Improving Customer Service and Protecting Consumers Through Onshoring

Document Headings

Document headings vary by document type but may contain the following:

1. the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
2. the number of the CFR title and the number of each part the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly related to
3. the agency docket number / agency internal file number
4. the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

See the Document Drafting Handbook for more details.

Federal Communications Commission

1. 47 CFR Parts 8, 25, 64 and 76
2. [CG Docket Nos. 26-52, 17-59, 02-278, and 22-2; FCC 26-16; FR ID 341337]

AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes actions that would encourage and facilitate the onshoring of foreign call centers. Specifically, the Commission proposes rules and otherwise explore ways to improve customer service communications and better protect consumers' sensitive personal information by limiting use of foreign call centers and by improving standards applicable to a company's remaining foreign call center operations. It also seeks comment on extending these protections to modes of customer service communications other than calls, such as emails, texts, and on-line chats, and on ideas to deter scam and other unlawful calls made to the United States from foreign countries. Finally, it explore steps we can take to financially deter unlawful foreign-originated calls, such as bond requirements. The Commission proposes to apply these requirements to providers of telecommunications services, CMRS, interconnected VoIP service, cable television service, and DBS services, or affiliates of such providers. It also proposes to apply these requirements to the use of foreign call centers for consumer communications relating to internet access service offered by any of the foregoing providers or their affiliates and seeks comment on whether it should extend some or all of the proposed rules to providers of other types of services.

DATES:

Comments are due on or before May 26, 2026 and reply comments are due on or before June 22, 2026.

ADDRESSES:

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments identified by CG Docket Nos. 26-52, 17-59, 02-278, and 22-2 by any of the following methods:

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS): https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,63 FR 24121 (1998).
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing.
• Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
• Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
• Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
• Accessible formats. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) or to request reasonable accommodations ( e.g. accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information about the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM), contact John B. Adams of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-2854 or JohnB.Adams@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CG Docket No. 26-52, Tenth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CG Docket No. 17-59; Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CG Docket No. 02-278; and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CG Docket No. 22-2 ( NPRM); FCC 26-16, adopted on March 26, 2026 and released on March 27, 2026. The full text of this document is available online at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-16A1.pdf.

Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis: The NPRM may contain proposed new and revised information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements described in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act: Consistent with the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, a summary of this document will be available on https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.

Ex Parte Rules: The proceeding the NPRM initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte ( printed page 21762) presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) of the Commission's rules or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must, when feasible, be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format ( e.g.,.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

Synopsis

I. Discussion

We seek comment on actions that would encourage and facilitate the onshoring of foreign call centers. Specifically, we propose rules and otherwise explore ways to improve customer service communications and better protect consumers' sensitive personal information by limiting use of foreign call centers and by improving standards applicable to a company's remaining foreign call center operations. We also seek comment on extending these protections to modes of customer service communications other than calls, such as emails, texts, and on-line chats, and on ideas to deter scam and other unlawful calls made to the United States from foreign countries. Finally, we explore steps we can take to financially deter unlawful foreign-originated calls, such as bond requirements, building on our recent Call Branding NPRM, which sought comment on other ways to identify and stop such calls.

We propose to apply these requirements to providers of telecommunications services, CMRS, interconnected VoIP service, cable television service, and DBS services, or affiliates of such providers. Where we seek comment on applying the proposed rules to providers of other services, the term “providers” includes providers of those services as well. We also propose to apply these requirements to the use of foreign call centers for consumer communications relating to internet access service offered by any of the foregoing providers or their affiliates. We seek comment on this proposal and whether we should extend some or all of the proposed rules to providers of other types of services.

A. Protecting American Consumers

1. Ensuring Quality Customer Service

Consumers often are not satisfied with the customer service they receive from providers that have moved their customer service operations to offshore call centers. We seek comment on measures to address problems with foreign call centers that would apply to inbound calls in addition to outbound calls where we traditionally have focused our consumer protection efforts. Inbound calls easily can become outbound calls, such as when a consumer's call is answered initially by an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system that allows the consumer to choose to have the IVR system hold the consumer's place in line and call the consumer back. And problems, such as communication barriers and protection of sensitive consumer information, exist regardless of whether a consumer calls the provider or the provider calls a consumer.

Establishing English Proficiency Standards. We propose to require providers that use offshore call centers to ensure that all calling staff at those call centers are proficient in both written and spoken American Standard English. We believe that clear communication and mutual understanding is critical to the customer service experience. The ability of both the consumer and the customer service agent to understand one another while discussing consumer concerns is vital to providing meaningful customer service. Consumers often have complex problems that require American Standard English proficiency to understand and resolve. And technical understanding of English often is not enough—so much of communication is tone, idioms, and appreciation of the speaker's culture. The Commission receives numerous consumer complaints that cite a lack of clear and productive communication with foreign call center staff as a reason why their concern was not resolved.

A number of federal regulations contain English proficiency requirements. To implement the Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) program, the Commission itself has adopted operational standards that require language skills. Communications Assistants (CAs) who handle TRS calls must have specific competencies in communicating with people with and without such disabilities. Specifically, CAs must have competent skills in typing, grammar, spelling, American Sign Language (ASL), and familiarity with hearing and speech disability cultures, languages, and etiquette, and must possess clear and articulate voice communications. In short, Communications Assistants must understand the culture and etiquette of consumers and must be proficient in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and signing the languages necessary to do their jobs effectively. While maintaining these standards for Communications Assistants, the Commission has gone further, promoting the use of direct video connections to enhance communication between ASL-using consumers with speech and hearing disabilities and customer service call centers. The regulations governing the direct video and TRS programs reflect the Commission's recognition that communication is clearest when it occurs directly between people with a shared language and common regional and cultural background, and that, absent such direct communication between individuals with a shared language and culture, standards and required competencies are essential to ensure effective communication.

We seek comment on our proposal. Would American Standard English proficiency requirements, including requirements to understand tone, idioms, and culture, promote better customer satisfaction and problem resolution? What steps do providers currently take to ensure the proficiency of their representatives? How do providers currently monitor for both efficient communication during customer service interactions and customer satisfaction? Beyond language proficiency, are there other barriers that providers can mitigate to ensure higher quality customer service and consumer satisfaction?

If we were to adopt such requirements, what criteria should we ( printed page 21763) use to assess compliance, and should the criteria apply to each individual call center employee, or to, e.g., the average test score for a call center? For example, should we require providers to ensure that call center staff pass a test? If so, what type of test? We note that a range of tests is available. Some appear to be targeted at specific areas. For example, and as mentioned above, the OET is tailored for the medical field, the TOEFL is widely used in higher education, and the TOEIC is business- and workplace-oriented. Many of the available tests appear to evaluate listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Are these good tests for our purposes? Do they go beyond just words to test an understanding of culture, for example? Do they include tests of listening, speaking, reading, and writing, or just of some of these facets of English proficiency? Do any of these tests focus on the cultural and idiomatic nuances of American Standard English? Are there other tests that providers currently are using to assess representatives' proficiency in American Standard English? Do representatives need to write in English in order to document a summary of the call in a consumer's account records or for other purposes?

Do providers already test the English proficiency of foreign call center staff? If so, how? Do providers rely on the foreign call centers with which they contract to test or otherwise evaluate the English proficiency of call center staff rather than performing the evaluation themselves? What recourse is available to a provider if a provider receives consumer complaints or otherwise learns that particular staff in a foreign call center are not communicating well with consumers?

Finally, we seek comment on how to address foreign call centers used for communication with non-English speaking U.S. customers. For example, a business might contract with a foreign call center to communicate with its U.S.-based, Spanish-speaking customer base. What American Standard English or other language proficiency standards, if any, should we require for such call centers? Are staff at these call centers required to be bilingual and do they typically take calls in English as well as non-English languages? Do providers have dedicated call centers where representatives only communicate with non-English-speaking customers? Even where call center staff speak with consumers in a language other than English, we believe that staff will need to be proficient in English. For example, we believe that customer account records generally are maintained in English and that scripts and other materials used by call center staff could be written in English. We seek comment on this belief.

Promoting U.S.-Based Customer Service. We propose to limit the percentage of customer service calls that providers may make from or answer at foreign call centers to a specified percentage (excluding any calls that would be subject to any rule we adopt requiring certain types of calls to be handled only at call centers located within the United States). We seek comment on this proposal. Would such a limit effectively address at least some of the concerns associated with foreign call centers, such as customer satisfaction? We believe that such a cap would encourage movement of call center operations back to the U.S. and thus best address our communication and data privacy concerns. We recognize, though, that those changes could come with costs to communications service providers and thus believe this type of cap would help strike a balance between achieving our goals while not imposing undue costs on these companies. Accordingly, we also seek comment on whether we should phase in such a cap over time in recognition of the costs to providers to relocate call centers to the United States, and the capacity, such as availability of staff and facilities, of the domestic marketplace to immediately support call center functions that are relocated to the United States. Are there other concerns that we should consider or other reasons to adopt such an approach? For example, are there other benefits, including to U.S. jobs and the economy, from limiting the percentage of calls to or from their service providers that are handled by foreign call centers?

We seek comment on the total volume of calls providers currently handle ( i.e., make from and receive at) in their call centers globally, including both in-house call centers, i.e., those they operate themselves, and those with which they contract. What percentage of a provider's total volume of calls is handled at call centers located within the U.S. and what percentage is handled in foreign countries? What percentage of total calls is transferred from a foreign call center to a call center located within the U.S. and vice versa? What percentage of total calls is transferred from a foreign call center to a call center located within the U.S. at the request of the customer? In answering these questions regarding percentages of calls, providers are encouraged also to provide quantities of calls. Which providers have a policy of transferring calls from a foreign call center to a call center in the U.S.? If a provider has such a policy, does it disclose the policy at the beginning of each call so that the consumer can request to have the call transferred before discussing the issue that prompted the call?

What percentage would best advance the goal of improving customer satisfaction? For example, would a 30% limit be appropriate? And how should we apply such a metric? For example, if we were to set the limit at 30%, should we allow only 30% of outbound calls to be made from a foreign call center and allow only 30% of inbound calls to be answered at a foreign call center? Or should we assess the percentage across both inbound and outbound calls, as long as the combined percentage for all calls is no greater than 30%? Over what period of time should compliance be measured? For example, should the percentage limit apply annually, quarterly, monthly, or daily?

How should calls subject to the percentage limitation be defined? Should only calls to or from existing customers who already purchase service from the provider be counted? Should the limitation apply, for example, to all calls made to the provider's customer service number or other contact numbers? If a provider has multiple numbers, such as one for general customer service calls, one for sales, and one for customer billing issues, should the limitation apply to all calls made to any of its consumer-facing numbers, or should it apply separately to each of these types of call? Are there particular types of consumer calls where a representative's level of American Standard English proficiency might have a greater impact on ensuring resolution of the issue or customer satisfaction? If so, which types of calls and how should this be factored into establishing a metric?

Finally, do we need to take steps to ensure that providers have sufficient capacity in call centers in the United States to handle the required volume of calls? What should those steps be? Should we phase in this requirement in order to give providers time to transition their call center operations? If so, over what period of time should we require providers to transition their operations? What obstacles will providers face in transitioning their call center operations to comply with this limitation? What costs will providers incur to transition their call center operations? Are there any considerations that uniquely affect smaller providers or those serving rural areas? If so, how should our rules take those considerations into account? ( printed page 21764)

Scope of Covered Calls. In the preceding paragraphs, we seek comment on how to identify and count calls for our proposal to limit the percentage of calls that may be made from or answered at a foreign call center. We now seek comment on how we should define the calls subject to these proposals in general. Should we include only calls to and from a provider's existing customers, such as those regarding service, billing, or account management? Should we include calls related to debt collection, win-back campaigns, or other retention efforts?

Are there categories of calls that should be excluded from these requirements? Should we include calls to or from prospective customers, such as sales or marketing calls? Should the proposals apply to all calls made to consumer-facing numbers a provider uses, such as those for general customer service, billing, or sales? Commenters should address the implications of including or excluding these types of calls, including how it would affect consumer privacy and data security, and how providers could identify and distinguish covered calls from non-covered calls for purposes of complying with the rules.

2. Safeguarding Consumer Choice

Requiring Disclosure of Foreign Call Center Use. We propose to require providers, when making or receiving calls involving a foreign call center, to inform customers at the beginning of each call that it is being handled outside of the United States. We seek comment on this proposal.

We believe it is essential for consumers to know when calls from a provider originate overseas and when calls they make to a provider are answered at a foreign call center. If consumers know they are speaking with a foreign call center, they can take any precautions they believe necessary to address privacy risks— e.g., by refusing to disclose sensitive personal information, demanding satisfactory assurance that such information will be protected effectively, or requesting that the call be transferred to the United States, as discussed below. This also might help consumers identify companies that support American jobs. We seek comment on these beliefs.

If we adopt such a proposal, should we adopt specific text that providers must use in the disclosure? If so, what should that be? Should it differ for calls made from a foreign call center and those answered at or transferred to a foreign call center? Should the disclosure include the name of the country where the call center is located, or additional information? For example, the text of a disclosure might be “This call is being [answered in or made from] [insert name of country]. You have the right to have this call transferred to a representative located in the United States. Do you want to have the call transferred to a U.S.-based representative?” We seek comment on whether providers should be required to make this or an alternative disclosure. Should disclosure be required before an in-progress call is transferred from a domestic call center to a foreign call center? We also seek comment on any First Amendment considerations relevant to our disclosure proposals, consistent with past practice for disclosure requirements.

Establishing a Consumer Right to Transfer to Call Centers in the United States. We propose to require providers, upon consumer request, to transfer calls to a call center located within the United States. This would apply both to calls made from a foreign call center and to calls answered at a foreign call center. We further propose to require providers to ensure that consumers are transferred promptly following a transfer request and to ensure that wait times for transferred calls are no longer than those for calls that in the first instance are routed to a call center located within the United States. We seek comment on this proposal.

We believe our proposal will empower consumers who wish to transact business or otherwise communicate with a provider via representatives located within the United States to do so. Consumers might wish to communicate with provider representatives located within the United States for a variety of reasons, each of which improves customer service and satisfaction. These include reduced language barriers, better legal protections for and security of their sensitive personal information, and support for American jobs, among other things. We seek comment on this belief. Are there other benefits, whether consumer, general societal, or economic, that are likely to result from this proposal?

Should we establish standards for how quickly a foreign call center must complete transfer of a call to a call center in the United States? If so, what standards should we adopt? For example, should we require that providers transfer the consumer to a call center in the United States within a certain number of seconds following the transfer request? How should we determine when a transfer is complete? For example, would transferring the call so that it rings to a call center in the United States be sufficient or only when a representative answers? What if the call drops during transfer?

Finally, we believe providers should inform customers about such a right and thus propose to require it as part of the same disclosure we propose above. We seek comment on that proposal. If we were to adopt it, should we require that the disclosure include information about wait times following transfer, a number to call a U.S.-based call center directly in the event the call gets dropped during transfer, or any other information?

We seek comment on any other factors that we should consider regarding the required disclosures when a call is handled at a foreign call center, the required response to requests that calls be transferred to a call center in the United States, and ensuring that wait times for transferred calls do not unduly burden a consumer's exercise of the right to transfer.

3. Ensuring Compliance

We propose to require providers to track and report to the Commission their compliance with any rules we adopt as a result of our proposals. Providers would report on the American Standard English proficiency of their foreign call center workers; the number or percentage of calls they first route to foreign call centers and U.S. call centers; the number or percentage of calls they transfer to a call center in the United States; associated wait times; and dropped calls, along with any other requirements we adopt in response to this NPRM. We seek comment on this proposal.

If we adopt our proposal, should we require monthly, quarterly, or annual reporting? Why? Should we make such information public? If not, what factors would justify keeping the information from consumers and the public at large? How do those factors compare with the potential benefits of consumers having greater information, including information that enables comparisons, about providers' use of foreign call centers and other customer service metrics? Is there other information associated with these data that we should require providers to report? Should providers separate data by individual foreign call center or foreign country, or aggregate it for all foreign call centers? Is there any reason to separate information by individual call center in the United States? If we require reporting on American Standard English proficiency, what information should providers report? Should we require providers to report other information associated with English ( printed page 21765) proficiency, e.g., complaints or transfer rates for individual foreign call centers or foreign call center staff members, or other metrics?

In what format should reports be made? Should electronic filing be required? If so, is there a particular format, such as an Excel spreadsheet, that should be used for the reports? Are there existing reports or forms that could be modified to include this information and that are sufficiently relevant to the subject matter that it makes sense to use them?

We seek comment on whether cable television providers should file their reports with their local franchising authorities as well as with the Commission and what roles the Commission and local franchising authorities should play in enforcing any rules we adopt as a result of this NPRM. Commenters should address how to achieve consistent enforcement across all providers that would be subject to these rules if the rules are enforced as to cable television providers by local franchising authorities.

We also seek comment on any other reporting, filing, or certification mechanisms for ensuring compliance with any rules we adopt as a result of this NPRM. In particular, we seek comment on whether providers who obtain numbering resources from the North American Plan Numbering Administrator (NANPA) should be required to certify their compliance as a condition of obtaining numbering resources. The Commission's rules already require interconnected VoIP providers, for example, to make certain certifications as a condition of obtaining numbering resources from NANPA.

4. Protecting Consumer Information and National Security

Heightened Consumer Protection for Sensitive Transactions. We propose to require that providers handle certain consumer transactions, such as those involving passwords, multi-factor authentication information, social security numbers, and bank or credit card information, or any combination of this information, only at call centers located within the United States, regardless of the type of communications channel used to initiate the transaction. We propose that this requirement would apply to such transactions regardless of any rule we adopt that would allow a certain percentage of calls to be handled by foreign call centers, such that calls that must be handled at call centers located within the United States would not be included in the percentage calculation. Criminal actors, as well as foreign adversaries, might find particular consumer information, e.g., passwords, multi-factor authentication information, and bank account or credit card information, uniquely useful for exploitation or attack. We thus believe that we should require providers to handle such sensitive customer data solely in U.S.-based call centers and seek comment on this proposal.

Are there other specific types of transactions that providers should handle only at call centers located within the United States? Do providers use different tools to protect sensitive customer information shared over non-call communications, such as on-line chat, texts, and/or electronic mail messages? Do providers send multi-factor security codes, account access codes, or password resets from foreign call centers? And do providers send them via humans or automated systems? Do providers communicate with consumers about other sensitive personal information via these methods? If so, what kinds? Are there other steps providers take to mitigate security risks when offshore representatives are supporting customer service interactions that require personal, financial, or account information? We seek comment on any other factors that we should consider regarding the required handling of certain types of transactions only at call centers in the United States.

We also seek comment on whether we should prohibit providers from making available for access at foreign call centers consumer information, e.g., passwords, multi-factor authentication information, and bank account or credit card information, that might be uniquely useful to bad actors. It is documented that foreign call center staff have accessed consumer information and sold it to criminals. If we were to adopt such a prohibition, what information should be subject to it?

Other Measures to Protect Privacy and Safeguard National Security. Above we describe privacy and data protection concerns arising from the use of foreign call centers, including examples of Commission regulatees failing to prevent abuse of consumer data by employees of foreign call centers, and DOJ's findings that poor control of that data is a national security concern.

We propose to prohibit providers from using call centers located in “foreign adversary” nations. Foreign adversaries pose a present and persistent threat to national security. We believe that entities under the jurisdiction of foreign adversaries are subject to exploitation, influence, or control by foreign adversary governments and that a foreign adversary's ability to exploit, influence, or control the operation of a customer service call center would pose a threat to the privacy of U.S. customers as well as to the ability of the United States to protect its national security. We seek comment on this proposal. To more fully protect U.S. customers and national security, should we, for example, prohibit providers from using any call center, wherever located, that employs citizens or residents of a “foreign adversary” nation?

In addition to our proposals above to require a cap on the fraction of calls providers may handle via foreign call centers, limit certain transactions to domestic call centers, and prohibit providers from using call centers in “foreign adversary” nations, we seek comment on other steps we can take to address our concerns. For example, should we prescribe data protection standards for any country in which a provider wishes to operate a call center? If so, what type of standards should we adopt? Would a general standard such as “data security laws and practices at least as strong as the United States” suffice, or is that too vague? If too vague, what would be a more specific standard consistent with our goals? What types of data protection do providers currently use and could they provide a model for a required standard? In that vein, could we look to recent enforcement consent decrees as a model? Are there other steps we should take?

5. Enhancing Transparency

Broadband Label. We propose to amend our broadband label rule to require providers subject to our broadband label requirements to display in the labels the percentage of customer service calls handled by a call representative located within the United States. The label is a point-of-sale disclosure and thus a natural vehicle to bring transparency to the foreign call center issues we address above.

Would our proposal help consumers of broadband service make informed choices about their providers? If we adopt this proposal, for what time period should we require that the percentage be computed, and how often should providers update the label based on this proposal? What level of precision should we require ( e.g., to the nearest percentage point)? Should providers disclose the actual percentage, or would a minimum percentage suffice? Should providers state a single percentage that includes both inbound and outbound calls, or should they specify separate percentages for inbound and outbound calls? Should ( printed page 21766) the calls counted for purposes of the label be defined differently, in any respect, from how they are defined for purposes of our other proposed rules? For example, for purposes of the label, would it be preferable to limit the calls covered to those placed to or from existing customers?

We propose that this information be added to the existing Customer Support section of the label and placed below the phone number and website information. Would this placement on the label help consumers to better understand this entry and how it might relate to their experience with the provider's customer support services? Should this information be placed in a different location on the label? If so, why?

Transparency for Other Services. Should we require providers of non-broadband services that would be covered by our proposed rules to make available on their websites the same information regarding the percentage of customer service calls handled in foreign call centers?

Consistent with past practice for disclosure requirements, we seek comment on any First Amendment considerations relevant to our transparency proposals. We also seek comment on whether there are other potential transparency requirements that could inform consumers and empower marketplace forces to improve customer satisfaction with providers' call centers. What are the relative advantages or disadvantages of such approaches in this context, where current business practices might reflect the legacy of decisions originally made during times when competition was less prevalent?

6. Potential Further Steps

Other Communications Channels. Should we apply all of our proposed rules ( i.e., not just those related to sensitive transactions, as discussed above) to non-voice communications such as on-line chat, texts, and/or electronic mail messages? Consumers regularly use on-line chat, texts, and email to communicate with providers. Do our concerns about American Standard English proficiency and data security apply to these forms of communication as well as calls? How frequently do providers communicate with consumers via text messages, electronic mail messages, or on-line chat using staff in foreign countries? How does that compare to similar communications sent from, read at, or responded to from locations within the United States? Are there other types of communications, such as video conferencing, to which we should consider applying the proposed rules?

Other Communications Providers. We seek comment on whether we should apply our proposals to “stand-alone” providers of non-interconnected VoIP and other internet-only providers, including providers that provide only stand-alone internet access service, to the extent that we have legal authority to do so. Are there any relevant differences between interconnected and non-interconnected VoIP regarding consumer experience with the use of foreign call centers for customer service and other communications, such that we should not apply the same rules to interconnected and non-interconnected VoIP, to the extent that we have legal authority to do so? Are there any such relevant differences between internet access service provided by stand-alone providers versus internet access provided by other entities offering internet access alongside other services, such as telecommunications service providers and cable television service providers? If so, what are they? Are there any other providers or services to which these proposals or other requirements upon which we seek comment should apply?

Establishing Standards and Procedures for Other Calls Originating From Outside of the United States. We seek comment on whether and to what extent we should establish standards and/or procedures regulating certain foreign-originated calls and texts subject to the TCPA. Section 227(c) of the Act requires the Commission to prescribe methods and procedures for protecting residential telephone subscribers' privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they object. Further, Section 227(d) requires the Commission to establish technical and procedural standards for systems that transmit artificial or prerecorded voice messages via telephone.

Should we extend some or all of our proposals to all calls covered by sections 227(c) and (d) of the Act that originate outside the United States, not just calls on behalf of the types of providers already discussed? We seek comment on whether section 227(c)'s aim to protect residential subscribers supports applying our above proposals to calls from foreign call centers. And does section 227(d)'s authority to establish technical standards for covered calls also give us such authority? For instance, should we require that foreign callers making telephone solicitations disclose that such calls and/or messages originate from outside of the United States? Should we establish American Standard English proficiency standards for telephone solicitations made by foreign callers? Should we require that foreign callers transmitting artificial or prerecorded voice messages disclose that such calls originate from outside of the United States and offer to transfer the call—then do so upon request—to a domestic call center? We seek comment on these questions, as well as any other proposals for protecting consumers from telephone solicitations and/or artificial- and prerecorded- voice messages made from outside of the United States.

Tracking Consumer Complaints. As an aid to enforcement, and to enable the Commission to better assess the types of issues consumers are encountering with respect to customer service and call centers, we further propose to direct the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, and other staff as necessary, to establish mechanisms within our informal complaints system that allow efficient tracking of consumer complaints related to call centers and customer service. We invite comment on this proposal and how it can be most effectively and efficiently implemented.

7. Alternative Approaches

We seek comment on alternative approaches to our proposals above. Commenters should explain the alternative approach, how it addresses the problems we have described, and how it would be less burdensome, less costly, or more effective than our main proposals. Commenters should explain how the alternative improves customer service and better protects sensitive consumer data, and to whether it does so for all or just some providers or services. Commenters should provide real-world examples demonstrating the alternative's value and discuss how any current or new technologies, including AI, are used in the alternative approach or could affect it. Are there other pro-competitive incentives that can be implemented to improve customer service?

B. Increasing the Cost of Unlawful Calls Originating From Outside of the United States

Foreign scammers and their co-conspirators in the United States rob consumers of hundreds of millions of dollars each year, costing some their life savings. There is an obvious need to take the profit out of these calls and we seek comment on how to do so. Specifically, we seek comment on using government-imposed fees on illegal traffic or bond requirements as a way to make illegal calls expensive enough to deter them in the first place. Commenters should address policy ( printed page 21767) considerations, international agreements, legal authority, the logistics of how a fee or bond requirement could be structured, applied, and collected, and any other factors we should consider.

Under a fee-based approach, how would unlawful calls subject to a fee be identified, and how would the fee be collected? How should fees be calculated, and what amount would be effective at reducing the quantity of unlawful calls entering the United States from foreign countries?

If the Commission were to adopt a bond-based approach, how should a requirement to post a bond apply here? For instance, the House version of the Foreign Robocall Elimination Act bill would require providers to post a bond to file in the RMD. Should we adopt the same or similar approach here? Alternatively, should we require providers that are the subject of one or more traceback requests or whose filings were removed from the RMD as part of an enforcement action to post a bond? Should we instead require providers that accept “mass” voice and/or text traffic from international sources to post a bond? If so, how should we define “mass” voice or text traffic? Are there circumstances under which an existing filer should be required to post a bond in order for its certification to remain in the RMD? Providers that are required to post a bond might pass the cost of such a bond onto its foreign customers, thus potentially reducing the number of such calls.

How and under what circumstances would the bond be drawn upon? For example, could the bond be used to satisfy any future Commission enforcement action related to unlawful calls, other types of government enforcement actions, or civil liabilities? Further, for example, if the Commission were to issue a forfeiture order against a provider, should the bond be used to satisfy the forfeiture amount after a successful recovery action under 47 U.S.C. 504(a) such that the provider then would have to pay the balance, if any, through other means?

Alternatively, would it technically be feasible to establish a mechanism whereby some portion of the bond is drawn each time that a consumer reports receiving an unlawful robocall? How can we ensure that the bond draw-down is consistent with constitutional due process and the requirements of the Act? How would it work and who would manage the bond draw-down process? Which reports of unlawful robocalls would trigger a draw: those filed with the Commission, those filed with the Federal Trade Commission, those filed with state Attorney General offices? Should consumers instead be able to report unlawful calls directly from their device during the call and could those reports be used to trigger a bond draw down? Can device-based reporting be shared with the terminating provider? If so, would terminating providers seek the bond draw from the ultimate gateway provider or intermediate providers directly, or would terminating providers file reports with the entity administering the bonds on a periodic cadence?

Which provider's bond would be drawn upon and how could that particular provider be identified, especially if a provider other than the terminating provider were deemed the one to pay? Should the entity administering the bond draws distinguish between unlawful and simply unwanted calls that are reported, and how would it do so? Such a system might be prone to overuse, such as by aggrieved consumers who abuse the system by making numerous fraudulent reports in order to cause financial harm to their provider. Are safeguards from overuse needed? If so, what should the safeguards entail? Should providers be permitted to dispute draws? Who would hear those disputes and what evidence would be required? Who bears the burden of proof in such disputes? Should there be a threshold of reported unlawful robocalls at which a gateway provider would surrender the entire bond automatically? If so, what should the threshold be?

We seek comment on these possible approaches and on alternatives. Could they be effective at stopping harmful calls? Should we apply a bond requirement to all foreign providers, to international gateway providers, or any other providers that transmit calls from foreign countries to the United States? How much should such a bond be? Should it vary by type or size of provider? Should a provider be required to deposit the full amount of the bond or be permitted to purchase a surety bond? If we were to permit surety bonds, should we require them to comply with requirements similar to those in § 25.165(a) and (b) of our rules? What should happen if a bond were drawn upon? For example, how long should the provider have to replenish the bond or should the provider be prohibited from providing service until the bond is replenished? Who would administer a bond program and who would be the beneficiary? We seek comment on whether there are any statutory or other barriers to adopting and implementing a bond requirement. For example, should bonds be viewed as a type of “forfeiture penalty” or “forfeiture” under the Communications Act, and if so, do sections 503 or 504 of the Act mandate certain procedural requirements prior to the Commission collecting on a bond in certain circumstances?

We seek comment on alternative approaches to a bond requirement. Commenters should explain the alternative approach, including how it addresses the problems we have described, and how it would be more effective than the alternatives discussed herein. Are other countries successfully using bonds or shared liability models to reduce robocalls? If so, how are those regimes working?

C. Legal Authority

We seek comment on our authority to adopt these proposals and on our authority regarding other actions on which we seek comment above.

1. Authority To Adopt Regulations Concerning the Use of Foreign Customer Service Operations

We seek comment on our authority to adopt rules, such as those proposed above, governing the use of foreign customer service operations by providers of telecommunications service, CMRS, interconnected VoIP service, cable television service, and DBS, or affiliates of such providers, and internet access services each provides, including pursuant to sections 4(i), 201, 202, 217, 222, 227, 251, 301, 303, 316, 332, 335, 631, and 632 of the Act. We also seek comment on our authority to include in the broadband label disclosures regarding the percentage of customer service calls a broadband provider handles abroad.

Telecommunications Carriers. We seek comment on the extent to which section 201(b) of the Act provides authority for application of our proposed rules to telecommunications carriers' communications with current or prospective customers. Section 201(b) provides that all practices of common carriers in connection with interstate or foreign communication service shall be just and reasonable, and provides broad authority to the Commission to “prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this chapter.” The Commission and the courts have broadly construed the term “practice” and the phrase “in connection with . . . communication service” to include a wide range of practices that directly implicate a carrier's furnishing of communication services, including payment or non-payment of compensation to payphone ( printed page 21768) owners, failure to follow Commission-ordered settlement practices, deceptive marketing, and the formation of exclusive contracts with commercial building owners.

Do a carrier's practices in communicating with its own customers and prospective customers on the matters commonly handled by consumer call centers—such as billing, service outages, service quality, account management, and marketing, including answering customers' calls in a timely fashion, communicating effectively in American Standard English, ensuring customer service representatives are equipped to resolve service issues, and safeguarding customers' personal information—likewise bear directly on the provision of service to customers and fall within our section 201(b) authority? In addition, does the widespread perception that the customer service practices of foreign call centers are frequently unreasonable in these respects provide a basis under section 201(b) to require disclosure of foreign call handling and the transfer of calls to the United States upon request, as well as the other proposed requirements discussed above? Does our authority under section 201(b) include the authority to protect customer privacy regarding sensitive customer data that may not fall within the specific definition of CPNI under section 222 of the Act— e.g., by handling such phone transactions only at call centers located within the United States?