls.
The FTC’s complaint data indicates that consumers are barraged with a large volume of
unwanted telemarketing calls, many of which are calls that deliver a recorded message
(“robocalls”).4 The volume of consumer complaints about illegal telemarketing calls,
particularly illegal robocalls, has increased significantly in the past five years.5 This increase is
largely due to technological advancements. Although new technology has brought consumers
lower cost telephone service and more advanced features for their telephones, these same
advancements have allowed violators to use the Internet to place large volumes of illegal calls
inexpensively, often from overseas, and in a manner that allows them to hide from law
enforcement.
The FTC has undertaken vigorous law enforcement efforts against those making illegal
calls. To date, the FTC has filed law enforcement actions against more than 600 companies and
3 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”).
4 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.
5 For example, in the fourth quarter of 2009, the FTC received approximately 63,000 complaints
about illegal robocalls each month. See National Do Not Call Registry Data Book FY 2010 at 5
(Nov. 2010), available at http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/national-do-
not-call-registry-data-book-fiscal-year-2010/101206dncdatabook.pdf. By the fourth quarter of
2012, robocall complaints had peaked at more than 200,000 per month. See National Do Not
Call Registry Data Book FY 2012 at 5 (Oct. 2012), available at
http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/national-do-not-call-registry-data-book-
fiscal-year-2012/1210dnc-databook.pdf.

-3-
individuals that were allegedly responsible for placing billions of unwanted telemarketing calls
to consumers in violation of the Do-Not-Call provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Rule.6 The
FTC has obtained more than $1 billion in judgments against these violators and intends to
continue these law enforcement efforts.
Experience has shown, however, that the FTC’s law enforcement efforts alone cannot
stop the growing problem of illegal telemarketing calls because current technology makes it
inexpensive and easy for callers to make lots of calls and effectively hide from law enforcement.
Based on FTC staff’s extensive study of the problem, the FTC has concluded that technological
innovations are a critical component of the long-term solution to protecting consumers from such
illegal telemarketing calls. Call-blocking technology – i.e., a “spam filter” for the phone – is an
integral part of that technological solution.
In 2012, the FTC hosted a Robocall Summit on the problem of illegal robocalls that
brought technical experts together to discuss the challenges and potential solutions to the
problem.7 To spur innovation and potential technological solutions, the FTC sponsored a
Robocall Challenge at the 2012 Summit, 8 in which the FTC offered prizes to innovators who
could develop technology that could analyze and block illegal robocalls. The FTC announced
three winners in 2013,9 and one of those winners has already launched a service that is providing
free call blocking for consumers.10 The 2012 Robocall Challenge demonstrated that call-
blocking technology is viable, scalable, and can work in a real-world setting to protect
consumers from unwanted calls.
Consumer demand for call-blocking technology is high. In the past year, the FTC
received an average of 261,757 complaints per month about unwanted telephone calls,11 which
indicates substantial consumer frustration with the problem. Since launching in October 2013,
Nomorobo, one of the winners of our 2012 Robocall Challenge, reports that it already has
6 A listing of recent actions the FTC has taken against illegal telemarketers can be found at
http://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/legal-
resources?title=&type=case&field_consumer_protection_topics_tid=236&field_industry_tid=All
&field_date_value[min]=&field_date_value[max]=&sort_by=field_date_value.
7 Materials, agendas, and presentations from the 2012 FTC Robocall Summit can be found at
http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2012/10/robocalls-all-rage-ftc-summit.
8 Press Release, FTC, FTC Challenges Innovators to Do Battle With Robocallers (Oct. 18,
2012), available at http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/10/ftc-challenges-
innovators-do-battle-robocallers.
9 Press Release, FTC, FTC Announces Robocall Challenge Winners (Apr. 2, 2013), available at
http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/04/ftc-announces-robocall-challenge-
winners.
10 See Nomorobo, http://www.nomorbo.com.
11 See supra note 4.

-4-
150,000 subscribers for its free call-blocking service.12 Primus, a Canadian telephone carrier that
offers a free call-blocking service to its customers, reports that the service is extremely popular
with its customers and is “one of the leading reasons that customers choose to keep their phone
service with Primus.” 13 Simply put, call blocking is a service consumers want.
The widespread availability of call-blocking technology to consumers will make a
significant dent in the problem of unwanted telephone calls. First and foremost, the availability
of the technology will give consumers the opportunity to be free from unwanted calls.
Consumers have already registered over 217 million telephone numbers on the National Do Not
Call Registry and expressed their affirmative choice to stop unsolicited telemarketing calls.14
Call blocking technology would go further by giving frustrated consumers a technological tool
they can use to stop unwanted calls. In addition, call-blocking technology 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 volumes 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 goods or services offered. Call-
blocking technology, if implemented on a widespread basis, has the potential to drive up costs or
reduce revenues for illegal telemarketing operations, which may, in turn, drive some illegal
calling operations out of business.15
12 Ben Fisher, Nomorobo: A Tiny Long Island Startup In The Middle Of A Big Fight In
Washington, N.Y. Bus. J., Oct. 2, 2014,
http://www.bizjournals.com/newyork/blog/techflash/2014/10/nomorobo-tiny-long-island-startup-
in-the-middle-of.html?page=all.
13 Stopping Fraudulent Robocall Scams: Can More Be Done?: Hearing Before the Subcomm.
on Consumer Protection, Prod. Safety, and Ins. of the S. Comm. on Commerce, Sci, and Transp.,
113th Cong., S. Hrg. 113-117, at 45 (July 10, 2013) (statement of Matthew Stein, Chief
Technology Officer, Primus Telecommunications Inc.) available at
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113shrg85765/pdf/CHRG-113shrg85765.pdf.
14 See National Do Not Call Registry Data Book FY 2014 at 4 (Nov. 2014), available at
http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/national-do-not-call-registry-data-book-
fiscal-year-2014/dncdatabookfy2014.pdf.
15 Call-blocking technology is unlikely to have a material impact on companies that are engaged
in legal telemarketing. Currently, call-blocking technology is designed to stop telemarketing
robocalls. Under the Telemarketing Sales Rule, however, telemarketing robocalls are illegal
unless the company has the consumer’s express written consent to receive robocalls from the
caller. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(v). 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.

-5-
II. 	Carriers Can Offer Call-Blocking To Customers Who Request the Service Without
Violating Their Common Carriage Obligations.
Despite the strong consumer interest in call-blocking and the promise it shows in
combatting the problem of unwanted calls, to date carriers have resisted offering call-blocking
services to their large customer bases. As indicated in the NAAG letter, US Telecom, the trade
association that represents land-line carriers, has stated in congressional testimony its view that
“[t]he current [FCC] legal framework simply does not allow [phone companies] to decide for the
consumer which calls should be allowed to go through and which should be blocked,” and that
“the FCC has concluded that call blocking is an unjust and unreasonable practice under section
201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934.” FTC staff disagrees with this characterization of
the FCC’s rulings. To the contrary and as set forth in the FCC/CGB Public Notice, past FCC
rulings “recognize the right of individual end users to block incoming calls from unwanted
callers” and acknowledge that “call-blocking services, including those provided by common
carriers, are lawful” in some circumstances.16
The cases relied on by US Telecom address the FCC’s prohibition on a
telecommunications common carrier’s blocking traffic to or from another carrier or service
provider – a practice that results in customers not receiving calls they want to receive. Those
cases do not address whether a carrier may block calls at a consumer’s request.17 FTC staff is
unaware of any authority that prohibits carriers from blocking unwanted incoming calls at an end
user’s request.
To the contrary, numerous authorities recognize a carrier’s ability to block telephone
calls at a consumer’s request. For example, as the Public Notice points out, FCC orders
addressing improper call blocking have included caveats that those orders have “no effect on the
right of individual end users to choose to block incoming calls from unwanted callers.”18
Moreover, the D.C. Circuit recently noted that an entity subject to common carrier obligations
may block unwanted incoming communications “to . . . end users if those end users so desire”
without violating the general duty of common carriers not to block traffic. 19 Furthermore, as
correctly noted in the FCC Notice, carriers already offer a variety of call-blocking services to
16 FCC/CGB Public Notice at 3 & n. 7-12.
17 See, e.g., Connect America Fund, FCC 11-161, Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 17663, 17903,
¶ 734 (2011), aff’d, 753 F.3d 1015 (10th Cir. 2014); Call Blocking by Carriers, Declaratory
Ruling & Order, 22 FCC Rcd 11629, 11629, ¶ 1 (Wireline Competition Bur. 2007) (“2007
Declaratory Ruling”); Blocking Interstate Traffic in Iowa, 2 FCC Rcd 2692 (1987). See
generally Rural Call Completion, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 1569, 1572-73,
¶¶ 7-11 (2013) (summarizing anti-blocking decisions).
18 FCC/CGB Public Notice at 3 & n. 7 (citing 2007 Declaratory Ruling, 22 FCC Rcd at 11632,
¶ 7 & n. 21, and Connect America Fund, 26 FCC Rcd at 18029, ¶ 973, n.2038).
19 Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623, 656-57 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (the fact that the Open Internet rules
included “a limited exception permitting end users to direct broadband providers to block certain
traffic by no means detract[ed] from the common carrier nature of the obligations [improperly]
imposed on broadband providers”) (emphasis in original).

-6-
their customers, and none of those services have been deemed by the FCC to be unlawful. For
example, carriers offer customers “Selective Call Rejection” (*80) to block calls from phone
numbers on a customer-specified list; “Anonymous Call Rejection” (*77) to block calls that lack
Caller ID identifying information;20 and “Selective Call Acceptance” (*64) to block all calls
except those from a specified list of phone numbers.21 Call-blocking services that block
unwanted robocalls at the request of the end-user are analogous to these call-blocking services
already offered by carriers, and FTC staff is unaware of any authority holding that any of these
services violate common carriage obligations.
In addition, allowing carriers to offer call-blocking services to their customers is
consistent with the underlying policies of the Do-Not-Call and robocall regulations set forth in
both the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule 22 and the FCC’s own Telephone Consumer Protection
Act regulations.23 Both agencies’ Do-Not-Call and robocall regulatory schemes are built on the
principle of consumer choice – namely, that consumers should be able to determine who can and
cannot contact them by telephone. Call-blocking technologies are simply a tool that gives
consumers the means to exercise more effectively their right not to receive certain types of calls.
III. 	Current Limitations in Call-Blocking Technology Should Not Prevent Consumers
From Having Access to Those Services.
Although our 2012 Robocall Challenge demonstrated that call-blocking technology is
viable, that technology as it exists today is not perfect. Existing call-blocking technology can
potentially block some calls that consumers want to receive or can require legitimate callers to
take extra steps 24 to connect to a call recipient. In addition, current call-blocking technology
20 See FCC/CGB Public Notice at 3, n. 9 (citing In re Telecommunications Relay Services and
Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, 19 FCC Rcd
12475, 12508, ¶ 74 (2004)).
21 More information about these codes can be found at the North American Numbering Plan
Association’s website. See NANPA Vertical Service Codes – Code Definitions,
http://www.nanpa.com/number_resource_info/vsc_definitions.html (last visited Dec. 15, 2014).
22 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B) & (v).
23 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a) & (c).
24 For example, Nomorobo presents potential robocallers with an audio captcha that requires the
caller to enter a two-digit code on their phone to get through to the call recipient. Robocallers
are unable to enter the captcha and are therefore blocked, but live callers who get stopped by the
Nomorobo call-blocking filter can enter the two-digit code to get through.
Similarly, under Primus’s call-blocking system, callers who are blocked hear a message inviting
them to press 1 to record their name, so that their call can be announced to the party they are
calling. After the caller records their name, the Primus system calls the call recipient, advises
them that they have received a potential telemarketing call, and plays the recording provided by
the caller. The customer then has the choice to accept the call, refuse the call, or send the call to
voicemail. Stopping Fraudulent Robocall Scams: Can More Be Done?: Hearing Before the
Subcomm. on Consumer Protection, Prod. Safety, and Ins. of the S. Comm. on Commerce, Sci,
and Transp., 113th Cong., S. Hrg. 113-117, at 45 (July 10, 2013) (statement of Matthew Stein,

-7-
typically blocks calls based, in part, on the caller ID information that is presented with the call.
Under existing caller ID technology, however, illegal callers can falsify the caller ID number that
accompanies their outbound calls in order to bypass call-blocking filters, which allows some
unwanted calls to ring consumers’ phones even if they are subscribed to a call-blocking service.
The fact that current call-blocking technology is not perfect, however, does not prevent
telephone carriers from being able to offer this technology to their customers. Call-blocking
solutions can mitigate the risk of missing wanted calls in several ways, such as by allowing
blocked callers to leave a voicemail for the call recipient or enter a code on their phone to have
their calls go through, or enabling call recipients to specify in advance a list of calling numbers
that should not be blocked. 25 So long as providers of call-blocking services provide accurate
disclosures to consumers when they sign up for these services that certain calls they want to
receive may be blocked, consumers can decide for themselves whether to risk the disruption of
those calls. Ultimately, if a call-blocking service blocks too many calls consumers want to
receive, the market will address the issue as call-blocking providers will either have to improve
their technology or risk losing subscribers.
Indeed, the fact that call-blocking technologies in their current form cannot block all
unwanted calls should not prevent consumers from having the choice to use the technology. Just
as an e-mail spam filter does not block all unwanted emails, current call-blocking technology
cannot block 100% of unwanted calls either. Nonetheless, current call-blocking technologies
have shown the ability to block a significant volume of unwanted calls.26 So long as consumers
are given accurate information when they sign up for a carrier’s call-blocking service that the
service will not stop all unwanted calls, consumers can decide whether they want a service that
will block many, but not all, unwanted calls. Given the continued popularity of email spam
filters that do not block 100% of all spam emails, it is likely that analogous call-blocking
services will similarly be popular with consumers even if they are not immediately perfect. In
fact, consumers who use existing call-blocking technologies have indicated their satisfaction
with the services, even though they may not block all unwanted calls.27
Finally, it is important to note that call-blocking technology is still in its relative infancy.
FTC staff continues to build on the momentum of its 2012 Robocall Challenge and spur
Chief Technology Officer, Primus Telecommunications Inc.) available at
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113shrg85765/pdf/CHRG-113shrg85765.pdf.
25 See supra note 24.
26 Since going live on October 1, 2013, Nomorobo reports that it has blocked more than 13
million robocalls. See Nomorobo, https://www.nomorobo.com (last visited Dec. 15, 2014).
27 For example, Primus reports that its internal surveys of customers who use its call-blocking
service indicate that customers are satisfied with the service and the service is one of the leading
reasons customers stay with Primus instead of switching to another phone carrier. See Stopping
Fraudulent Robocall Scams: Can More Be Done?: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Consumer
Protection, Prod. Safety, and Ins. of the S. Comm. on Commerce, Sci, and Transp., 113th Cong.,
S. Hrg. 113-117, at 45 (July 10, 2013) (statement of Matthew Stein, Chief Technology Officer,
Primus Telecommunications Inc.) available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-
113shrg85765/pdf/CHRG-113shrg85765.pdf.