FCC tightens robocall rules with KYUP

The Federal Communications Commission on May 20 voted to propose a new round of robocall rules aimed at the carriers and intermediate providers that pass calls through the network. The item would impose more specific “Know-Your-Upstream-Provider” requirements, tighten how providers assign STIR/SHAKEN authentication levels, and try to close gaps that still let illegal traffic move without reliable caller ID verification. (docs.fcc.gov) The proposal was adopted 3-0 as a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, according to the FCC and trade coverage. (lightreading.com) Chairman Brendan Carr said before the vote that the agency wanted to remove providers from U.S. networks when they enable illegal robocalls. (fcc.gov) ### What is the FCC changing beyond the robocall rules already on the books? The May 20 FCC proposal targets a part of the call chain that regulators say has remained too loosely policed: the upstream providers from which a carrier accepts traffic. The commission said the new KYUP approach would require more specific steps so voice providers can identify and cut off “bad actor” providers that feed illegal robocalls into the network. Existing FCC anti-robocall rules already require originating providers to know their customers and take effective measures against illegal traffic. The new item extends the focus to supplier relationships higher up the chain, reflecting the commission’s view that robocall enforcement has to reach “every point in the call path,” as the FCC said in its release. (docs.fcc.gov) ### Why does “Know-Your-Upstream-Provider” matter to carriers? KYUP is the FCC’s shorthand for due diligence on the companies that hand traffic to another provider. In practice, that means carriers may have to document who they buy traffic from, what controls those suppliers have, and when suspicious traffic should trigger escalation or termination. (docs.fcc.gov) Light Reading reported the proposal is designed to expose providers that enable illegal calls and root them out. The FCC’s April 29 agenda notice said the proposal would improve KYUP oversight, raise standards for STIR/SHAKEN attestations, and close implementation loopholes. (docs.fcc.gov) That framing matters because robocall enforcement has increasingly shifted from blocking individual campaigns to tracing responsibility across interconnected voice networks. ### What is changing in STIR/SHAKEN? STIR/SHAKEN is the caller ID authentication framework carriers use to verify whether a calling number is legitimately associated with the provider sending the call. The FCC said its new proposal would make caller ID authentication “broadly implemented and maximally effective” and would seek to make provider attestations more trustworthy. (lightreading.com) The April agenda materials and later coverage said the commission is looking at higher standards for assigning STIR/SHAKEN attestation levels and at loopholes that allow calls to move through the network without dependable authentication information. (docs.fcc.gov) That points to more scrutiny of how providers classify call traffic, especially when they cannot fully verify the source. ### What did the commission actually vote on? The commission on May 20 adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking rather than final rules. Light Reading said the action was taken by the commission in FCC 26-32, with Carr, Gomez and Trusty approving and issuing separate statements. (docs.fcc.gov) The FCC’s open meeting page identifies the May 20 session as the forum where draft items were considered, and the agency’s proposed-rulemakings page says notices move into a public comment process before final rules are adopted. That means providers are now looking at a regulatory proposal, not an immediate compliance deadline. (docs.fcc.gov) ### What happens next for providers and industry groups? The FCC has not yet finalized the requirements, but the next formal step is public comment after Federal Register publication. Industry lawyers tracking the item said comments are typically due 30 days after publication and reply comments 60 days after publication, though the specific clock for this proceeding depends on that publication date. (lightreading.com) WC Docket No. 17-97 and CG Docket No. 17-59 are the proceedings attached to the item on the FCC’s agenda materials. (fcc.gov) Providers, trade groups and consumer advocates are expected to use that comment round to argue over how much diligence carriers should have to perform on upstream partners, how attestations should be assigned, and what records should be kept. (tlp.law) (wiley.law)