Proposed Rule2026-07960
Improving Customer Service and Protecting Consumers Through Onshoring
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 23, 2026
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 78 (Thursday, April 23, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 78 (Thursday, April 23, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21761-21775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-07960]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 8, 25, 64 and 76
[CG Docket Nos. 26-52, 17-59, 02-278, and 22-2; FCC 26-16; FR ID
341337]
Improving Customer Service and Protecting Consumers Through
Onshoring
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 Sec. Sec. 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:
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS): <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>. See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
<bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#680e0b0b5d585c280e0b0b460f071e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6f090c0c5a5f5b2f090c0c41080019">[email protected]</span></a> 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
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#713b1e191f335f3015101c02311712125f161e07"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f8b2979096bad6b99c99958bb89e9b9bd69f978e">[email protected]</span></a>.
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 <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-16A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-16A1.pdf</a>.
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 <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings">https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings</a>.
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
[[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 Sec. 1.1206(b)
of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by Sec. 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
[[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?
[[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
[[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
[[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
[[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 Sec. 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
[[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?
Section 222 grants the Commission specific authority to adopt
regulations to ensure that carriers ``protect the confidentiality of
proprietary information of, and relating to . . . customers,''
including customer proprietary network information (CPNI), which is
defined as:
(A) information that relates to the quantity, technical
configuration, type, destination, location, and amount of use of a
telecommunications service subscribed to by any customer of a
telecommunications carrier, and that is made available to the carrier
by the customer solely by virtue of the carrier-customer relationship;
and
(B) information contained in the bills pertaining to telephone
exchange service or telephone toll service received by a customer of a
carrier; except that such term does not include subscriber list
information.
Does section 222 provide authority for our proposals to promote
U.S.-based customer service, to require heightened protection of
sensitive transactions, to allow customers to request U.S.-based
customer-support representatives, to prohibit providers from using call
centers in ``foreign adversary'' nations, and to adopt other
regulations discussed above to help protect sensitive customer
information, including CPNI of telecommunications carriers' customers?
Does section 251(e) of the Act provide additional authority to
adopt the rules proposed herein? Section 251(e) grants the Commission
exclusive jurisdiction over those portions of the North American
Numbering Plan that pertain to the United States and directs the
Commission to create or designate an impartial entity to administer
telecommunications numbering and to make such numbers available on an
equitable basis.
CMRS Providers. Pursuant to section 332 of the Act, our Title II
authority applies to providers of CMRS as well as to wireline
telecommunications carriers providing interstate and foreign
communications. Does our Title II authority, as discussed above with
regard to telecommunications carriers, extend to applying our proposals
to CMRS providers? Furthermore, does our ``broad authority'' under
Title III, particularly the authority of the Commission to
``[p]rescribe the nature of the service to be rendered by each class of
licensed stations and each station within any class,'' provide
authority for our proposals regulating the customer-service practices
of CMRS providers? We seek comment on the applicability of particular
provisions of Title III, including but not limited to sections 301 and
316, to authorize the Commission to impose such requirements.
Interconnected VoIP Service Providers. The Commission has
previously found that it has authority to apply CPNI protections to
interconnected VoIP service providers pursuant to section 222 of the
Act and the Commission's Title I ancillary jurisdiction. The Commission
found that interconnected VoIP services fall within the Commission's
subject matter jurisdiction under the Act. The Commission also found
that the application of CPNI rules to interconnected VoIP service is
reasonably ancillary to the effective performance of the Commission's
Title II responsibilities, because: (1) interconnected VoIP service
``is increasingly used to replace analog voice service'' (a trend that
continues to be the case); (2) it seems reasonable for American
consumers to expect that their telephone calls are private irrespective
of whether the calls are handled by a carrier or an interconnected VoIP
provider; and (3) the CPNI of interconnected VoIP customers includes
call detail information concerning all calling and called parties,
including customers of telecommunications carriers and CMRS providers,
so that by protecting the CPNI of interconnected VoIP customers, the
Commission will more effectively protect the privacy of carrier
customers.
Do these considerations equally support the exercise of ancillary
jurisdiction in this rulemaking to protect the privacy of
interconnected VoIP service customers and telecommunications service
customers by including interconnected VOIP service providers within the
scope of the rules proposed above to increase the use of U.S.-based
call centers, to require that sensitive transactions be handled in such
call centers, to require disclosure when foreign call centers are used,
and to allow customers to request the transfer of calls to U.S.-based
call centers? Are such requirements necessary to ensure compliance with
the requirements of section 222 and the Commission's implementing rules
to protect the CPNI of customers of telecommunications and
interconnected VoIP services, and thus ``necessary in the public
interest to carry out'' section 222 of the Act?
Does section 251(e) give the Commission authority to condition
interconnected VoIP service providers' access to telephone numbers on
those providers' compliance with the requirements proposed above? The
Commission previously exercised its authority under section 251(e) to
ensure, for example, that an interconnected VoIP provider receiving
direct access to numbers ``possesses the financial, managerial, and
technical expertise to provide reliable service.'' Will ensuring that
interconnected VoIP providers, as well as telecommunications carriers,
protect sensitive consumer data when conducting customer service calls
from foreign call centers help to maintain competitive neutrality and
ensure that consumers' expectations are met regarding the privacy of
their information when using the telephone network?
PII Protection. Do we have authority, pursuant to the statutory
provisions discussed above, to adopt rules to prevent foreign call
centers operated by or on behalf of telecommunications carriers, CMRS
providers, or VoIP service providers, from misusing customers'
personally identifiable information (PII) when handling customer
service calls relating to internet access service provided by such
carriers, CMRS providers, or VoIP service providers or their
affiliates? We also seek comment on the merits and
[[Page 21769]]
applicability of the Sixth Circuit's recent holding that section 201(b)
of the Act, which requires that carrier practices ``in connection
with'' a communication service shall be just and reasonable,
independently authorizes the Commission to adopt data protection rules
that may go beyond the specific requirements and scope of section 222
of the Act.
Cable Television Operators. Section 632(b) of the Act expressly
grants the Commission authority to ``establish standards by which cable
operators may fulfill their customer service requirements,'' and
provides further that ``such standards shall include, at a minimum,
requirements governing . . . service calls'' and ``communications
between the cable operator and the subscriber.'' In 1993, the
Commission adopted customer service requirements for cable operators
regarding matters specified by Congress. The Commission declined to
adopt broader standards at that time, but reserved the right to revise
and supplement the standards to ensure that customer service
satisfaction is achieved nationwide. Do the regulations proposed herein
to safeguard customers' personal information and to ensure customer
service representatives are equipped to resolve service issues fall
within the Commission's authority to adopt ``requirements governing . .
. service calls'' or ``communications between the cable operator and
the subscriber''?
In addition, section 631(c) expressly provides that ``a cable
operator shall not disclose personally identifiable information
concerning any subscriber'' without prior consent and ``shall take such
actions as are necessary to prevent unauthorized access to such
information by a person other than the subscriber or cable operator.''
We seek comment on whether this provision also supports rules
addressing foreign call center use and related data protection measures
in order to enhance the existing customer service protections. Does
this legal authority extend to personally identifiable information
regarding subscribers to internet access service offered by a cable
operator? Section 631(a)(2)(c) defines ``cable operator,'' for purposes
of section 631 (other than subsection (h)), to include ``any person who
(i) is owned or controlled by, or under common ownership or control
with, a cable operator, and (ii) provides any wire or radio
communications service.'' Accordingly, a ``cable operator'' for
purposes of Section 631 is not limited to an entity that provides
``cable service''; rather, it includes ``any person'' owned by a cable
operator that provides ``any wire or radio communications service.'' We
therefore seek comment on the extent to which a cable operator or its
affiliate that provides internet access is providing a ``wire or radio
communications service'' and would qualify as a ``cable operator'' as
defined in section 631(a)(2)(C). Section 631(c)(1) states that ``a
cable operator shall not disclose personally identifiable information
concerning any subscriber . . . .'' Does this mean that a cable
operator for purposes of section 631(c) is an entity that provides
``any wire or radio communications service'' (not just cable) and, as
such, cannot disclose the personally identifiable information of ``any
subscriber'' (not just cable)? Do other provisions of section 631
further support such an interpretation?
Does the Commission have authority to take direct enforcement
action, should it choose to do so, to ensure that cable television
operators comply with the proposed rules? Although enforcement of the
Act's cable television provisions generally is handled by local
franchising authorities, the Commission has broad enforcement authority
under the Act. Is there anything in section 632 of the Act or its
legislative history that precludes the Commission from enforcing its
own standards?
DBS Providers. Section 303(v) of the Act grants the Commission
``exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the provision of direct-to-home
satellite services,'' and section 335(a) authorizes the Commission to
impose ``public interest or other requirements'' for providing video
programming. Does this authority encompass customer service standards
and related privacy practices? Would the regulations proposed herein
serve the public interest by requiring DBS providers in ``providing
video programming'' to safeguard customers' personal information and to
ensure customer service representatives are equipped to resolve service
issues? Do we also have authority under other provisions of Title III
to adopt these rules for DBS providers, including sections 301, 303(b),
307, and 316? Further, we seek comment on whether we have--and should
exercise--ancillary authority under section 4(i) of the Act to extend
our customer service requirements to DBS providers. We also seek
comment on whether there are alternative or additional statutes or
arguments that provide a legal basis for our authority for the proposed
requirements for DBS providers.
Broadband Label. Section 60504 of the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act directed the Commission to adopt regulations requiring ``the
display of broadband consumer labels, as described in the Public Notice
of the Commission issued on April 4, 2016 (DA 16-357), to disclose to
consumers information regarding broadband internet access service
plans.'' The referenced public notice had approved, with modifications,
the consumer broadband labels proposed by the Commission's Consumer
Advisory Committee (CAC), which, according to the public notice,
provide ``a simple-to-understand format describing the key factors
consumers need to know when considering broadband service.'' including
information or links to information on prices and fees, performance,
network management practices, privacy policy, and a customer service
phone number and web page.
We seek comment on whether section 60504 authorizes our proposed
inclusion of information about a provider's use of foreign customer
service call centers in the required label content. Would sections 13
and 257 of the Act, section 254 of the Act (in the case of services
provided pursuant to the Commission's universal service programs), and
the Commission's Title III licensing authority (in the case of mobile
broadband providers) provide additional authority for this proposed
rule? If, in addition, we were to require providers of other (non-
broadband) services covered by our proposed rules to disclose on their
websites the same information regarding their use of foreign customer
service call centers, would the various statutory provisions discussed
in the previous paragraphs (with respect to telecommunications service,
CMRS, interconnected VoIP service, cable television service, and DBS)
provide authority?
Actions of Agents. Do we have legal authority to hold covered
service providers responsible for the actions of companies or
organizations that operate foreign call centers on their behalf? We
note that for common carriers and users of carrier services, section
217 of the Act expressly states:
In construing and enforcing the provisions of this chapter, the
act, omission, or failure of any officer, agent, or other person acting
for or employed by any common carrier or user, acting within the scope
of his employment, shall in every case be also deemed to be the act,
omission, or failure of such carrier or user as well as that of the
person.
The Commission has observed that ``Congress's clear intent in
enacting section 217 was to ensure that common carriers not flout their
statutory duties by delegating them to third parties.'' The Commission
has stated further that
[[Page 21770]]
a carrier's liability for the conduct of agents or contractors extends
to actions within the scope of their employment that are contrary to
the carrier's policies, for ``[t]o hold that [s]ection 217 does not
extend to independent contractors acting inconsistently with the
carrier's policy would create a loophole in the requirements of the Act
and frustrate clear legislative intent.'' We seek comment on how these
precedents inform the scope of our authority under section 217.
Further, the Commission has stated that ``under long established
principles of common law, statutory duties are nondelegable and that
employers are routinely held liable for breach of statutory duties by
their independent contractors.'' Thus, the Commission has consistently
found that ``[l]icensees and other Commission regulatees are
responsible for the acts and omissions of their employees and
independent contractors.'' Do these precedents provide authority for
our proposals, independently of our authority under section 217?
National Security. Do the national security risks raised by foreign
call centers' access to personal data of U.S. citizens provide a basis
to adopt the rules proposed above, including, for example, our proposal
to prohibit covered service providers from using call centers or
customer service representatives located in ``foreign adversary''
nations? We note that a principal purpose of the Act is to provide for
national defense. In exercising its Title II and III authority to
authorize the construction and transfer of telecommunications
facilities and radio stations, the Commission exercises special
vigilance to prevent risks to national security, including risks
arising from a company's access to sensitive data. Moreover, with
respect to international telecommunications services, we have the right
under the General Agreement on Trade in Services to enforce ``the
protection of the privacy of individuals in relation to the processing
and dissemination of personal data and the protection of
confidentiality of individual records and accounts'' and protect our
citizens from ``deceptive and fraudulent practices.'' We also note
that, under the Protecting Americans' Data from Foreign Adversaries Act
of 2024, disclosure of ``personally identifiable sensitive data'' of a
U.S. individual to any entity controlled by a foreign adversary is
treated as an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the Federal
Trade Commission Act. Analogously, would the Commission have authority
to prohibit, as an unreasonable practice in connection with
communication service, the use by a carrier, CMRS provider, or
interconnected VoIP service provider of a call center located in a
foreign adversary country?
We seek comment on these potential sources of authority and on any
additional sources of authority supporting the application of our
proposed rules to the types of service providers described above. We
also seek comment on our statutory authority to apply the proposed
foreign call center customer service and information protection rules
to other communications services offered to consumers, including non-
interconnected VoIP, internet access services, and data services
offered in conjunction with both CMRS and direct broadcast satellite
services. Further, we seek comment on how our rights under other trade
agreements, including free trade agreements, might serve as authority
for our proposed rules.
Authority Under the TCPA. We also seek comment on our authority
under the TCPA to adopt the proposed rules. For example, section 227(c)
expressly authorizes the Commission to adopt rules that ``implement
methods and procedures'' to ``protect residential telephone
subscribers' privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone solicitations
to which they object.'' The Commission has adopted implementing rules,
including the establishment of a database of residential subscribers
objecting to telephone solicitations. Would this provision authorize
the Commission to adopt a rule that requires foreign callers making
telephone solicitations to disclose and provide to the consumer an
opportunity to specifically object to receiving such solicitations and
messages from outside of the United States? Would it authorize the
Commission to adopt American Standard English proficiency standards for
telephone solicitations made from foreign call centers to residential
telephone subscribers in the United States?
As another example, section 227(d) directs the Commission to
``prescribe technical and procedural standards for systems that are
used to transmit any artificial or prerecorded voice message via
telephone,'' including a requirement that artificial or prerecorded
messages state certain information about the caller. Would this
provision support a requirement that an artificial or prerecorded
message specify, at the beginning of the message, that the call center
is foreign? Would this provision also support a requirement to offer to
transfer a call--then do so upon request--to a domestic call center?
To the extent that the TCPA confers independent authority on the
Commission to prohibit or regulate certain practices of foreign call
centers, may the Commission impose liability for such practices on the
service provider or other entity that authorizes a foreign call center
to engage in such practices? The Commission has specifically ruled that
a seller may be held vicariously liable under federal common law
principles of agency for violations of sections 227(b) and 227(c) of
the Act committed by third-party telemarketers that are authorized to
market the seller's goods or services. By the same reasoning, may the
Commission hold a seller vicariously liable under federal common law
principles of agency for violations of the Commission's rules
implementing sections 227(c) and 227(d) of the Act committed by
authorized third-party telemarketers?
Requirements Applicable to Entities Providing NANP Numbers to
Businesses. We also seek comment on whether we have authority to make
our proposed rules applicable more broadly, e.g., to ``stand-alone''
providers of non-interconnected VoIP, internet access, and other
internet-only services, or even to providers of non-communications
products and services, pursuant to our authority to ensure the
efficient and appropriate use of telephone numbers, pursuant to section
251(e) of the Act. For example, could we adopt a requirement applicable
to telecommunications carriers and VoIP service providers, providing
that, prior to providing U.S. telephone numbers to businesses that
operate call centers abroad, or prior to allowing the routing abroad of
calls placed to such U.S. numbers, a telecommunications carrier or VoIP
service providers must obtain a certification in writing that the
assignee of such telephone number shall ensure that any foreign call
center using such number shall comply with the requirements of the
rules proposed herein? We also seek comment generally on any other
bases of authority for our proposals regarding the use of foreign
customers service operations by providers.
Could we similarly rely on section 251(e) to extend some or all of
our proposed requirements regarding the use of foreign customer service
operations for calls other than those made on behalf of providers? Are
there other sources of authority that we could rely on to extend some
or all of our proposed requirements to such calls?
[[Page 21771]]
2. Authority for Fee or Bond Solutions
We also seek comment on whether the Commission has authority under
the Act to impose a fee or bond on service providers that transmit
calls from foreign countries to the United States, which fee or bond
would be subject, in whole or in part, to forfeiture if the service
provider allows unlawful calls. For example, in 2023, the Commission
adopted expanded caller ID authentication and robocall mitigation
requirements, relying on sections 201(b), 202(a), and 251(e) of the
Communications Act, the Truth in Caller ID Act, and its ancillary
authority. Would these provisions also authorize a requirement for
service providers to post a bond as a condition of participation in the
Robocall Mitigation Database, which would be subject to forfeiture if
the service provider allows unlawful calls? Would these or other
statutory provisions provide the Commission with authority to implement
bond requirements generally, or to impose specific fees for unlawful
traffic, including those specifically discussed above?
D. Costs and Benefits
This NPRM proposes to require providers to ensure that foreign call
center staff are proficient in American Standard English, to ensure
that U.S.-based customer service representatives handle all customer
calls involving sensitive customer information, to limit the volume of
customer calls handled by foreign call centers, to notify customers
when they are speaking to a foreign call center, to transfer calls to a
U.S.-based call center upon request, and to report on associated
customer service metrics. These policies are expected to improve the
quality of customer service and reduce financial losses stemming from
scams connected to foreign call centers. Providers, however, may incur
costs to shift call center operations to the United States.
Costs. To understand the effect of these policies on providers'
costs, we need to understand how providers are currently providing
call-based customer service. First, do providers operate call centers,
either domestically or overseas, in house or under contract with other
companies? How does this structure affect the costs of operating call
centers, and the decision to host customer service domestically or
overseas? How does it affect the share of calls handled domestically
and overseas?
With respect to individual providers, how many customer calls are
handled in foreign call centers and what share of calls does this
represent? How many customer service representatives do providers
employ, either directly or through a contractor, in foreign call
centers? Where are foreign call centers used by providers located? How
many representatives do providers employ, either directly or through a
contractor, in the United States? Do U.S.-based representatives work
remotely or at call centers? What impact might the proposed
requirements have on the cost of services for consumers?
Next, we focus on the difference between the cost of hiring
customer service representatives in the United States and in other
countries. Indeed is a private company that collects data on workers'
salaries around the world. Table 1 below shows Indeed's estimates of
the average annual salaries of customer service representatives in
India, the Philippines, and Mexico as of February 2026. In addition,
based on Indeed and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data,
Table 1 below also shows estimates of average annual salary for
customer service representatives in the United States. We seek comment
on which other countries host provider call centers and whether any of
the countries should be removed from the list.
Table 1--Average Customer Service Representative Salaries 2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
Country salary
(USD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
India....................................................... $2,904
Philippines................................................. 5,115
Mexico...................................................... 16,252
United States (Indeed)...................................... 66,809
United States (BLS)......................................... 46,372
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We seek comment on the salaries in Table 1. Are they reasonably
accurate? The data suggest that customer service representatives are
paid significantly more in the United States compared to India, the
Philippines, and Mexico. To understand how provider costs would change
if the proposed policies were adopted, we seek comment on how providers
would change their customer service practices to respond to the
proposed policies. Would any provider need to set up a call center in
the United States or hire a contractor for call center services in the
United States? How many U.S.-based representatives would providers need
to hire? If a provider needs to set up a call center in the United
States, what additional costs, besides hiring representatives, would it
face? How much, if at all, would providers reduce the number of foreign
representatives? Would call wait times for customers increase? Would
providers be able to save some personnel costs by deploying AI or
automated systems to work with representatives to handle calls more
efficiently while maintaining high quality customer service? How costly
would these solutions be? We ask commenters to describe how providers
would respond to various thresholds for the share of calls answered by
a U.S.-based representative. For example, how would providers respond
if the threshold were 30%, 50%, and 75%? How would providers respond if
there was no threshold but providers were required to transfer calls to
U.S.-based representatives upon customer request?
Benefits. If the proposed policies are adopted, consumers might
receive better customer service, potentially saving consumers time and
money. Are there ways to measure the benefit to consumers of improved
satisfaction with customer service?
In addition, the proposed policies may reduce financial losses
stemming from scams connected to foreign call centers by requiring that
only U.S.-based representatives handle calls that involve sensitive
customer information and reducing the number of calls that are handled
by foreign call centers. The FBI reports that consumers lost at least
$1.3 billion to call center fraud in 2023. We expect that a very large
share of this amount is attributable to scam call centers. Such centers
are operated for the sole purpose of conducting scams and are unlikely
to be answering or making calls for legitimate American businesses. We
seek comment on how much of the above total is connected to foreign
call centers employed by legitimate American businesses. However, even
if a very large share of call center fraud is attributable to scam call
centers, reducing the volume of calls that is handled by legitimate
foreign call centers may reduce financial losses stemming from scam
call centers. This could happen if American callers become more
suspicious and cautious in interactions with foreign call center staff
as such interactions become more rare. We seek comment on this.
Based on an assessment of the costs and benefits of the
Commission's proposals, are there other approaches to achieving the
Commission's goals?
II. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has prepared
this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the policies and
rules
[[Page 21772]]
proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) assessing the
possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Commission requests written public comments on this IRFA.
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments specified on the first page of the NPRM.
The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM including this IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for the SBA Office of Advocacy. In addition, the NPRM and
IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
America's communication service providers conduct sales and
customer service interactions through a variety of channels, including
phone calls, online chat, email, and text messages. Increasingly these
entry points connect consumers with foreign call centers. Foreign call
centers may employ individuals who, even if trained to speak English,
might not pick up on other cues that are critical to understanding a
consumer, e.g., idioms, intonation, and other speech characteristics
that are just as important as words. Foreign call centers might also be
located in a country without the same guarantees that consumer
information will be safeguarded in ways required by American laws or in
a foreign adversary nation. The Commission expects the measures
proposed in the NPRM will improve U.S. customer service and better
protect U.S. consumers' sensitive personal information by limiting
foreign access to that information, regardless of whether a foreign
call center makes a call to a consumer or answers a call from a
consumer.
B. Legal Basis
The proposed NPRM is authorized pursuant to sections 1-4, 201(b),
202(a), 217, 222, 227, 251(e), 301, 303, 316, 332, 631, 632 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C 151-154, 201(b),
202(a), 217, 222, 227, 251(e), 301, 303, 332, 631, 632, Section 60504
of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, 47 U.S.C. 1753, and
Sec. Sec. 1.411-1.413, and 1.421 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR
1.411-1.413, 1.421.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act (SBA). A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA. The SBA establishes small business size standards that agencies
are required to use when promulgating regulations relating to small
businesses; agencies may establish alternative size standards for use
in such programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before
doing so.
Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not
easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups
of small entities that could be directly affected by our actions. In
general, a small business is an independent business having fewer than
500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all
businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million
businesses. Next, ``small organizations'' are not-for-profit
enterprises that are independently owned and operated and not dominant
their field. While we do not have data regarding the number of non-
profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have
fewer than 500 employees. Finally, ``small governmental jurisdictions''
are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts with populations of less than fifty
thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we
estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government
jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.
The rules proposed in the NPRM will apply to small entities in the
industries identified in the chart below by their six-digit North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and corresponding
SBA size standard. Based on currently available U.S. Census data
regarding the estimated number of small firms in each identified
industry, we conclude that the proposed rules will impact a substantial
number of small entities. Where available, we also provide additional
information regarding the number of potentially affected entities in
the above identified industries.
Table 1--Census Bureau Data by NAICS Code Table
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Small firms
Regulated industry (NAICS classification) NAICS code SBA size standard Total firms Small firms in industry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wired Telecommunications Carriers............ 517111 1,500 employees.......................... 3,403 3,027 88.95
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 517112 1,500 employees.......................... 1,184 1,081 91.3
Satellite).
Telecommunications Resellers................. 517121 1,500 employees.......................... 955 847 88.69
All Other Telecommunications................. 517810 $40 million.............................. 1,673 1,007 60.19
Satellite Telecommunications................. 517410 $44 million.............................. 332 195 58.73
Telemarketing Bureaus and Other Contact 561422 $25.5 million............................ 2,380 1,798 75.55
Centers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Telecommunications Service Provider Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024 Universal service monitoring report telecommunications SBA size standard (1500 employees)
service provider data (data as of December 2023) -----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------- Total # FCC
form 499A Small firms % Small
Affected entity filers entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local Exchange Carriers (LECs).................................. 4,904 4,493 91.62
[[Page 21773]]
Local Resellers................................................. 222 217 97.75
Toll Resellers.................................................. 411 398 91.33
Telecommunications Resellers.................................... 633 615 97.16
Wired Telecommunications Carriers............................... 4,682 4,276 91.33
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)......... 585 498 85.13
Wireless Telephony.............................................. 326 247 75.77
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Description of Economic Impact and Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of
proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate
of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
The changes proposed in the NPRM, if adopted, may impose new or
modified reporting, recordkeeping, and or other compliance obligations
on certain small entities. In the NPRM, the Commission proposes
requirements that United States (U.S.) authorized service providers
ensure that foreign call center staff are proficient in American
Standard English, in order to limit the volume of U.S. customer calls
handled by foreign call centers. The Commission also proposes a
requirement to notify customers when they are speaking to a foreign
call center, allowing a U.S. consumer to transfer calls to a U.S.-based
call center upon request. In addition, this NPRM proposes that U.S.
call centers should handle certain transactions involving sensitive
consumer information only via call centers located in the United
States, and proposes to prohibit providers from using call centers in
``foreign adversary'' nations. The Commission also proposes to require
U.S. providers to disclose in consumer disclosure labels or websites
the percentage of calls handled in U.S. call centers, and to track and
report their compliance with these proposed rules, and seeks comment
about the appropriate frequency for making such reports. The Commission
further proposes to direct the Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau, and other staff as necessary, to establish mechanisms within
the Commission's informal complaints system that allow efficient
tracking of consumer complaints related to call centers and customer
service. Additionally, in the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on
whether and how fees, or a requirement to post a bond, could be used to
increase the costs associated with making fraudulent or other unlawful
calls to the U.S. from foreign countries.
The Commission seeks comment on how provider operating costs would
change, and how providers might adjust their customer service
practices, if the proposed policies were adopted. The information we
receive in comments will help the Commission identify and evaluate
relevant compliance matters, costs, and other possible burdens for
small entities that may result from the proposals and inquiries made in
the NPRM. The Commission will consider the economic impact on small
entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the NPRM, in
reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding.
E. Discussion of Significant Alternatives Considered That Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any
significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish
the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any
significant economic impact on small entities. The discussion is
required to include alternatives such as: ``(1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.''
In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment regarding several
alternative proposals and possible approaches it may take to meet its
consumer protection and national security objectives. Small entities
are encouraged to bring to the Commission's attention any specific
concerns they may have with the proposals outlined in the NPRM and
outline any additional alternatives, especially alternatives that are
less burdensome, less costly, or more effective.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
None.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 8
Cable television, Common carriers, Communications, Consumer
protection, internet, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Security measures, Telecommunications, Telephone.
47 CFR Part 25
Administrative practice and procedure.
47 CFR Part 64
Carrier equipment, Customer premises equipment, Communications
common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Telecommunications, Telephone.
47 CFR Part 76
Television.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 8, 25, 64, and
76 as follows:
[[Page 21774]]
PART 8--INTERNET TRANSPARENCY FOR CONSUMERS
0
1. The authority citation for part 8 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201(b), 257, 302a, 303(r),
312, 333, 503, and 1753.
Subpart A--Broadband Transparency
0
2. Amend Sec. 8.1 by revising the introductory text of paragraph (a)
to read as follows:
Sec. 8.1 Transparency.
(a) Any person providing broadband internet access service shall
publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management
practices, performance characteristics, and commercial terms of its
broadband internet access services, and the percentage of calls to or
from customers that are handled by a customer representative located
within the United States, sufficient to enable consumers to make
informed choices regarding the purchase and use of such services and
entrepreneurs and other small businesses to develop, market, and
maintain internet offerings. Such disclosure shall be made via a
publicly available, easily accessible website or through transmittal to
the Commission.
* * * * *
PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
0
3. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319,
332, 605, and 721, unless otherwise noted.
Subpart J--Public Interest Obligations
0
4. Amend Sec. 25.701 by revising the introductory text of paragraph
(a) and by adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.701 Other DBS Public Interest Obligations
(a) DBS providers are subject to the public interest obligations
set forth in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section. As used in
this section, DBS providers are any of the following:
* * * * *
(g) A DBS provider or its affiliate that utilizes customer
representatives located outside of the United States to engage in
customer service communications, must:
(1) Ensure that its customer representatives located outside of the
United States are proficient in spoken and written American Standard
English.
(2) Ensure that no more than [XX] percent of calls are handled by
customer representatives located outside of the United States.
(3) Inform customers at the beginning of each call that the call is
being handled by a customer representative located outside of the
United States and that the customer has the right to have the call
transferred to a customer representative located within the United
States.
(4) Upon request, transfer the call to a customer representative
located within the United States. Wait times for transferred calls must
be no longer than those for calls routed directly to a customer
representative located within the United States.
(5) Ensure that calls or other communications, such as by
electronic mail, text messages, or online chat, that involve access to
or transmission of sensitive consumer information, account information,
or financial information, such as passwords, password resets, multi-
factor authentication codes, social security numbers, bank account
numbers, or credit card numbers, are handled by a customer
representative located within the United States.
(6) Not utilize any customer representative located in a foreign
adversary nation as defined in 15 CFR 791.2 and identified in 15 CFR
791.4.
(7) Track and report its compliance with paragraphs (g)(1)-(g)(5)
of this section.
(h) The term ``affiliate'' in paragraph (g) of this section means
any ``affiliate'' of a DBS provider, as defined by 47 U.S.C. 153(2),
that provides internet access service.
PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
0
5. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220,
222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262,
276, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 716, 1401-1473, unless otherwise
noted; Pub. L. 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091; Pub.
L. 117-338, 136 Stat. 6156.
Subpart U--Privacy of Customer Information
0
6. Amend Sec. 64.2009 by adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 64.2009 Safeguards required for use of customer proprietary
network information
* * * * *
(g) A telecommunications carrier or its affiliate that utilizes
customer representatives located outside of the United States to engage
in customer service communications or otherwise uses customer
proprietary network information outside of the United States or makes
customer proprietary network information available to any customer
representative located outside of the United States, must:
(1) Ensure that its customer representatives located outside of the
United States are proficient in spoken and written American Standard
English.
(2) Ensure that no more than [XX] percent of calls to or from
customers are handled by a customer representative located outside of
the United States.
(3) Inform customers at the beginning of each call that the call is
being handled by a customer representative located outside of the
United States and that the customer has the right to have the call
transferred to a customer representative located within the United
States.
(4) Upon request, transfer the call to a customer representative
located within the United States. Wait times for transferred calls must
be no longer than those for calls routed directly to a customer
representative located within the United States.
(5) Ensure that calls or other communications, such as by
electronic mail, text messages, or online chat, that involve access to
or transmission of sensitive consumer information, account information,
or financial information, such as passwords, password resets, multi-
factor authentication codes, social security numbers, bank account
numbers, or credit card numbers, are handled by a customer
representative located within the United States.
(6) Not utilize any customer representative located in a foreign
adversary nation as defined in 15 CFR 791.2 and identified in 15 CFR
791.4.
(7) Track and report its compliance with paragraphs (g)(1)-(g)(5)
of this section.
(h) The term ``affiliate'' in paragraph (g) of this section means
any ``affiliate'' of a telecommunications carrier, as defined by 47
U.S.C. 153(2), that provides internet access service.
PART 76--MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE
0
7. The authority citation for part 76 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 302a, 303,
303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 335, 338, 339, 340, 341,
503, 521, 522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545,
548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 562, 571, 572, 573.
[[Page 21775]]
Subpart H--General Operating Requirements
0
8. Amend Sec. 76.309 by adding paragraphs (c)(1)(vi) and (vii) to read
as follows:
Sec. 76.309 Customer service obligations.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) A cable operator or its affiliate that utilizes customer
representatives located outside of the United States to engage in
customer communications, including answering calls to the access line
or making calls to subscribers, must:
(A) Ensure that its customer representatives located outside of the
United States are proficient in spoken and written American Standard
English.
(B) Ensure that no more than [XX] percent of calls are handled by
customer representatives located outside of the United States.
(C) Inform customers at the beginning of each call that the call is
being handled by a customer representative located outside of the
United States and that the customer has the right to have the call
transferred to a customer representative located within the United
States.
(D) Upon request, transfer the call to a customer representative
located within the United States. Wait times for transferred calls must
be no longer than those for calls routed directly to a customer
representative located within the United States.
(E) Ensure that calls or other communications, such as by
electronic mail, text message, or online chat that involve access to or
transmission of sensitive consumer information, account information, or
financial information, such as passwords, password resets, multi-factor
authentication codes, social security numbers, bank account numbers, or
credit card numbers, are handled by a customer representative located
within the United States.
(F) Not utilize any customer representative located in a foreign
adversary nation as defined in 15 CFR 791.2 and identified in 15 CFR
791.4.
(G) Notwithstanding subparagraph (C)(1)(iii) of this subsection,
track and report its compliance with subparagraphs (c)(1)(vi)(A)
through (E) of this section.
(vii) The term ``affiliate'' in paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of this
section means any ``affiliate'' of a cable operator, as defined by 47
U.S.C. 153(2), that provides internet access service.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2026-07960 Filed 4-22-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 23, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.