Convoso

Tomorrow (March 26) is basically the Super Bowl for the telecom and telemarketing policy world: the FCC is holding its March Open Meeting with three significant items, and the SIP code 603+ requirement for telecom carriers goes live. The Commission is set to consider: - A proposal impacting foreign call centers and related consumer protection issues; - A proposal on numbering policy that looks at how phone numbers are bought, sold, and used by businesses; and - An order on network modernization that looks to incentivize the replacement of plain old copper lines with modern IP-based infrastructure. At the same time, the 603+ SIP response code requirement takes effect. Carriers that block calls based on analytics will now be expected to return that specific code upstream, ideally giving originating providers more clarity about the outcomes of their routing and creating more transparency in the ecosystem. That’s a lot of activity packed into one day. To mix sports metaphors here, it's March Madness! If your business touches outbound calling or telecom infrastructure, this is a good time to take a closer look at whether and how your business is keeping up with these regulatory developments. #Telecom #Telemarketing #TCPA #Robocalls #CallCenter #FCC #Compliance #TelecomCompliance #VoIP #SaaSCompliance #RegulatoryCompliance #ConsumerProtection #NumberingPolicy #CallBlocking https://lnkd.in/eGatxDCp

Many telemarketing compliance programs still rely on a basic assumption: business number = safe to call for DNC and TCPA purposes. My insights in Convoso's March Compliance Newsletter reveal why that assumption is increasingly outdated: The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) generally prohibit telemarketing calls to residential telephone numbers listed on the National Do Not Call (DNC) Registry. However, business-to-business (B2B) calls are typically exempt when the number dialed is clearly a business line rather than a residential line. In practice, compliance becomes more complex when a phone number appears to be used for both personal and business purposes, such as a business owner's personal cell phone. Recent legal developments make clear that mixed-use numbers may still be considered “residential” under the TCPA, meaning DNC protections may apply and DNC scrubbing may still be required. Courts take a close look on how exactly a phone is used and whether its more for business or personal. But, callers won't know any of this; you will just have a lead that looks like a business line. It's almost a compliance trap! Implications for B2B Marketers: - Best Practice is to Treat Mixed-Use Numbers as Residential: This conservative approach reduces the risk of inadvertently calling DNC numbers. - Flow-Down Compliance Requirements to Vendors and Partners: If a company adopts the approach of treating mixed-use numbers as residential, the same expectations should extend to vendors. - !! Be Aware of State DNC Laws Allowing Business Registrations !!: This is a big one. Some states now allow business telephone numbers to be listed on their state Do Not Call registries, meaning B2B calls may still be restricted even when calling a business line. States that allow businesses to register on their state DNC registries include: Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming. More legislatures are looking adopting this approach. In these states, telemarketers should ensure that both consumer and business numbers are screened against the applicable state DNC registry, depending on the scope of the campaign. The increasing use of mobile phones for both personal and business activities blurs the traditional distinction between residential and business lines. As a result, B2B marketers should adopt risk-based practices, including treating ambiguous numbers as residential, performing appropriate DNC scrubbing, and ensuring vendor compliance obligations are clearly defined. These steps help align calling practices with evolving TCPA interpretations and broader regulatory expectations for proactive compliance programs. Informational only; not legal advice. #TCPA #DoNotCall #TelemarketingCompliance #B2BMarketing #RegulatoryCompliance #ConsumerProtection #ContactCenter #LeadGeneration #B2B

The word “robocall” gets used constantly in telecom policy discussions but may mean different things depending on the context. In fact, the FTC and the FCC, the main federal agencies that govern the calling ecosystem, may themselves have different meanings for the term. This nuance is particularly important as AI voice technology is developed and deployed. The FTC, the more general consumer protection agency that focuses on unfair and deceptive practices, typically looks at whether a call delivers a “prerecorded message” to be considered a robocall. A soundboard or prerecorded clip is clearly a prerecorded message. However a fully AI-generated voice created in real time in response to consumer input may not fit neatly into the traditional “prerecorded message” framework the FTC uses under its authority to pursue Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) violations. So, interactive AI voice may not be a “robocall” from the FTC’s perspective. The FCC on the other hand often uses “robocall” to mean a call placed using an autodialer or automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS), regardless of whether the message is prerecorded, delivered by a live agent, or uses AI voice. The FCC focuses on the dialing technology and not just the message. I have heard many federal and state regulators even refer to all marketing calls as "robocalls," even if there is a live agent on the phone that manually dials a consumer that requested to be contacted. The telecom industry itself typically uses the term “spam” call more than robocall, further muddying the waters around this already complex topic. A "spam" call and a “robocall” both may be annoying, but are not necessarily illegal by definition. As companies develop voice AI and conversational bots, they should be thinking about these definitional, dialer, and agent issues. The key point is that when you hear, "robocall," it may mean something slightly different depending on who you are talking to. For some, it's like a dirty word. For others, it is an efficient way to conduct fully compliant outbound marketing. In this industry, it is vital to clarify whether you mean an illegal robocall (autodialed calls done without consent under the TCPA, for example), an unwanted robocall (a call that may be fully compliant with TCPA and TSR but a consumer still doesn't want to recieve), and just an ordinary outbound marketing phone call from a live agent. These distinctions matter, particularly when dealing with the private-right-of-action risk exposure under the TCPA statute. As voice AI evolves and tools enable more sophisticated dialing campaigns, regulators will likely have to revisit what exactly they mean when they say "robocalls." As vindication for us English majors, words matter! #TCPA #Robocalls #Telecommunications #AIRegulation #Compliance #ConsumerProtection #VoiceAI #TelecomPolicy