August 9, 2022

Volume XII, Number 221

Advertisement
Advertisement

August 08, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

TCPA Regulatory Update — FCC Reminds Small Providers of STIR/SHAKEN Deadline

The Wireline Competition Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission (“Commission”) released a Public Notice reminding non-facilities-based “small providers” – those voice service providers with 100,000 or fewer voice access lines – that the Commission’s deadline for implementing STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication technology on the Internet Protocol (“IP”) portion of their networks is June 30, 2022. The new deadline also applies to those facilities-based small providers suspected of originating illegal robocalls.

In its March 2020 Report and Order implementing the Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act (“TRACED Act”), the Commission required voice service providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN on the IP portions of their networks by June 30, 2021. In September 2020, the Commission granted a two-year extension of the compliance deadline for, among others, small non-facilities-based voice service providers. However, as we reported in May 2021, the Commission sought to reduce that extension because it appeared that small, non-facilities-based providers were originating large numbers of illegal robocalls. Therefore, in December 2021, the Commission acted by shortening the two-year extension by one year, requiring STIR/SHAKEN implementation by June 30, 2022. Small providers subject to the extension were also required to update the Robocall Mitigation Database (“RMD”) within 10 business days, indicating that they were aware that the deadline had been changed.

In addition to reminding small providers of the upcoming STIR/SHAKEN deadline, the Public Notice notes that small providers subject to the June 30, 2022 deadline must update their certifications and associated filings in the RMD within 10 business days once they have completed their STIR/SHAKEN implementation. Small providers that fail to meet the implementation deadline or update the RMD “may be subject to appropriate enforcement action.”

©1994-2022 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume XII, Number 180
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Russell H. Fox, Communications Attorney, Mintz Levin, Regulatory Approvals
Member

With over 35 years in the wireless telecommunications industry, Russell is among the most experienced wireless communications attorneys in the country. Unique among his peers, Russell assists clients on federal legislative, regulatory, and transactional matters. He analyzes legislation on behalf of clients, participates in proceedings before the FCC and other federal agencies, negotiates spectrum agreements, and represents wireless providers in spectrum auctions. He is also frequently consulted on matters involving US spectrum use and policy.

Whether they are in the middle of a...

202-434-7483
Jonathan P. Garvin Communications & Media Attorney Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo Washington, DC
Associate

Jon focuses his practice on a wide range of legal challenges facing companies in the communications and media industries. He regularly advises clients on transactional, regulatory, and compliance issues before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) involving wireless, broadband, broadcast, and cable matters. In addition, Jon advises broadcast and print media clients on FTC and state-specific advertising rules and advises broadcast companies on Television Spectrum Repack and FCC license requirements. 

Jon brings FCC experience and insight to his engagements with the firm’s...

202-434-7357
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement