Just last week the FCC announced the agenda for the upcoming April meeting on the 28th. During the meeting, the commission will review for consideration a couple of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), and two stood out to me.
First is considering an NPRM centered around Caller ID authentication for non-IP networks to block robocalls.
The FCC summarized the NPRM as, “proposes to develop a framework for evaluating whether non-IP caller ID authentication solutions are developed and reasonably available, as required by the TRACED Act, proposes to conclude that certain existing solutions satisfy those requirements, and proposes to require that providers that continue to rely on non-IP networks implement non-IP caller ID authentication solutions.”
The NPRM would aim to set in motion the following items:
- Propose to establish criteria for evaluating whether non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks are developed, reasonably available, and effective, as required by the TRACED Act.
- Propose to conclude, applying those criteria, that frameworks based on two existing non-IP caller ID authentication standards meet the TRACED Act’s requirements, and seek comment on frameworks based on a third standard.
- Propose to repeal the continuing extension from caller ID authentication requirements granted to providers that rely on non-IP technology.
- Propose to require that voice service providers, gateway providers, and non-gateway intermediate providers implement non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks in their non-IP networks and certify in their Robocall Mitigation Database filings that they have implemented such frameworks.
- Propose to give providers that continue to rely on non-IP technology two years from the effective date of the rules to implement one or more non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks, and seek comment on how the proposed
The second is an NPRM to clarify foreign ownership rules, summarized by the FCC “that would set clear expectations about the Commission’s review under section 310(b) of the Act of foreign investment in common carrier wireless, aeronautical radio, and broadcast licensees to reduce unnecessary burdens on industry while continuing to protect the public interest, including national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy.”
The fact sheet states the FCC has already adopted many of the practices outlined in the NPRM but has not codified them as legal rules. The NPRM is seeking to “codify definitions and concepts underlying the foreign ownership rules and practice and to streamline our review processes.”
The NPRM is hoping to clarify and codify the following for both broadcasters and common carrier licensees:
- Propose to codify existing policy regarding which entity is the controlling U.S. parent;
- Propose to codify the Commission’s advance approval policy regarding certain deemed voting interests;
- Propose to require identification of trusts and trustees;
- Propose to extend the remedial procedures and methodology to privately held companies;
- Propose to add requirements regarding the contents of remedial petitions;
- Seek comment on requiring the filing of amendments as a complete restatement to petitions for declaratory ruling;
- Propose to clarify U.S. residency requirements; and
- Seek comment on other potential opportunities to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens in the context of our foreign ownership review under section 310(b) of the Act.
It will be interesting to see if these two both move forward, we will be tuning in. You can check out the FCC meeting agenda here.