KELLEY DRYE & W ARREN LLP A LIMITED LIABILIT Y PARTNER SHIP WASHINGTON HARBOUR, SUITE 400 N E W Y O R K , N Y F A C S I M I L E 3050 K STREET, NW C H I C A G O , I L ( 2 0 2 ) 3 4 2 - 8 4 5 1 WASHINGTON, DC 20007 H O U S T O N , T X w w w . k e l l e y d r y e . c o m L O S A N G E L E S , C A S A N D I E G O , C A ( 2 0 2 ) 3 4 2 - 8 4 0 0 S T E V E N A . A U G U S T I N O S T A M F O R D , C T B R U S S E L S , B E L G I U M D I R E C T L I N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 3 4 2 - 8 6 1 2 , E MA I L : s a u g u s t i n o @ k e l l e y d r y e . c o m A F F I L I A T E O F F I C E M U M B A I , I N D I A March 24, 2020 V IA ECFS Ms. Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12 th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20554 Re: NOTICE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATION OF TRANSACTION NETWORK SERVICES, INC. WC Docket No. 17-97: Call Authentication Trust Anchor WC Docket No. 20-67: Implementation of the TRACED Act Section 6(a) – Knowledge of Customers by Entities with Access to Numbering Resources. Dear Ms. Dortch: On March 20, 2020, Jim Tyrrell, Senior Director, Product Marketing, and Lavinia Kennedy, Director, Product Management, with Transaction Network Services, Inc. (“TNS”), 1 Joe Weeden, VP, Fixed Line Products, Metaswitch and TNS’ outside counsel, Steven A. Augustino of Kelley Drye & Warren. LLP, met via audio conference call with Travis Littman in Commissioner Rosenworcel’s office. At the meeting TNS discussed its role in the robocalling eco-system. TNS provides robocall mitigation solutions to all carriers, wireless, wireline, and VoIP. Its services are deployed at 4 out of the top 6 wireless providers and in over 250 million mobile devices. What sets TNS’ Call Guardian solution apart from others is that it provides real time detection using a very large volume of cross carrier data (over 1 billion calls per day across hundreds of 1 TNS is a leading global provider of data communications and interoperability solutions. TNS offers a broad range of network connectivity and innovative value-added services which enable transactions and the exchange of information in diverse industries such as telecommunications, payment processing, and financial services markets. 4848-9352-8504v.1
KELLEY DRYE & W ARREN LLP Ms. Marlene H. Dortch March 24, 2020 Page 2 carriers), which enables TNS to detect real time spoofing events and see trends and patterns that others cannot see. TNS’ solution adapts quickly to changes in bad actor behavior and receives crowd-sourced feedback from users of its mobile app deployed on wireless networks. Call Guardian provides universal call blocking for those carriers that want to stop the worst of the worst bad actors from coming through as well as spam alerts/labeling of nuisance calls. In addition to robocall analytics (Call Guardian) and in partnership with Metaswitch (a communications vendor to roughly 500 carriers in the U.S.), TNS provides a managed call authentication service (Call Guardian Authentication Hub). This service provides a managed solution for deploying STIR/SHAKEN protocols in IP networks and is particularly valuable for small carriers looking for a solution that does not require a large amount of capital investment. In the meetings, TNS stated that it agrees with the approach the FCC is taking in the Call Authentication proceeding. TNS supports the deployment of STIR/SHAKEN, as broadly as possible, and as quickly as possible. TNS offered two suggestions on the Report and Order portion of the discussion draft. First , the Commission should strengthen the discussion of STIR/SHAKEN paired with analytics. At paragraph 48 of the discussion draft, the FCC notes the value of pairing STIR/SHAKEN with analytics but does not require voice service providers to deploy analytics with their STIR/SHAKEN solution. TNS urged the Commission to mandate that implementation of STIR/SHAKEN include a call analytics component. It is well understood that, despite the benefits of STIR/SHAKEN, it is no “silver bullet” in the battle against unlawful robocalls. The STIR/SHAKEN framework is intended to authenticate the relationship between the caller and the caller ID information transmitted, thereby reducing unlawful spoofing. In doing so, it does not, by itself, prevent any calls from being made. Unlawful calls could still be made, even if STIR/SHAKEN is deployed. Because STIR/SHAKEN does not stop harmful calls, STIR/SHAKEN alone will not achieve the full benefit that the Commission seeks. Moreover, as TNS advocated in its comments, blocking based solely on the failure to authenticate under STIR/SHAKEN is not reliable enough. If, however, carriers also deploy reasonable call analytics that takes into account the STIR/SHAKEN authentication, consumers will at a minimum have more information available (if call labelling is employed) and possibly will be protected from the call (if call blocking is deployed). Therefore, in order to best implement the goals articulated by the Commission and the TRACED Act, call analytics should be paired with a STIR/SHAKEN deployment. TNS urged the Commission to make this obligation clear in its order. Second, TNS noted that the cost estimate for deploying STIR/SHAKEN (paragraph 53) is likely high with respect to deployment on portions of service provider networks that are IP-enabled. Paragraph 53 estimates that each voice service provider will face average annual costs ranging from $15,000 to $300,000 for implementing and operating STIR/SHAKEN. 4848-9352-8504v.1
KELLEY DRYE & W ARREN LLP Ms. Marlene H. Dortch March 24, 2020 Page 3 For network portions that are IP-enabled, the cost is likely to be on the lower end of this range, however. Enabling STIR/SHAKEN on a carrier’s network consists of two separate projects: firstly IP-enabling the network and secondly enabling STIR/SHAKEN itself. The first step of IP-enabling the network is a significant project, typically involving installing an IP softswitch and a Session Border Controller (SBC) and migrating traffic over to the new equipment. The high end of the estimate cited by the Commission includes these costs, which typically cost in the low 6 figures for a small service provider. However, the good news is that most carriers in the United States have already completed this first step. The NTCA recently reported that 93% of its 850 members have completed this step. 2 Because so many providers have implemented IP in at least a portion of their networks, the higher end of the Commission’s cost estimates are not likely to be implicated. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking With respect to the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in the discussion draft, TNS recommended that the Commission broaden its inquiry to encompass two specific areas. First , TNS recommended that the Commission ask whether reasonable call analytics should be a part of an “appropriate robocall mitigation program” that is required under the TRACED Act for service providers receiving extensions of the STIR/SHAKEN deployment deadline. In paragraph 91 of the discussion draft, the Commission asks whether any specific robocall mitigation practices should be prescribed. TNS recommends that the Commission also ask, in particular, whether the robocall mitigation practices should include the use of call analytics to identify, label and block unlawful calls. Second , TNS also recommends that the Commission broaden its examination of the contemplated extension of the STIR/SHAKEN deployment deadline for small providers. Specifically, the Commission tentatively concludes that small providers face difficulties in procuring “ready-to-install” solutions on the same timeframe as larger carriers (paragraph 78). The Commission’s discussion does not appear to take into account the availability of third-party hosted or managed solutions for deployment of STIR/SHAKEN. TNS stated that the approaches to STIR/SHAKEN deployment may be different for smaller carriers, where managed solutions may be more appealing as either an initial or a long term solution. To adequately consider these differences in deployment, TNS recommended that the Commission ask whether third-party managed or hosted solutions were suitable alternatives to deployment of network-based equipment. TNS also recommended that the Commission ask whether an extension to small 2 NTCA—The Rural Broadband Assocation, Ex Parte Notice, at 1-2, CG Docket No. 17- 59 et al, Jan. 16, 2020 (available at https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1011612245796/01.14.20_Ex_Parte_WCB_Shaken- interconnection_Docket17-59.pdf). 4848-9352-8504v.1
KELLEY DRYE & W ARREN LLP Ms. Marlene H. Dortch March 24, 2020 Page 4 carriers should be predicated on evidence that third-party hosted or managed solutions are not available or are not feasible to deploy by the June 30, 2021 deadline. Raising these issues in the FNPRM will allow the Commission to develop a more complete record and to more fully determine how best to achieve the broadest and fastest deployment of STIR/SHAKEN possible. * * * This ex parte notification is being filed electronically with the Commission pursuant to Section 1.1206 of the Commission’s Rules. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns. Respectfully submitted, Steven A. Augustino Counsel for Transaction Network Services, Inc. cc: FCC personnel listed above 4848-9352-8504v.1
Recommend
More recommend
