Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules an administrable manner, those small voice service providers most likely to originate a significant quantity of unlawful robocalls. For each possible definitional criterion for which we seek comment below, we seek comment on whether it should be the sole definition or whether it should be one of multiple prongs of a definition. If we employ multiple prongs in our definition, we seek comment on whether a small voice service provider that meets any of multiple prongs should be excluded from the full extension i.e., we would use or between multiple prongs, or whether only a small voice service provider that meets all of the prongs should be excluded from the full extension i.e., we would use and between multiple prongs.
21. Originates a Significant Number of Calls Per Day for Any Single Line on Average. We seek comment on whether we should exclude from the full extension a small voice service provider that originates an unusually high number of calls per day on a single line.
For example, USTelecom proposes that we exclude from the full extension a small voice service provider that originates more than 500 calls per day for any single line in the normal course of business. We seek comment on this suggestion and potential alternatives. Is a high volume of traffic originating from a single line evidence of a heightened risk that a provider is likely to be originating a high volume of unlawful robocalls? Do small voice service providers customers often originate lawful calls at such a high volume from a single line?
22. If we were to set a numerical threshold, we seek comment on whether the appropriate numerical call threshold is 500 calls per day or another numerical threshold. USTelecom argues that its 500 call threshold is meant to distinguish between the number of calls that a particularly prolific subscriber could make in a given day and more automated technology indicative of illegal robocalling. Does a 500 call per day threshold accurately capture this dividing line? Would an alternative call threshold better identify those voice service providers most likely to be the source of unlawful robocalls? For example, would a 1,000
calls-per-day threshold ensure that small voice service providers unlikely to be the source of unlawful robocalls would continue to benefit from a twoyear extension? Would a lower threshold of, for example, 250 calls ensure that we capture all small voice service providers that are likely to originate a significant number of illegal robocalls?

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:33 Jun 08, 2021

Jkt 253001

23. We propose that if we adopt a definition based on calls per day for a single line, we would employ the term on average rather than in the normal course of business because we preliminarily believe the former is more precise. We seek comment on this view and on the meaning of in the normal course of business. We seek comment on how we should measure the calls per day on average. Over what period would we require small voice service providers to calculate the average? Should the average be based on sporadic samples or a single continuous period? Should we exclude certain time periods, such as weekends or holidays? Instead of average calls per day, should we examine the median number of calls each day over a particular period? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each approach?
24. Instead of examining the average number of calls over time, should we look at small voice service providers that reach a call threshold on a single line on a single day? Would this approach provide additional certainty and reduce the possibility for gaming?
Rather than looking at the average number of calls on a single line, should we look at an averageor other measuresacross a larger number of lines? If so, what call volume metric should we use and why? For example, could we look at the number of calls per line averaged over all lines or those lines with more originating than terminating calls? Would an approach that focuses on the number of calls averaged over multiple lines be less likely to be subject to manipulation than a test that looks at the total number of calls over a single line? We also seek comment on whether any threshold we adopt for a shortened extension that relies on lines or subscriber lines needs to take into account the current real-world understanding of those terms for voice service providers, particularly VoIP providers not serving end-users over their own or leased last-mile facilities. Do these providers understanding of lines differ from how we have traditionally measured lines and voice subscriber lines? If so, how should this understanding affect any calls-per-line threshold we adopt?
25. If we adopt a numerical threshold of calls, we seek comment on whether we should exclude calls from certain entities that have a valid business reason to make a large number of calls, so that certain calls would not count toward any numerical threshold we establish. For example, should we exempt calls from doctors offices, schools, or businesses such as insurance
PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

30575

companies? Would a small voice service provider be able to determine whether its customer fell within any of the categories we adopt? We also seek comment on whether we should exempt from the threshold calls that fall under an exemption pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 TCPA. We seek comment on whether calls that meet some or all of the TCPA exemptions should not count against any numerical call threshold we adopt. Are the interests served by the TCPA exemptions the same as or similar to the interests served by exempting such calls from the call threshold?
26. Receives More than Half Its Revenues from Customers Purchasing Non-Mass Market Services. We seek comment on whether we should shorten the extension for small voice service providers that receive more than half their revenue from customers purchasing services that are not massmarket services, as suggested by USTelecom. Do commenters agree that the proportion of revenue from nonmass market services is a good proxy for identifying small voice service providers that are likely to originate an especially large amount of traffic and, therefore, likely to originate unlawful robocalls? USTelecom argues that its proposal was intended to be narrow and capture those providers who target enterprise and other non-consumer customers as a key part of their business. This approach assumes that small voice service providers that mostly sell specialized services, and especially business services, are more likely to originate an especially large amount of traffic and thus are at greater risk of originating a high volume of unlawful robocalls. Do commenters agree with this assumption?
27. We seek comment on how to measure revenue. Should we measure only revenue attributable to voice service, revenue from all telecommunications and information services, including wholesale services, or some other combination? If only revenue attributable to voice service, should we measure certain subcategories of voice service such as interstate, international, or toll? Are robocalls likely to originate out of state and, if so, should we exclude intrastate revenue if such revenue is unlikely to be associated with illegal robocalling?
28. We seek comment on whether half of revenue is an appropriate dividing line. For example, should we adopt a 75
percent non-mass market revenue threshold? Would such a threshold better balance the interest in shortening the extension for those voice service providers most likely to initiate
E:FRFM09JNP1.SGM

09JNP1