UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Federal Trade Commission 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 

 

Bureau of Consumer Protection 

 Bureau of Economics 

 

 January 23, 2015

Marlene H. Dortch 

Secretary 

Federal Communications Commission 

445 12th Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20554 

Re: CG Docket No. 02-278; WC Docket No. 07-135; 

Federal Trade Commission Staff’s Comments on Public Notice DA 

14-1700 Regarding Call Blocking 

Dear Secretary Dortch: 

The Federal Trade Commission staff (“FTC staff”)1

 appreciates the opportunity to 

comment on the issues relating to carrier implementation of call-blocking technology, as raised 

in the September 9, 2014 letter from the National Association of Attorneys General (“NAAG 

Letter”). The FCC’s Notice2 seeks comment on whether there are any legal or regulatory 

prohibitions that prevent telephone carriers from offering consumers call-blocking technology – 

i.e., technology that can identify unwanted calls and block them from ringing consumers’ 

phones. As discussed in more detail below, it is the FTC staff’s view that no legal barriers or 

policy considerations prevent common carriers from offering technology that allows their 

customers to block unwanted calls. 

American consumers continue to be plagued with unwanted telemarketing calls, which in 

many cases violate the law. The FTC’s extensive study of this problem and its vigorous law 

enforcement efforts have shown that law enforcement alone cannot solve the problem of illegal 

calls. Rather, technological solutions are needed, and call-blocking technology is an integral part 

of those solutions. Congress has long recognized that consumers should be free from abusive 

 

1

 These comments represent the views of the staff of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of 

Consumer Protection, Bureau of Economics, and Office of Policy Planning. The letter does not 

necessarily represent the views of the Federal Trade Commission or of any individual 

Commissioner. The Commission has, however, voted to authorize staff’s submission of these 

comments. 

2

 Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks Comment on Robocalls and Call-Blocking 

Issues Raised by the National Association of Attorneys General on Behalf of Thirty-Nine 

Attorneys General, DA 14-1700 (Nov. 24, 2014) (“FCC/CGB Public Notice”). 
-2- 

telephone calls that impinge on consumers’ right to privacy,3

 and call-blocking technology 

would satisfy strong consumer demand for a solution that will stop the barrage of unwanted calls. 

An FCC ruling affirming that common carriers can offer call-blocking services to their 

customers without violating their common carriage obligations is likely to make call-blocking 

technology more widely available to consumers. Such a ruling will allow common carriers to be 

more responsive to consumer demand and join other entities that already offer these services; 

will increase the likelihood that major US telephone carriers develop and actively market callblocking technology to their large customer bases; will allow consumers who value this option to 

select telephone providers that offer call-blocking services; and will facilitate competition and 

innovation among carriers, as well as non-carriers, for new and better call-blocking technologies. 

Ultimately, widespread availability and use of call-blocking technology will substantially reduce 

the number of unwanted and illegal telemarketing calls received by consumers. 

I. Call-Blocking Technology Is Integral To Solving the Problem of Illegal Calls.

The FTC’s complaint data indicates that consumers are barraged with a large volume of 

unwanted telemarketing calls, many of which are calls that deliver a recorded message 

(“robocalls”).4

 The volume of consumer complaints about illegal telemarketing calls, 

particularly illegal robocalls, has increased significantly in the past five years.5 This increase is 

largely due to technological advancements. Although new technology has brought consumers 

lower cost telephone service and more advanced features for their telephones, these same 

advancements have allowed violators to use the Internet to place large volumes of illegal calls 

inexpensively, often from overseas, and in a manner that allows them to hide from law 

enforcement. 

The FTC has undertaken vigorous law enforcement efforts against those making illegal 

calls. To date, the FTC has filed law enforcement actions against more than 600 companies and 

 

3 See 15 U.S.C. 6102(a)(3) (directing the Federal Trade Commission to include in the 

Telemarketing Sales Rule provisions prohibiting telemarketers from “undertaking a pattern of 

unsolicited telephone calls which the reasonable consumer would consider coercive or abusive of 

such consumer’s right to privacy”). 

4

 From October 2013 to September 2014, the FTC received an average of 261,757 do-not-call 

complaints per month, of which approximately 55% (144,550 per month) were complaints about 

robocalls. See National Do Not Call Registry Data Book FY 2014 at 5 (Nov. 2014), available at 

http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/national-do-not-call-registry-data-bookfiscal-year-2014/dncdatabookfy2014.pdf. 

5

 For example, in the fourth quarter of 2009, the FTC received approximately 63,000 complaints 

about illegal robocalls each month. See National Do Not Call Registry Data Book FY 2010 at 5 

(Nov. 2010), available at http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/national-donot-call-registry-data-book-fiscal-year-2010/101206dncdatabook.pdf. By the fourth quarter of 

2012, robocall complaints had peaked at more than 200,000 per month. See National Do Not 

Call Registry Data Book FY 2012 at 5 (Oct. 2012), available at 

http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/national-do-not-call-registry-data-bookfiscal-year-2012/1210dnc-databook.pdf. 
-3- 

individuals that were allegedly responsible for placing billions of unwanted telemarketing calls 

to consumers in violation of the Do-Not-Call provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Rule.6 The 

FTC has obtained more than $1 billion in judgments against these violators and intends to 

continue these law enforcement efforts. 

Experience has shown, however, that the FTC’s law enforcement efforts alone cannot 

stop the growing problem of illegal telemarketing calls because current technology makes it 

inexpensive and easy for callers to make lots of calls and effectively hide from law enforcement. 

Based on FTC staff’s extensive study of the problem, the FTC has concluded that technological 

innovations are a critical component of the long-term solution to protecting consumers from such 

illegal telemarketing calls. Call-blocking technology – i.e., a “spam filter” for the phone – is an 

integral part of that technological solution. 

In 2012, the FTC hosted a Robocall Summit on the problem of illegal robocalls that 

brought technical experts together to discuss the challenges and potential solutions to the 

problem.7 To spur innovation and potential technological solutions, the FTC sponsored a 

Robocall Challenge at the 2012 Summit,8

 in which the FTC offered prizes to innovators who 

could develop technology that could analyze and block illegal robocalls. The FTC announced 

three winners in 2013,9 and one of those winners has already launched a service that is providing 

free call blocking for consumers.10 The 2012 Robocall Challenge demonstrated that callblocking technology is viable, scalable, and can work in a real-world setting to protect 

consumers from unwanted calls. 

Consumer demand for call-blocking technology is high. In the past year, the FTC 

received an average of 261,757 complaints per month about unwanted telephone calls,11 which 

indicates substantial consumer frustration with the problem. Since launching in October 2013, 

Nomorobo, one of the winners of our 2012 Robocall Challenge, reports that it already has 

 

6

 A listing of recent actions the FTC has taken against illegal telemarketers can be found at 

http://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/legalresources?title=&type=case&field_consumer_protection_topics_tid=236&field_industry_tid=All

&field_date_value[min]=&field_date_value[max]=&sort_by=field_date_value. 

7

 Materials, agendas, and presentations from the 2012 FTC Robocall Summit can be found at 

http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2012/10/robocalls-all-rage-ftc-summit. 

8

 Press Release, FTC, FTC Challenges Innovators to Do Battle With Robocallers (Oct. 18, 

2012), available at http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/10/ftc-challengesinnovators-do-battle-robocallers. 

9

 Press Release, FTC, FTC Announces Robocall Challenge Winners (Apr. 2, 2013), available at 

http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/04/ftc-announces-robocall-challengewinners. 

10 See Nomorobo, http://www.nomorbo.com.

11 See supra note 4. 
-4- 

150,000 subscribers for its free call-blocking service.12 Primus, a Canadian telephone carrier that 

offers a free call-blocking service to its customers, reports that the service is extremely popular 

with its customers and is “one of the leading reasons that customers choose to keep their phone 

service with Primus.”13 Simply put, call blocking is a service consumers want. 

The widespread availability of call-blocking technology to consumers will make a 

significant dent in the problem of unwanted telephone calls. First and foremost, the availability 

of the technology will give consumers the opportunity to be free from unwanted calls. 

Consumers have already registered over 217 million telephone numbers on the National Do Not 

Call Registry and expressed their affirmative choice to stop unsolicited telemarketing calls.14 

Call blocking technology would go further by giving frustrated consumers a technological tool 

they can use to stop unwanted calls. In addition, call-blocking technology has the potential to 

drive up costs for illegal telemarketing operations and thus reduce the economic incentive to 

make illegal calls. Currently, the cost of placing large volumes of calls is so low that illegal 

calling operations can blast out millions of calls but still make a profit by making sales to the 

small fraction of call recipients who agree to purchase the goods or services offered. Callblocking technology, if implemented on a widespread basis, has the potential to drive up costs or 

reduce revenues for illegal telemarketing operations, which may, in turn, drive some illegal 

calling operations out of business.15

 

 

12 Ben Fisher, Nomorobo: A Tiny Long Island Startup In The Middle Of A Big Fight In 

Washington, N.Y. Bus. J., Oct. 2, 2014, 

http://www.bizjournals.com/newyork/blog/techflash/2014/10/nomorobo-tiny-long-island-startupin-the-middle-of.html?page=all. 

13 Stopping Fraudulent Robocall Scams: Can More Be Done?: Hearing Before the Subcomm. 

on Consumer Protection, Prod. Safety, and Ins. of the S. Comm. on Commerce, Sci, and Transp., 

113th Cong., S. Hrg. 113-117, at 45 (July 10, 2013) (statement of Matthew Stein, Chief 

Technology Officer, Primus Telecommunications Inc.) available at 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113shrg85765/pdf/CHRG-113shrg85765.pdf. 

14 See National Do Not Call Registry Data Book FY 2014 at 4 (Nov. 2014), available at 

http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/national-do-not-call-registry-data-bookfiscal-year-2014/dncdatabookfy2014.pdf. 

15 Call-blocking technology is unlikely to have a material impact on companies that are engaged 

in legal telemarketing. Currently, call-blocking technology is designed to stop telemarketing 

robocalls. Under the Telemarketing Sales Rule, however, telemarketing robocalls are illegal 

unless the company has the consumer’s express written consent to receive robocalls from the 

caller. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(v). Because the overwhelming majority of consumers do not 

knowingly consent to receive robocalls, legitimate telemarketing operations cannot use robocalls 

on a widespread basis without violating the law. 
-5- 

II. Carriers Can Offer Call-Blocking To Customers Who Request the Service Without 

Violating Their Common Carriage Obligations.

Despite the strong consumer interest in call-blocking and the promise it shows in 

combatting the problem of unwanted calls, to date carriers have resisted offering call-blocking 

services to their large customer bases. As indicated in the NAAG letter, US Telecom, the trade 

association that represents land-line carriers, has stated in congressional testimony its view that 

“[t]he current [FCC] legal framework simply does not allow [phone companies] to decide for the 

consumer which calls should be allowed to go through and which should be blocked,” and that 

“the FCC has concluded that call blocking is an unjust and unreasonable practice under section 

201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934.” FTC staff disagrees with this characterization of 

the FCC’s rulings. To the contrary and as set forth in the FCC/CGB Public Notice, past FCC 

rulings “recognize the right of individual end users to block incoming calls from unwanted 

callers” and acknowledge that “call-blocking services, including those provided by common 

carriers, are lawful” in some circumstances.16

The cases relied on by US Telecom address the FCC’s prohibition on a 

telecommunications common carrier’s blocking traffic to or from another carrier or service 

provider – a practice that results in customers not receiving calls they want to receive. Those 

cases do not address whether a carrier may block calls at a consumer’s request.

17 FTC staff is 

unaware of any authority that prohibits carriers from blocking unwanted incoming calls at an end 

user’s request. 

To the contrary, numerous authorities recognize a carrier’s ability to block telephone 

calls at a consumer’s request. For example, as the Public Notice points out, FCC orders 

addressing improper call blocking have included caveats that those orders have “no effect on the 

right of individual end users to choose to block incoming calls from unwanted callers.”18 

Moreover, the D.C. Circuit recently noted that an entity subject to common carrier obligations 

may block unwanted incoming communications “to . . . end users if those end users so desire” 

without violating the general duty of common carriers not to block traffic.19 Furthermore, as 

correctly noted in the FCC Notice, carriers already offer a variety of call-blocking services to 

 

16 FCC/CGB Public Notice at 3 & n. 7-12. 

17 See, e.g., Connect America Fund, FCC 11-161, Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 17663, 17903, 

¶ 734 (2011), aff’d, 753 F.3d 1015 (10th Cir. 2014); Call Blocking by Carriers, Declaratory 

Ruling & Order, 22 FCC Rcd 11629, 11629, ¶ 1 (Wireline Competition Bur. 2007) (“2007 

Declaratory Ruling”); Blocking Interstate Traffic in Iowa, 2 FCC Rcd 2692 (1987). See 

generally Rural Call Completion, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 1569, 1572-73, 

¶¶ 7-11 (2013) (summarizing anti-blocking decisions). 

18 FCC/CGB Public Notice at 3 & n. 7 (citing 2007 Declaratory Ruling, 22 FCC Rcd at 11632, 

¶ 7 & n. 21, and Connect America Fund, 26 FCC Rcd at 18029, ¶ 973, n.2038). 

19 Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623, 656-57 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (the fact that the Open Internet rules 

included “a limited exception permitting end users to direct broadband providers to block certain 

traffic by no means detract[ed] from the common carrier nature of the obligations [improperly] 

imposed on broadband providers”) (emphasis in original). 
-6- 

their customers, and none of those services have been deemed by the FCC to be unlawful. For 

example, carriers offer customers “Selective Call Rejection” (*80) to block calls from phone 

numbers on a customer-specified list; “Anonymous Call Rejection” (*77) to block calls that lack 

Caller ID identifying information;20 and “Selective Call Acceptance” (*64) to block all calls 

except those from a specified list of phone numbers.21 Call-blocking services that block 

unwanted robocalls at the request of the end-user are analogous to these call-blocking services 

already offered by carriers, and FTC staff is unaware of any authority holding that any of these 

services violate common carriage obligations. 

In addition, allowing carriers to offer call-blocking services to their customers is 

consistent with the underlying policies of the Do-Not-Call and robocall regulations set forth in 

both the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule22 and the FCC’s own Telephone Consumer Protection 

Act regulations.23 Both agencies’ Do-Not-Call and robocall regulatory schemes are built on the 

principle of consumer choice – namely, that consumers should be able to determine who can and 

cannot contact them by telephone. Call-blocking technologies are simply a tool that gives 

consumers the means to exercise more effectively their right not to receive certain types of calls. 

III. Current Limitations in Call-Blocking Technology Should Not Prevent Consumers 

From Having Access to Those Services.

Although our 2012 Robocall Challenge demonstrated that call-blocking technology is 

viable, that technology as it exists today is not perfect. Existing call-blocking technology can 

potentially block some calls that consumers want to receive or can require legitimate callers to 

take extra steps24 to connect to a call recipient. In addition, current call-blocking technology 

 

20 See FCC/CGB Public Notice at 3, n. 9 (citing In re Telecommunications Relay Services and 

Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, 19 FCC Rcd 

12475, 12508, ¶ 74 (2004)). 

21 More information about these codes can be found at the North American Numbering Plan 

Association’s website. See NANPA Vertical Service Codes – Code Definitions, 

http://www.nanpa.com/number_resource_info/vsc_definitions.html (last visited Dec. 15, 2014). 

22 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B) & (v). 

23 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a) & (c). 

24 For example, Nomorobo presents potential robocallers with an audio captcha that requires the 

caller to enter a two-digit code on their phone to get through to the call recipient. Robocallers 

are unable to enter the captcha and are therefore blocked, but live callers who get stopped by the 

Nomorobo call-blocking filter can enter the two-digit code to get through. 

Similarly, under Primus’s call-blocking system, callers who are blocked hear a message inviting 

them to press 1 to record their name, so that their call can be announced to the party they are 

calling. After the caller records their name, the Primus system calls the call recipient, advises 

them that they have received a potential telemarketing call, and plays the recording provided by 

the caller. The customer then has the choice to accept the call, refuse the call, or send the call to 

voicemail. Stopping Fraudulent Robocall Scams: Can More Be Done?: Hearing Before the 

Subcomm. on Consumer Protection, Prod. Safety, and Ins. of the S. Comm. on Commerce, Sci, 

and Transp., 113th Cong., S. Hrg. 113-117, at 45 (July 10, 2013) (statement of Matthew Stein, 
-7- 

typically blocks calls based, in part, on the caller ID information that is presented with the call. 

Under existing caller ID technology, however, illegal callers can falsify the caller ID number that 

accompanies their outbound calls in order to bypass call-blocking filters, which allows some 

unwanted calls to ring consumers’ phones even if they are subscribed to a call-blocking service. 

The fact that current call-blocking technology is not perfect, however, does not prevent 

telephone carriers from being able to offer this technology to their customers. Call-blocking 

solutions can mitigate the risk of missing wanted calls in several ways, such as by allowing 

blocked callers to leave a voicemail for the call recipient or enter a code on their phone to have 

their calls go through, or enabling call recipients to specify in advance a list of calling numbers 

that should not be blocked.25 So long as providers of call-blocking services provide accurate 

disclosures to consumers when they sign up for these services that certain calls they want to 

receive may be blocked, consumers can decide for themselves whether to risk the disruption of 

those calls. Ultimately, if a call-blocking service blocks too many calls consumers want to 

receive, the market will address the issue as call-blocking providers will either have to improve 

their technology or risk losing subscribers. 

Indeed, the fact that call-blocking technologies in their current form cannot block all

unwanted calls should not prevent consumers from having the choice to use the technology. Just 

as an e-mail spam filter does not block all unwanted emails, current call-blocking technology 

cannot block 100% of unwanted calls either. Nonetheless, current call-blocking technologies 

have shown the ability to block a significant volume of unwanted calls.26 So long as consumers 

are given accurate information when they sign up for a carrier’s call-blocking service that the 

service will not stop all unwanted calls, consumers can decide whether they want a service that 

will block many, but not all, unwanted calls. Given the continued popularity of email spam 

filters that do not block 100% of all spam emails, it is likely that analogous call-blocking 

services will similarly be popular with consumers even if they are not immediately perfect. In 

fact, consumers who use existing call-blocking technologies have indicated their satisfaction 

with the services, even though they may not block all unwanted calls.27 

Finally, it is important to note that call-blocking technology is still in its relative infancy. 

FTC staff continues to build on the momentum of its 2012 Robocall Challenge and spur 

 

Chief Technology Officer, Primus Telecommunications Inc.) available at 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113shrg85765/pdf/CHRG-113shrg85765.pdf. 

25 See supra note 24. 

26 Since going live on October 1, 2013, Nomorobo reports that it has blocked more than 13 

million robocalls. See Nomorobo, https://www.nomorobo.com (last visited Dec. 15, 2014). 

27 For example, Primus reports that its internal surveys of customers who use its call-blocking 

service indicate that customers are satisfied with the service and the service is one of the leading 

reasons customers stay with Primus instead of switching to another phone carrier. See Stopping 

Fraudulent Robocall Scams: Can More Be Done?: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Consumer 

Protection, Prod. Safety, and Ins. of the S. Comm. on Commerce, Sci, and Transp., 113th Cong., 

S. Hrg. 113-117, at 45 (July 10, 2013) (statement of Matthew Stein, Chief Technology Officer, 

Primus Telecommunications Inc.) available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG113shrg85765/pdf/CHRG-113shrg85765.pdf.