Bill is a responsible professional. He works hard. So, when his phone rang recently, he hurried to answer – as he always does.
“Hello?” he said. There was a pause.
“Hello?” Bill said again (less patiently).
“Hi. Can you hear me?” asked the voice on the other line.
“Yes, I can hear…” Bill started to say as the other voice began to speak over him.
“Great. I am calling because your original auto warranty has expired. Don’t worry, we are calling to help you renew your warranty. Press one on your phone now to speak to a representative to renew your warranty…”
Bill hung up. He was justifiably annoyed.
This was another annoying robocall – the third that week for poor Bill. The caller was not real, but a recording made to sound like a live operator. Bill’s car warranty was not expired. It was a scam.
Like Bill, millions of people are subjected to unsolicited marketing calls every year in the United States. In 2018, approximately 48 billion robocalls were made nationally – a sharp increase over the prior year. Unfortunately, the fraudsters behind these calls are getting better and better at tricking people.
The United States government has taken note – and is actively pursuing initiatives through various federal agencies, including criminal prosecutions by the U.S. Department of Justice; financial penalties assessed by the Federal Trade Commission; and rule changes made by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
For example, on June 6, 2019, the FCC issued a Declaratory Ruling that enabled voice providers to offer consumers programs to block unwanted calls on an opt-out basis. This was a significant rule – as allowing for opt-out programs means that call blocking will occur by default unless consumers know that they can opt out and actually opt out.
Private industry – particularly AT& T – reacted swiftly to the FCC’s ruling. In July, 2019, AT&T announced it will deploy automatic call blocking (“Call Protect”) to its customers on an opt-out basis – again, meaning call blocking will occur by default.
This is terrific news for Bill and the telephone consumers of America…right?
It might be good news for Bill; however, there is a downside – one that could have an adverse impact on the private security industry and on life safety.
Impact on the Security Industry
With more robust call blocking, there an increased risk of over-blocking legitimate callers. Indeed, the FCC’s Declaratory Ruling permits calls to be blocked based on “any reasonable analytics designed to identify unwanted calls.” That seems simple enough; however, legitimate calls – such as from an alarm company or central monitoring station – may share some of the same analytical data (e.g., a high volume of short duration calls originating from a toll-free number), resulting in the blocking of wanted calls that could have serious life-or-death implications.
It is critical that calls from alarm companies to their customers and to public safety and law enforcement agencies not be blocked by any call-blocking program implemented by voice service providers – particularly where those programs now can be implemented on an “opt-out” basis. For example, if an alarm company's call to its customer is blocked, the police may be unnecessarily dispatched to the customer location. This will increase the prevalence and impact of false alarms, may result in serious consequences for the public, and further stresses already limited police resources.
For its part, the security industry, through The Monitoring Association (TMA)’s Alarm Industry Communications Committee (AICC), has raised concerns about call blocking to the FCC. In a July 8, 2019 petition, the AICC urged the FCC to require voice carriers to provide direct notification, such as texts, email, or inserts in customer bills, of the customer’s right to opt-out of call blocking. This would allow customers to make an informed choice and mitigate over-blocking. At present, however, the FCC only requires disclosure of the opt-out right on the carriers’ websites (albeit “prominently”).
The AICC also asked the FCC to clarify that the language in the Declaratory Ruling cautioning voice service providers to “avoid blocking calls from public safety entities, including PSAPs, emergency operations centers, or law enforcement agencies” include calls from alarm companies. At present, there is no specific protection of private security companies to ensure that their communications are safeguarded from blocking; thus, private security companies are at greater risk from call-blocking despite the complimentary role private security plays in the public safety world.
As these programs evolve, and more carriers adopt the approach taken by AT&T, the risk of over-blocking will increase. As indicated in the Declaratory Ruling, the FCC “encourages” voice providers to notify callers that their calls have been blocked. It also requires any provider with a call-blocking program to provide a point of contact for legitimate callers to report erroneous blocking. Whether this will be sufficient remains to be seen.
If you believe that your company’s numbers are being blocked, I encourage you to address your concerns immediately with the designated point of contact for the applicable voice carrier. I also encourage you to retain counsel to assist you in getting off the blocked list.
Timothy J. Pastore, Esq., is a Partner in the New York office of Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP (www.mmwr.com), where he is Vice-Chair of the Litigation Department. Before entering private practice, Mr. Pastore was an officer and Judge Advocate General (JAG) in the U.S. Air Force and a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice. Reach him at (212) 551-7707 or by e-mail at [email protected].
