the fcc and federal trade commission got together recently to learn about robocalls, automated telephone calls that deliver pre-recorded messages to large numbers of people. officials from those agencies and communications analysts talk about techniques used by telemarketers and law enforcement tools available to help consumers. >> good morning, everyone. and welcome to the fcc, ftc policy forum on fighting the scourge of illegal robocalls. i'm patrick weber, chief of the consumer and governmental affairs bureau. we're very pleased to join forces with the ftc to further the fight against illegal robocalls. and caller i.d. spoofing. unwanted calls are a major source of complaints to the fcc and ftc, and we look forward to the policy discussions today that will address ways to protect consumers and encourage the development of private

sector solutions. this morning, we'll hear remarks from fcc and ftc leadership. we will also hear from a diverse group of speakers on three moderated panels focusing on challenges facing consumers and industry today, recent regulatory and enforcement efforts, solutions and tools for consumers. today's policy forum is being streamed live with captions on the fcc's website and will be posted for later viewing once complete. and with that, it is a great pleasure to introduce our first featured speaker, fcc chairman. ajit pai. mr. chairman? [ applause ] >> thanks so much, patrick. good morning. welcome to the fcc. thank you all for coming. i apologize at the outset. i'm in the midst of a cold. i've been alternating today between sounding like barry white and katherine hepburn. nonetheless, i will persist. special thanks to our co-hosts,

the terrific team from the ftc. and their fearless leader, my friend, maureen ohlhausen, who i understand will be appearing by video. she's not able to be here in person today. thanks to my colleagues for being here this morning. this cross-agency event reflects the importance of the issue of unwanted robocalls. for years this has generated the most consumer complaints here at the fcc. i know that our companions have -- at the federal trade commission has gotten a lot of feedback about it as well. today's collaboration brings together not only the fcc and the ftc but also other leaders in government, private sector, and the nonprofit community. it's a group effort, one that is necessary and appropriate to tackle this challenging issue. it evokes in my mind ben franklin's famous quote upon signing the declaration of independence in 1776. we must indeed all hang together or most assuredly we shall all

hang separately. to be sure, this is perhaps less an existential issue than the one franklin was facing, but nonetheless, the fight against unwanted robocalls requires similar unity. none of us will defeat this scourge alone. the unfortunate inventiveness of scammers, technical challenges, and the sheer volume of calls that are being unleashed on american consumers are daunting for any one entity to defeat. but working together, i think we have a better chance. here at the fcc, combatting unwanted robocalls is our top consumer protection priority. we've taken multiple steps over the past year to advance that priority. for instance, last november the fcc empowered phone companies to block calls from spoofed phone numbers that do not -- or cannot actually originate calls, such as invalid or unassigned phone numbers. this allows phone companies to

block many scam calls before they even get to consumers. additionally, we are seeking public input on ways to help authenticate caller i.d. information. that would give each phone number a verified digital fingerprint that would give every call recipient the confidence to answer, knowing a legitimate caller was on the line. just yesterday, the fcc launched an initiative to explore the creation of a database for reassigned phone numbers, a measure that would help reduce unwanted calls to consumers. the fcc's focus hasn't been limited to the rule-making side of the ledger alone. aggressive enforcement also has been a key component of our strategy. we sent a very clear message that those who engage in illegal robocall schemes will pay a price, literally. in 2017, the fcc proposed over $200 million in fines against illegal robocallers, including the largest single fine ever proposed in the history of this agency. i've also personally raised this

issue with some of my foreign counterparts to enable our governments to share information that is necessary to crackdown o organize -- on organized, illegal robocalling operations. but we all know that this isn't enough, and that is why we've teamed up with the ftc, with consumer advocates, and with the private sector to convene this policy forum. we're looking to you for guidance on the steps we have already taken and what steps we need to take in the future in order to protect consumers. i should note as well that this event will not be a one-hit wonder. on april 23rd, the fcc and ftc will be co-hosting an event, this time a technology expo that will feature technologies, devices, and applications that seek to minimize or eliminate the number of unwanted robocalls that consumers receive. the expo will be held at the pepco edison gallery here in washington, d.c. we hope those of you here in the audience and watching will be able to attend. with that, thanks again for joining us today. looking at the talent in this

room, many of whom i've had the chance to work with over the past couple of years on this issue, i know that this is going to be an engaging and productive day, and at the end of it, to borrow once again from franklin, i'm quite confident we will all hang together in this fight. so thank you for your attention. with that, i'll turn it back to patrick to set us on our schedule. thanks, patrick. [ applause ] >> thank you, mr. chairman. our next featured speaker is ftc acting chairman maureen ohlhausen. she will be delivering her remarks via prerecorded video. >> thank you for coming to today's robocall forum. while i can't join you in person, i'm thrilled that the ftc and the fcc are co-hosting this event to explore the problem of illegal robocalls. and thank you to fcc chairman ajit pai and to fcc and ftc staff who made this possible. like you, i hate when my phone rings due to an illegal robocall.

now, this problem isn't new, but it does seem to come in waves. in the late 2000s, we saw that robocalls were a growing problem, and the ftc responded by amending the telemarketing sales rule to prohibit the vast majority of robocalls or prerecorded sales calls. unfortunately, changes in telephone technology, primarily the growth of voiceover internet protocol and automated dialing software have made it much easier for telemarketers to make large volumes of robocalls with spoof caller i.d. information, for a fraction of a cent per call, often from foreign countries, with nothing more than a computer and an internet connection. each of these developments has made it easier and more profitable for robocallers to violate the law and harder for law enforcement to stop them. and that means more calls and negative effects for consumers. the ftc uses every tool at our disposal to combat the challenge

of robocalls. aggressive law enforcement, initiatives to spur technological solutions, and robust consumer and business outreach. let me touch on each. the ftc's robocall and do not call enforcement program has two prongs. first, our fraud program targets scams that use robocalls to commit fraud. they cause significant financial injury to many individuals. for example, in 2017, consumers reported losing $290 million from frauds perpetrated over the phone. second, our program against abusive telemarketing, strategically targets the parties most responsible for robocalls. the companies that sit at the top of affiliate telemarketing networks and the robocall kingpins who run the dialers that blast out robocalls across a wide range of industries. to date, the ftc has brought 134 lawsuits against 789 companies and individuals alleged to be responsible for placing billions

of unwanted telemarketing calls to consumers. the ftc has been awarded judgments totaling over $1.5 billion and has collected over $121 million from these violators. during my tenure as acting chairman, our enforcement stopped two companies responsible for more than 1 billion robocalls a year. and in june 2017, the doj on behalf of the ftc, along with state co-plaintiffs, obtained the largest penalty ever issued in a do not call case. $280 million against dish network as well as strong injunctive relief. our enforcement efforts remain active and aggressive, although there's always more to be done. now turning to industry outreach and technological solutions. the ftc has been especially creative and has had tremendous impact encouraging industry initiatives to tackle unlawful

robocalls throughout our public challenges and more recently through our data initiative. the ftc has led four public challenges, really innovation contests, to spur the development of robocall blocking tools. two winners of the ftc challenges no mo robo, one, now offer leading call-blocking apps. before the ftc's first challenge announced in 2012, there were very few call blocking solutions available on the market. today there are many, particularly for wireless devices and cable or voip phones. as i mentioned, the ftc recently began a new initiative to help facilitate industry call blocking solutions by increasing the amount in frequency of consumer complaint data that we make publicly available. when consumers report do not call or robocall violations to the agency, the phone numbers consumers report are now released each business day to help telecommunications carriers and other industry partners

implement call-blocking solutions for consumers. the ftc also now releases more data about the call, including the date and the time the unwanted call was received, its general subject matter, and whether it was a robocall. several telecom carriers have told us that sharing this data has enhanced their ability to block fraudulent or illegal calls. finally, because robocalls affect so many people, it is important to get the word out about what individuals can do. the ftc's education and outreach program reaches tens of millions of people a year, through our website, the media, and partner organizations that disseminate the ftc's consumer information. in the case of robocalls, our advice is simple. if you answer a call and hear an unwanted recorded sales message, just hang up. and be aware that there are call-blocking and labeling solutions that might reduce the number of unwanted calls you receive. indeed, on april 23rd, the ftc and fcc are hosting a public

event to showcase some of these new solutions. i know that consumers want these abusive and often fraudulent calls to stop. the ftc's enforcement, innovation, and education efforts are substantial and ongoing. but we can do more. that's why together with the fcc and other partners, we're expanding the fight to hang up on the robocall scourge. today's forum is part of that expanding fight but much more is to come. stay tuned and thank you. [ applause ] >> and thank you to acting chairman ohlhausen. our next featured speaker is the fcc commissioner mignon clyburn. commissioner clyburn? [ applause ] >> sorry, it's further than i thought.

good morning again, everyone. thank you for allowing me to take part in today's conversation on combatting illegal robocalls. i am pleased to see regulators, industry leaders, and consumer groups come together to discuss the regulatory hurdles posed by these illegal calls that have annoyed countless consumers and scammed millions of americans. to put it bluntly, robocalls are out of control, and we have the consumer complaints to prove it. we each have had our encounters with robocalls, so i think it is fair to say this morning that we share the same feelings about them. the scenario is a common one, the phone rings, you pick it up, then you notice that distinct pause. you sigh. because within seconds, that recording offering you a free

vacation to the caribbean comes across the phone. now, when experiencing a mid-march blizzard in d.c. is more attractive than an offer to the caribbean, we all know we have a problem. increasingly, however, these nuisance calls are coming from spoofed numbers, from seemingly familiar numbers. advancements in technology have enabled robocalls at a scale we simply have not seen before. the techniques used by robocallers are becoming increasingly sophisticated. they are even experimenting with artificial intelligence that allows a robot to hold convincing conversations. according to the latest report, from u mail robocall index, the chairman might have touched this, and you know this too --

2.7 billion of those calls were placed nationwide just last month. equally remarkable is that four phone numbers are responsible for more than 68 million of these calls. so given the severity and complexity of the unwanted robocall problem, the fcc and ftc, along with industry stakeholders and all of you, we're coming together to create clear, enforceable rules and to encourage the creation of smart, private sector solutions. i agree fully with the conclusion of the robocall strike task force, that robocalls are best addressed in a holistic manner, through deployment of a wide variety of tools by a broad range of stakeholders. this is why i'm particularly heartened to see a portion of today's events devoted to solutions and tools for consumers. while i believe the fcc can and

must do more to abate this persistent nuisance, there's also room for third parties and all stakeholders to create resources to empower consumers. i admire industry efforts to develop caller i.d. authentication and the work of businesses providing blocking services such as "nermarlboro" -- and you know what i'm saying, no more robo -- i know i messed that up. and umail. i'm sorry. i'm in another plane right now. the robo calls are driving me crazy. efforts such as these highlight that there is room and a need for new and innovative solutions. i believe collaboration between the parties in this room will be key. so i look forward to hearing a report of the conversations taking place today, and i stand ready, as always, to work with you in support of policies and initiatives that put consumers first.

thank you again. [ applause ] >> thank you, commissioner clyburn. we're going to go ahead and start with our first panel. that is going to be moderated by micah caldwell. she is special counsel in my office, in the consumer governmental affairs bureau here at the fcc. the panel is entitled challenges facing consumers and industry today. so i invite the panelists to come up, and micah. >> good morning, everyone. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> i'm very pleased to be here, very pleased to welcome for our first panel michele shuster, kevin rupy and ed bartholme. i'll ask them to introduce themselves and then we'll get

started. >> i'm michelle schuster, a former consumer protection chief from the ohio attorney general's office. 11 years ago, i started a law firm, mcmurray and shuster, with three other consumer protection chiefs and a former ohio attorney general. and while i'm here representing the industry at heart i would consider myself a consumer advocate as well. i'm here in my capacity as general counsel for p.a.c.e., the professional association for customer engagement. p.a.c.e. is the only industry non-profit association dedicated solely to contact centers that place calls to consumers and businesses and use multiple channels for contacting consumers in business, including telephones, text message, social media, chat, and those types of avenues. i'm happy to be here today. >> good morning. my name is kevin rupy. i'm vice president of law and

policy for u.s. telecom, the broadband association. our member companies represent you know, traditional wireline, broadband companies from small, rural providers to, you know, some of the largest providers in the country. robocalls has been a priority issue for our member companies, for our association, over the last several years, and i am thrilled to be here. i want to thank chairman pai and acting chairman ohlhausen for bringing this important forum together. and i do want to reiterate something that chairman pai said that i wholeheartedly agree with. this is a joint effort, so this is something that industry, consumer groups, government, we all have to cooperate, work together on this issue, and i do

feel having worked on this issue over the last several years, i do feel like there is a tremendous amount of unity with all of those sectors moving in the same direction and in the right direction, and i'm looking forward to talking about everything that's been going on. >> ed bartholme with call for action. i'll start by echoing kevin's appreciation to fcc and their leadership and also staff for organizing today's event and look forward to participating. call for action is a national non-profit that partners with media outlets in cities throughout the country to set up volunteer-staffed consumer help hotlines. and over the past couple years, it's been interesting in terms of robocalls because we can't do mediation to get people resolutions, but what we have seen is that our offices can actually sort of track where the predictive dialers are calling. so, one day our colorado springs office might get a rash of irs-related scams and then nothing the next day, and it's on to atlanta or a different area of the country where we

have a consumer help hotline. so, it's been a unique situation in terms of the spike of traffic into our networks that robocalls produce, but it's also been fascinating to watch how some of this has evolved based on what we're hearing from consumers. another hat that i have the great pleasure and opportunity to wear currently is that of chairing the fcc's consumer advisory committee. and kevin and i actually currently co-chair the robocall working group on that advisory committee. and over the past year and a month or so of our term, we've passed, i think, three recommendations. all of those recommendations had a number of different action items for the fcc to pursue, and i'm very happy to say that the commission and commission staff have been working very closely with our membership to make a lot of those action items come into fruition and become a reality, so that's been exciting, too. >> thank you for being here this morning again.

so, let's go ahead and get started with our panel. this first panel is about challenges facing consumers and industry today. the intent of the panel is to sort of set the foundation for the other two panels that come later this morning that will get into some of the details about each of these areas. i think we just want to sort of scratch the surface with this first panel and give an overview of the problem as we see it. so, the first question that i have for you all, and i will direct it to both ed and kevin. i read an article in "the new york times" this morning that says that the robocalls problem is getting worse. so i'd like to get your perspectives on that. what is the extent of the illegal robocalls problem, and is it getting better or worse? >> sure. i think that "the new york times" is pretty spot on with the sense that it's getting worse, and i think the ftc numbers definitely bear that out. in 2017, they showed 4.5 million complaints, in 2016, 3.4. so, the complaint numbers are rising by over a million complaints a year.

and that bears out if you go back even further in those statistics. and that's despite the fact that there are so many tools and resources for consumers now in the market. i mean, at&t announced, i think yesterday, or recently, that they've blocked 3.5 billion calls. i know that my cell phone provider, t-mobile, tells me "scam likely" when my phone rings, and i am not going to answer that. so, there are tools out there that are causing consumers not to deal with this, and yet, complaints are still on the rise. so i think the only conclusion we can reach is that numbers are going up, and losses are going up. consumers union reports that this is a $9.5 billion cost to our economy in money lost through these scams and phone calls. >> kevin? >> yeah, so, i think i'd echo a lot of what ed says there, and a couple things. i mean, i don't think it's any surprise that robocalls are the number one consumer complaint at both the fcc and the ftc.

and we've heard a lot of numbers thrown out there, whether it's, you know, 2.5 billion last month or 2.1 or 2.7. i don't know what the number is. i don't think anybody can say with certainty what the number is, but it's a lot of calls. it's too many. and i think this has been an ongoing problem over the last several years. as i said, number one consumer complaint. but at the same time, i do think it's important that there has -- to note that there has been a lot of good progress on this front for consumers, and there are a lot of good things that are happening out there. and in the time i've been working on this issue, you know, five or six years, one of the things that you're seeing that you'll hear a lot about today, there are more tools available to consumers today. there are an increasing number

of tools that are available across multiple platforms. wire line, wireless, cable, voip, et cetera. that's a good thing. there is more partnering taking place. so in other words, you are seeing that, you know, the fcc passed the order last month that, you know, gives carriers the ability to block categories of calls. that's a good thing. you're hearing about at&t that's blocked 3.5 billion calls. those are 3.5 billion fewer calls that were able to connect with consumers, and that's a good thing. there's progress being made on things like shaken and stirred, where you've seen the standards adopted, they were accelerated by six months because of the industry-led strike force were going through testing. that is not to say that

everything's great. there is a lot of work that still needs to be done. this still is the number one consumer complaint. but i just think it's important that we not lose sight of a lot of the very good progress that's being made, and i think it's incumbent upon all of us to continue to move in that direction. >> micah, if i could add one thing to that. >> sure. >> so, you overlay with the increase in consumer complaints about robocalls the comments that the fcc receive from industry on this issue. what we're also experiencing recently is a significant rise in call completions not occurring. so, industry has testified to or provided information to the fcc that says we have seen a drop of about 20% to 30% from legitimate businesses in america as a result of the calling and labelling that's occurring. and so, while industry wholeheartedly supports taking a strong stance against robocalls, which are to the detriment of

legitimate businesses as well, because it's deterring consumers and businesses alike from picking up the phone for calls they desire and they want to receive. so, i think we have to be mindful as we're proceeding forward in our zeal to eliminate robocalls that there are effects to legitimate businesses that also have to be considered. >> thanks, michele. yes, that's very true. so, it sounds like we're all in agreement that it's an increasing problem and that there are more tools available now than ever, but what's leading to an increase, despite the fact that there have been these really positive developments? why are we seeing more and more robocalls? so, kevin and ed, could you speak to that as well? >> sure. so, you know, i think chairman ohlhausen i think hit the nail on the head when she talked about that. and she noted the two things. you have advances in technology. the way i look at it, you've

had -- industry has transitioned to ip-enabled networks. you've had this, you know, what i refer to as a merging of the internet with the pstn, public switch telephone network. and because of that, you've created a vehicle whereby it's much easier to inject those calls into the network. the second piece of that that i think is important to note is, as chairman ohlhausen noted, it is extremely cheap to make phone calls. you know, we're talking fractions of a penny. so, that has, you know, created this environment where you can generate a tremendous amount of phone calls at minimal cost. so, that's one of the key factors that's contributed to this. the other factor that's contributed to this is the fallibility of caller i.d., okay?

so, caller i.d. is very, very easy to spoof, and that's what the scammers are doing. they're able to spoof these numbers and create a false sense of trust amongst consumers that might, you know, compel them to pick up the phone or make them more inclined to pick up the phone. as i said before, the good news there is that industry has developed standards, they accelerated those standards by six months. they're going through testing. it's this whole shake and stir standards and best practices that you've heard about. and i think one of the important things -- there's a couple important things to note about shake and stir. you know, that will help to reintroduce trust into the caller i.d. system, so that when that number says here's who's calling, that's who's calling. and i think an important thing to note, and michele hit on this -- you know, we talk about

robocalls, but i really like to focus on illegal robocalls, because michele's right, there is a lot of legitimate traffic that gets thrown under this robocall umbrella, things like school closings, doctor reminders, you know, calls from companies that you had relationships with. we want to basically separate those two, get rid of the illegal robocalls and help these, you know, valid, legitimate robocalls or calls to get through, and caller i.d. can do that, authenticated caller i.d. can help you do that. >> sure. >> i would add, too, i think another thing that's driving this is the success rate, right? the people who are making these calls, the fraudsters, the criminals, they're getting a monetary payout, so it is worth their while to keep this going. kevin pointed out that it costs less than a penny to place these

calls. when you calculate some of the fines that have been issued and divide it by the number of calls that were placed, the fines are less than a penny per call. so, you're looking at a scenario where between the cost of making the call and the potential fine, you're still spending less than a penny per call to perpetrate these scams on consumers and to swindle them out of money. so, i think that's a huge driving factor in why this continues and one of the reasons why we started to talk recently about maybe there should be a criminal element here where people spend some time in prison as a consequence for the scam calls that they're making. >> and ed literally took the words out of my mouth. i couldn't agree with that more. and you know, a couple of other things. like, we collectively -- industry, whether it's voice providers or all the different, you know, companies out there like first orion, hiya, umail -- we want to, and i think we are making it more expensive and more challenging for these illegal actors to make calls.

in other words, the more costly you make it for them to try to, you know, carry these things out, that makes it less profitable. and at the end of the day, we want to remove that component. but i do have to echo what ed said. i would strongly support and industry would be ready to partner with our partners in the federal government on helping to identify these bad actors and bringing criminal enforcement. >> i think we probably do have criminal penalties already, if people are perpetrating frauds, there would be crimes that apply to that. so, i think there's already the tools there for those types of telephone calls. you know, as we're looking at

eliminating the robocalls, and again, something that we all support and all are aligned with, and as we are looking at the members of the industry that are being affected by the calling and labelling, i think it's really important that two things happen in this ecosystem that now exists with blocking and labelling in it. it's very important that legitimate businesses know if their phone numbers are being called or labeled. currently, there doesn't exist an easy mechanism for legitimate callers to identify that that is happening. there is currently technology in place that would provide an intercept code for businesses to receive notice that their calls are being blocked. it's been around since the 1950s. i think it's a workable solution for notifying businesses. also, for companies that are notified that their calls are being labeled or blocked, they need an easy remediation route so that they can contact somebody. and you need to understand that if a company's numbers are being blocked, a legitimate company

that is invested significantly in complying with the tcpa or the tsr, right now they could have a number of different parties that they would have to contact, one of many telecom carriers that are out there. it could be one of many analytics companies working with them, other service providers, and there is no easy mechanism for a legitimate business to contact somebody and rectify a situation where calls are being wrongfully blocked, legitimate calls are being wrongfully blocked or labeled. so we really, you know, we encourage that as the fcc and the ftc are moving forward looking for solutions. >> and just to put a finishing point on that, you know, i do think it's important to note -- and p.a.c.e. and ustelecom have both had workshops and efforts to address that issue, because that is an important issue. and making sure that these legitimate call originators can get callers fixed where those

false positives arise, but that's something -- you know, my -- can get problems fixed where these false positives arise. but my sense is that's something that all sectors of the industry are invested in and committed to. >> all right. thanks for that. did you have something else, michele? >> i would just ask as we're moving forward that that would be an important consideration, quickly. we have been meeting with industry groups and consumer advocates and with telecom carriers and service providers for probably about a year now without a solution, and i just really want to put an emphasis on the fact that the need for this to happen quickly is of paramount importance. >> so, michele, could you tell us more about -- we've been focusing so far on the illegal robocalls problem, but you speak from the perspective of someone who represents the industry that's trying to reach consumers with legitimate robocalls.

consumers get from your organizations that you represent. >> sure. for the legitimate businesses and the good actors out there, the technology that we have available to reach a number of people in a short period of time is a very good thing. there are a lot of types of calls that consumers and businesses want to receive using this technology. appointment reminders, service delivery reminders, pharmacy refill reminders. school closing, a number of different good reasons and good uses for this type of technology. and the marketing world, if you can call more efficiently, people that have requested and given their consent to be called, that's a more efficient process for a business and consumers as well. so there are a lot of really great applications for the technology. the unfortunate reality is this same good technology for legitimate industry has become really a weapon that is being used to really be a scourge for american citizens for these

illegal calls that are happening, and those types of calls really need to be distinguished from legitimate calls that businesses are making to consumers who oftentimes want to receive those calls. >> so from the industry's perspective, kevin, what are some of the challenges that the providers run into when it comes to trying to decipher between legitimate calls and illegal robocalls? >> well, so, on that point, i think there's a couple of important things to note. i always break down, when you're looking at industry sectors that are operating in this space, you have the fcc's order that authorized voice providers to conduct blocking basically at the network level on four categories of calls and those are discreet narrowly defined categories. it's, do not originate, it's invalid numbers, unassigned or

unallocated numbers. so in that category, you have what are basically identifiable numbers that can be blocked. when you start looking at the when you start looking at the other industry sectors like first orion, like umail, like nomorobo, there is broader latitude for the categories of calls that they can block. and i know having participated in a lot of these industry forums, they put tremendous effort into looking at multiple characteristics to make sure that when they do decide to flag that call or score that call, that they get it right. but i do think michele is right that even in that instance, we do want to make sure that there is a mechanism whereby when an instance of a false positive

arises, that can be addressed, that it can be resolved quickly and efficiently. and there's a lot of different ways that you can go with that, and that is a lot of the discussion that's happening and i know ustelecom, we've had one initial workshop in october this year to discuss this exact issue. we've scheduled a second for may 4th here in washington, d.c. i know p.a.c.e. has similar efforts going on. but i think there is definitely a commitment to move in that direction to develop industry solutions to make sure we get it right. >> and i would say i think too, we're obviously all in agreement that illegal robocalls need to be stopped and that that's a problem, but i think the prevalence of and the volume of the illegal calls has put consumers in this position of frustration. it's put consumer advocates,

it's put fcc chair and ftc chair people in the position of saying just hang up the phone. or don't answer the call if you don't recognize the number. so that does create a scenario where it's difficult for calls that have valuable information like a potential school closing to break through. having said that, i do think that when a consumer makes a conscious choice to sign up for a product or service offering like nomorobo, that's an exercise of choice on their part and they're saying, i'm entrusting this other group to make certain screening decisions for me. now i do think it's very important for groups that are engaging in that sort of offering to be very clear and transparent about what they're offering and what could potentially be caught in the net. so that consumers are making an informed consent choice when they decide to enroll for something like that. but i do think we can't sort of overlook that this is one way that consumers are exercising some choice about the types of interactions they want to receive.

>> thank you, ed. so i'd like to talk a little bit about the solutions some more and i think one of the things that factors into this is information sharing. one of the things that acting chairman ohlhausen mentioned was that complaint data and putting complaint data out there, so that third-party applications can use it for their call blocking and filtering solutions, but is there other types of information sharing that could be going on in the private sector among industry and providers to help develop some of these products and more solutions for consumers? >> so, on the information sharing, i think i applaud what both the fcc and ftc have done in terms of sharing that information. i think previously, that information was being released on like a monthly basis and it's now on a daily basis and look, at the end of the day,

timeliness on this information is key, especially for the analytics developers who are scoring these algorithms. that's a critical component when you consider that these illegal robocallers are oftentimes changing the numbers that they're spoofing every ten minutes, every hour. so that information sharing is good. and we fully support that type of information sharing. another area that i would point out that's important information sharing is ustelecom heads what's called the industry traceback group which is 23 voice providers, cable, wireless, wire line, wholesale providers, and we act in a cooperative manner to basically share call information in order to trace back illegal robocalls.

because i do think that type of sharing, that's a form of information sharing, that's crucial, because i'm certainly a big believer that when you can trace those calls back to their source and identify who is originating those calls, you are taking those calls out at the root. you're not trying to swat flies at the consumer end by labeling or blocking an individual call. you're pulling it out at the source. and that type of information sharing is something that i think within industry should be encouraged, that should be supported, and we certainly support broad participation in this type of sharing, so that we can more easily identify where these calls are coming from. >> that was one call not blocked. >> exactly. get on that.

>> michele, did you have something to add? >> so, we support the information sharing, obviously, also, from the fcc and the ftc. i think that that's valuable information. companies have access to that information, so they actually have the ability to look up their phone numbers to see if they're showing up on that database as a phone number that's using -- that is receiving a complaint. so i think there's huge value in those types of lists and i again just reiterate the importance of if companies' telephone numbers are being blocked, we just really need a way of knowing that. we need a way of being able to rectify a system where blocking or labeling is happening in a way that isn't appropriate. >> kevin? >> can i just add one more thing? you know, one other factor that i point out that's important, especially how we teed up this conversation about the number of complaints being received by the fcc and ftc, that information

sharing also goes from some of these deployed scoring and labeling services to the ftc's and fcc's complaint mechanism. so in other words, that may be a source of some of the increase in consumer complaints is that you have consumers who are now empowered with consumer tools, and those tools are reporting to the ftc and providing what i think is real, timely, accurate information so that it benefits the broader good, both in terms of enforcement and making existing tools that much more accurate. >> and i think -- >> i'm sorry, go ahead. >> i think consumers are eager to participant -- participate in data sharing as well. if you google a number that shows up on your phone, you can hit ten different results that

tell you what that call was likely to have been. and why you shouldn't have answered it. when consumers call our hotlines to report they've gotten these calls, the constant reprieve is, i want to get this number shut down so that this person doesn't harm or scam someone else. so i think there's an eagerness by consumers to participate where it's appropriate and when they can as well. >> i guess the only thing that i would say and even just from the former regulator standpoint, when we received complaints, and especially in today's environment where we're hitting an app to send a complaint directly to a regulatory agency, oftentimes the consumer is not aware of who's calling them. they don't know what the content of the call is, so i think that there's a likelihood of many false positives that are happening throughout that complaint process. having said that, i still think it's valuable information for the companies if their phone numbers are being reported, they have the ability to look up those numbers and they know they are doing something that is not effecting what they want, which is to have a positive consumer or business interaction so those types of databases are helpful

for that. >> well, the clock says we have a minute left, but i see that our next speaker is already here so in an effort to keep us on time, i think we should probably wrap up there rather than asking another question, so i want to thank you all again for being here today and for offering your perspectives on this issue. i appreciate your time. >> great. >> thank you, micah. [ applause ] >> thank you to micah and our panel one panelists. our next featured speaker is fcc commissioner brendan carr. [ applause ] >> thanks for taking the time to be here at this important discussion we're having today, and thank you for the chance to say a few words. as a consumer, i certainly

appreciate all the work that industry, consumer groups, federal government, state government is putting into this. my very first meeting as an fcc commissioner was in september of last year, sat right over here, and during the meeting, my phone went off and rang. i forgot to put it on silent. it was, of course, a robocall. my colleagues called me out for it. so i got off to the wrong foot in this new job. but hopefully that won't happen again and we're taking action to address that stuff. but trying to address this issue of robocalls is a complicated task, technically, under the law, so that's why it's so great that we're seeing the partnerships today from the ftc, fcc, from industry, consumer groups. it is going to take continued,

sustained effort along all these fronts to continue to make progress on these issues. over the past year, the fcc, for instance, we have finally elevated robocalls to our top enforcement priority. that's a good thing. right now, consumers receive perhaps 98 million robocalls per day or roughly 1,000 robocalls per second. at the fcc, we get about 200,000 complaints about robocalls a year, and obviously not every robocall you get, not every person that gets multiple ones is going to file a complaint at the fcc, so you can extrapolate significantly upwards from that, get a sense of the scope of this problem. so we need to continue to work with all stakeholders to be creative about identifying and implementing solutions and taking aggressive enforcement action. at the fcc, we're already working on a number of fronts, reassigned numbers is one of

them. as you may have discussed already today, i think the estimates are somewhere around 38 million numbers are reassigned a year so you can give someone permission to call you. that number is subsequently reassigned to another person, then they end up getting spammed from callers even though they didn't give their permission to receive it. we took a vote yesterday to try to move down the path of a reassigned numbers database and explore other ways to solving this one piece of the problem. spoofing is another issue that i'm sure a lot of you are running into. i get it a lot. you see a phone number, it may reflect the same exchange as your cell phone number, it rings a bell that maybe this is someone you know. you pick it up. that's another issue we've been taking action on at the fcc. in november of last year, we adopted rules that will give phone companies greater flexibility to block calls that are likely fraudulent due to their originating number. call authentication is another area that we're working on at the commission. in july of last year, we launched a proceeding to

facilitate methods of authenticating the true source of a phone call. we heard a little bit about that at the last panel, that ultimately that's one great way to get at the root of this problem. you know, right now, with ip networks, with phone calls coming in, it can be difficult to fully trace back where the actual call originated from, and that's been stopping some of our enforcement actions, so with industry's efforts, with technological progress, we're continuing to work on that effort as well. finally, obviously, is the enforcement side. and at the fcc, the last couple months, we've been issuing some of the largest fines in fcc history against illegal robocalls, which will hopefully stop some of the most abusive practices we're seeing, and send the right signal to the community that the fcc is very serious. the ftc is serious. state actors are serious about taking aggressive action against those people that are initiating these unwanted robocalls.

so, there's more work to do, but the fcc, ftc, state and industry partners, we are all committed to taking action. we hear from consumers what a problem this is. we also understand the scope and nature in terms of how difficult it is for us to solve it but we're committed to moving forward. so i welcome today's event and the additional ideas and areas for action that it's identifying. and with that, i will move off the stage and let the true experts on this continue the really productive discussion. i do look forward to seeing the continued efforts of these types of groups in seeing where at the fcc we can continue to take action to protect consumers. so, thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you, commissioner carr. our second panel is entitled recent regulatory and enforcement efforts. it is moderated by tom paul,

acting director of the ftc's bureau of consumer protection. i invite tom and the panelists to please come up. and i will turn it over to tom. thank you. >> all right. well, good morning, everyone. i'm tom pahl, i'm the acting

director of the ftc's bureau of consumer protection. i'm thrilled to be here today to talk about what we can do to combat unwanted and unlawful robocalls. in our first panel, we heard a lot about the prevalent extent nature of the unwanted robocalling problem that we have in the united states. i think that was very appropriate, very great way for us to get started in looking at this issue. and fortunately, our next panel here is going to talk about what state and federal government officials have been doing, what they can do, what they'd like to do to deal with robocall problems and fortunately we have a very experienced and esteemed group of panelists today to help walk us through what the government is doing, what challenges the government faces, and what their plans are for the future to try to deal with illegal robocalls. and so maybe i can just go through and have each of our panelists briefly say who they are and where they're from and what organization they represent and we can start with christy thompson. >> hi, good morning, everybody. i'm christy thompson. i'm the division chief of the

telecommunications consumers division, but i like to think of myself as the fcc's robocall enforcer. that is the subject nearest and dearest to my heart. so i lead a team of about 40 analysts and attorneys. our number one focus is on consumer protection and of consumer protection, right now, the biggest issue is, of course, stopping illegal robocalls. >> thank you. >> good morning. i'm mark stone. i'm deputy chief in the fcc's consumer bureau, and i work on robocalls from a policy and rule making perspective and absolutely robocalls, illegal robocalls are the fcc's top consumer protection priority, so we're busy. >> i'm special counsel, and one of the issues that we're working on is call authentication and trust anchor, the shake and stir standards that you've been hearing about. >> good morning, everybody. i'm lois greisman with the federal trade commission. i head what's called the division of marketing practices,

which has primary responsibility for enforcement of the telemarketing roles, both where there's fraudulent conduct and abusive conduct. and it's nice to see so many familiar faces, most of whom i think are friendly. >> good morning. my name is denise beamer. i'm the senior assistant attorney general from the great state of florida with the florida attorney general's office. within that office, in the consumer protection division, we are charged with the civil enforcement of the unfair and deceptive trade practices act along with other state and federal consumer-related acts. the attorney general pam bondi is deeply committed to fighting illegal robocalls, and there is enough work for our attorneys and our staff and our investigators to keep us busy. >> thank you very much to all of our panelists for being here today and sharing their expertise with us. i think some of the folks have already started doing this but i would like to have each of our

panelists talk about what statute or regulations their organizations enforce or implement, because one of the things i think is very valuable for people to understand is that there are a number of legal restrictions in place and try to get a sense of how those various legal regimes interact with one another. so, perhaps we could go through each of the panelists again and talk about what their organization enforces or implements in terms of statutes and regulations to get a bit of flavor for what the overall federal and state enforcement and regulatory scheme looks like. and again, we start with kristi. >> the hazard of being on the end here. so the fcc has two main provisions of the communication act that are relevant for robocalls. and the first one is, of course, the telephone consumer protection act, the tcpa, which governs prerecorded and auto dialed calls and has been the subject of quite a bit of litigation since it was adopted

by congress in 1991. the second very important provision that we enforce is the truth in caller i.d. act of 2009, and that is the act that says it's unlawful to spoof, falsify the caller i.d. information if the purpose of doing so is to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain something of value. so, those two things dove tail with each other nicely because we see problems with both of those things. there's a huge number of illegal robocalls, of course, and that triggers the tcpa. and the illegal robocallers, the worst of the worst, the ones who are out there trying to defraud consumers, use spoofing as a way to hide from law enforcement, to hide from consumers finding out who they are and exercising their right to pursue legal remedies in court on the consumer level.

and hide from our carriers, our carrier allies that are trying to locate these guys and block them. so, it's very -- so the fcc, it's very important for us that we exercise both of those laws to the fullest extent. those are the tools that we have to take down illegal robocalls and that's pretty much what i do 24/7 when we're looking at cases that we take. that's our -- that's our toolbox. >> thank you. >> so i also work a lot on the telephone consumer protection act, more from a rule making or policy implementation perspective. and what folks may not know is actually robocall is a term of art under the tcpa and just to say at the beginning, not all robocalls are bad. i think we heard there are lot of robocalls that consumers want to get, expressed their consent to get. nevertheless, the tcpa and the commission's rules define the

illegal robocalls broadly. for land line phones, those are calls that leave prerecorded and automated voice messages and also telemarketing. for wireless, it's calls that leave auto dialed or prerecorded voice messages or are made with an auto dialer and it doesn't matter if those calls are telemarketing or not so there's a little bit of distinction between whether the call is to a landline or wireless phone and it's something that we think a lot about around here. and as kristi mentioned, we work on the truth in caller i.d. act which is a little bit more sherwin's baileywick. >> i don't think there's any additional statutes i have to add for the fcc to cover. we can talk about the standards a bit later. >> sure. thank you. >> from the federal trade commission, we can reach illegal calls under our main act, the federal trade commission act, but the really discrete set of

rules that govern telemarketing are part of the telemarketing sales rule, which was amended effective 2009, to prohibit virtually all robocalls unless the consumer has given express written permission to that seller to receive a robocall. now -- and this is a tighter regulatory scheme than the do not call scheme because the consumer doesn't have to be on the national do not call registry for that robocall to be illegal. but i think a real difference between the fcc's regulatory scheme and the ftc's is really the definition of what is telemarketing. for us, for the federal trade commission, it has to be the sale of a good or product or the solicitation of a donation. informational calls are not covered, so when michele and kevin gave the example of the school call, the appointment reschedule call, the doctor's office call, those are not telemarketing under the federal trade commission's rules and i want to make one additional point on scope of coverage.

calls that use sound board technology or avatar technology, which we often see used by for profit telefunders, those soliciting charitable donations on behalf of others, the ftc considers those robocalls and they are not permitted. thank you. >> so our primary authority comes from the florida unfair and deceptive trade practices act. we also have other florida state law like the florida telemarketing act that we can enforce in court. we also have the ability to enter into federal court and enforce provisions of the tcpa and the tsr and we have partnered with the federal trade commission to bring actions in federal court and have obtained very successful results. >> great. thank you. well, clearly from what we heard this morning from chairman pai, acting chairman ohlhausen and what we've heard about attorney general bondi's priorities, certainly dealing with robocalls is at the top of the agenda of many federal and state officials.

i'd like to hear from the panelists as to are there any new actions or initiatives your organizations have commenced to deal with unlawful robocalls, including partnerships with each other or partnerships with industry, working with consumer advocates, are there new -- just generally, are there new actions or initiatives that your organizations have undertaken that you would like to highlight for the folks in attendance. >> i'll take a crack at that initially. so we've heard a little bit of talk earlier today about a commission decision back last november, and that was one of the first times the commission has really said the voice service providers are our partners in blocking illegal robocalls. if we can stop the worst robocalls before they ever reach consumers, that's a win. so in november of last year, the commission for the first time said that voice providers can block calls that are highly likely to be illegal. how do we know they're highly likely to be illegal? because of the spoofing element that we touched on earlier.

so the commission specified two categories of spoofed calls where it found no legitimate robocall would be spoofing these numbers. so we've heard a little bit about this already but it's a do not originate type of number, think about the irs scam where the irs says we do not make calls from this number. any call purporting to be from this number ain't us so please block those sorts of calls. the second category are calls of caller i.d. invalid phone numbers, 000 area code, no legitimate caller would want to call from this number. and then finally there are numbers that haven't been allocated or assigned to anyone yet. again, no reason that a legitimate robocall would want to make these calls. so again, the commission in november said that voice providers may, although they don't have to block these types of calls before they ever reach consumers. statement, the commission is looking at other objective bases that might be able to indicate that a call is illegal. these are data analytics type

things where, for example, someone spoofs my phone number and all of a sudden a voice provider sees that my number is making a million robocalls in the course of a couple seconds. that's probably not me. probably a good indication that that's a spoofer. so the commission is developing a record around that. of course one of the issues there is we want to make sure that i can't -- my ability to make calls, the legitimate subscriber's ability to make calls is not compromised so that's a big part of what we're looking at. >> so, i'm glad you asked that question. just this morning, we filed a case against a massive robocaller, ftc against alliance security engaged and not surprisingly making directly and indirectly millions of robocalls, including calls to consumers whose number is on the do not call registry, and using deceptive tactics to sell home security alarms. i suspect there's not a single person in this room who hasn't received that type of phone call.

i'll give a quick shoutout to ian barlow, who's one of our lead counsels in it. so this is another case tackling what we really strategically identify as kingpins in the robocalling industry, whether they're the dialers or voice blasters that are hosting these calls and pushing them out or the main sellers at the top of these affiliate telemarketing networks. we've brought a series of these cases. i could name the names but hopefully no one in this room is really familiar with them, but they're well known in industry and our job has been to strategically target them, identify them and impose as strong civil injunctive relief as we can. in most of these cases we've successfully achieved tell marketing bans. in fact, part of this case, some of the defendants settled and they are banned from selling home security alarm systems. and in other instances, trying to achieve a strong civil penalty. speaking of partnerships, state of florida has been a tremendous partner in really the fraudulent

telemarketing case which cause enormous economic injury. and we've forged not just state/federal partnerships but also partnerships with our international colleagues who suffer the same impact of these awful telemarketing calls and with a particular focus on illegal telemarketing out of india. >> so, one of the things that we are interested in helping along is the industry effort to implement shaken and stir. so call authentication. you've heard about this but essentially the idea is that a carrier, a phone company, can sign the phone calls as they're being made. it's a way for the company that initiates the phone call to vouch for it, that this number, this call is actually coming from the number it says it is coming from. so they're able to include that

signature on it when it's received, whoever's receiving that, actually the phone company that's going to terminate that call or even the handset manufacturer or even the consumer themselves can make that decision, can determine what to do with this call, knowing that either they know it is from the number it says it's from or it can't be vouched for. so, that leaves any person along that chain the ability to make those decisions. so, the phone companies can block it. a third party anti-spoofing organization can block that or the consumer could receiving this information say, there's no sort of vouching for this. i'm not going to accept this call. it also, in the case where calls are verified and they turn out to be fraudulent, it would allow law enforcement to trace back and find those people more easily than the current process allows. so what the fcc is interested in doing is making sure that --

these standards have been developed, they're being tested right now, and we want to make sure that this process continues to move forward, that it can be deployed broadly as quickly as possible to help people combat spoofing and illegal spoofing. we have a record that's open on this. the north american numbering council is currently consulting on ways to make sure that we can set up the structures necessary for industry to coordinate and collaborate on this. and to move this forward as quickly as we can. >> so, the florida attorney general's office has a special investigations unit where if we get a consumer complaint about a particular phone call, we'll reach out to the carrier, communicate what the consumer has told us via the complaint and try and have that phone number stopped. however, time is of the essence in these cases. these robocallers are very sophisticated.

they change their numbers on a consistent basis. we've had some success. we work with other state agencies and we're constantly in communications about new scams because they're constantly changing, especially those that target veterans, those that target senior citizens, within the state and outside, and also other groups that are sensitive and vulnerable to these types of scams. >> great. well, thank you, everyone. one question that had come up on the last panel or one point that had come up was a difference between unlawful robocalls and lawful robocalls. just curious as to what your organizations do to try to treat these calls differently and in your work. perhaps start with denise. >> i think it's easy to differentiate between the fraudulent telemarketing calls and those that are legitimate. the fraudulent telemarketing

calls have those consistent red flags. high pressure sales tactic, you have to pay me now, the offer is going to end soon, and then later i couldn't cancel or get a refund and then i cannot get in contact with whatever good or service was provided over the phone, so it's very easy for our investigators and our staff to differentiate and sort out those that are really the fraudulent robocalls versus those from legitimate businesses. >> and i'd say on our side, i mentioned earlier us empowering voice providers to block illegal robocalls. at the same time, call completion of legitimate calls, all legitimate calls, including robocalls, is also important to the fcc. so, what we've done is encourage voice providers, you heard a little bit about this earlier, to have a mechanism in place to identify quickly false positives and rectify that situation. because no one wants your kid's school robocall to get blocked in the net. similarly you heard mentioned earlier today the reassigned numbers database.

that's an effort by the fcc to make sure that robocalls made by legitimate callers that are desired by consumers are still made and still received. so, the mere fact that i give up my phone number to someone else should not mean that i stop getting the robocalls that i consented to earlier and it shouldn't mean that the new person that has the phone number gets unwanted robocalls so that's a big part of our initiative to make sure the good robocalls get to the right people, even as we move forward to block the worst robocalls. >> and -- sorry. i just want to underscore from the federal trade commission. the definition of telemarketing is different so that the school calls, the doctor calls, are not telemarketing -- are not robocalls. they're not illegal for purposes of the federal trade commission act and i think that really is an important distinction. that's not where we're doing any law enforcement and nor would we and the ftc also doesn't distinguish between a call to a wire line or a wireless one. those are just not relevant distinctions.

i think the world of industry robocalls that are legitimate, really, is a fairly narrow slice and this is something i've talked to p.a.c.e. about. and the ftc has no interest whatsoever in chilling that world. but i do think it is a relatively narrow set of the unwanted and illegal robocalls that are being placed. >> i think that's right. and that's certainly what we -- that tracks with what we see on -- from the fcc's side as well. to add to this, to the extent that the fcc -- the tcpa could potentially draw in more than, say, the most abusive types of robocalls, we have the prosecutorial discretion, if you will, to decide what kind of cases to take, and me and my enforcement attorneys are not interested in taking cases against school districts that are -- that may be calling a little more than they should. we don't have the time or resources to police nonproblematic robocalls.

so we really look at what are the consumers telling us and that's where we're going to focus our efforts. that's the irs scams, the microsoft scams, the other -- my favorite are the carpet cleanings and the roofing scams that show up quite frequently. we're going after the worst of the worst because they're the ones that need the most attention immediately. >> great. well, thank you, everyone. what would you say is the most important and most significant challenge your organization faces in dealing with illegal robocalls? >> i'll start with this. spoofing is the gasoline on the robocalling fire. it allows robocalls, illegal robocalls to thrive, to spread, and it makes it very, very

difficult for me to find the bad guys and take action against them. that is the most significant challenge for us is going through the process of identifying where those illegal robocalls come from. it's a laborious enforcement process. we have to send a daisy chain of subpoenas from the end recipient's carrier all the way to the originating carrier because there is no identifier that we can trust in the call stream information. that's changing, which i'm very glad is happening with the shaken and stir standards that are being rolled out. and another significant change that has happened just in the last five years has been folks like the u.s. telecom that have gotten together their traceback group and are now working together cooperatively to save me, for example, you know, five or six steps in the subpoena

process. that group of carriers getting together, sharing information and tracing back the call as far as they can before letting us know and referring it to us means that that's numerous carriers in the chain that i don't have to contact or subpoena or try to get information from because they've already done that work for me -- for me. that has been tremendously helpful and i couldn't be happier at our continued partnership on that front. >> i totally agree. what industry has done on traceback has been enormously helpful, and we encounter the exact same challenges fcc does and i'm sure the states do. we've got a spoofed number, what do you do, how do you work with that. i mean i think you talk about challenge, so every month we have upwards of 400,000 reports about unwanted calls. not saying every one of those is an illegal call but one can probably presume that the vast majority are and that those are the tip of the iceberg of unwanted and illegal calls

received each month. every business day, we're putting on the public record the consumer reports of some 18,000 phone numbers. so that is a lot of information out there, that's a lot of potential targets to work with. so, the challenge in law enforcement in this area, like in so many areas, we all have limited resources. how do you strategically target so that you're getting the biggest bang for the buck? one of the enormous challenges has been telemarketing from abroad and we see this in the irs scams and what we call the technical support scams. i am from microsoft, i'm from dell, your computer's infected. we've met several times in india with indian authorities, with stakeholders, with industry members as well as had a series of meetings here and we've actually been successful in shutting down some of those operations with the indian authorities and particularly the department of justice here.

there was a major crackdown, i think, back in the fall of 2016. so there are ways to try to combat the illegal telemarketing that's coming from abroad, but i think that will continue to pose a real challenge. >> so i think the challenge for us is when we turn our policy lens to one particular type of robocall or spoofing and try to get a beat on that, often the spoofers and robocallers move to other areas. we hear about neighbor spoofing all the time. that's a big challenge to us but it's very gratifying to see so many folks in the space kind of come together. i think we've never worked better with industry on trying to solve a problem with our federal partners as well. there's also a challenge, a big part of what my bureau does is consumer outreach. so it's a big challenge to talk to consumers and say, hey, we're trying to help, we're trying to prevent illegal robocalls, trying to make sure that you can trust when a phone number pops up on your phone, that you know exactly who that is and it's

okay to pick that up. or also to educate them if they're unsure about the caller to hang up and then google the phone number that came in to you to see if that's legitimate or not. so that's a big part of this, talking to consumers and letting them know what their best method is to protect themselves even as we're trying to work at a higher level to make things better in the future. >> i would echo everything that the panel has already mentioned about spoofing. the international presence. and the outreach component. there's also the component of locating the actual rooms where the telemarketing calls are coming from. in central florida, i'm in sunny orlando, but in central florida we have conducted immediate access cases where we enter the telemarketing room once we have a federal court order and we actually see the telemarketers set up in the room, we see the network systems that have been built in, but finding those actual rooms can become a

challenge can become a challenge because they create this web, a maze of shell companies. from an enforcement point of view, that can be a significant challenge as well. >> thank you. the d.c. circuit issued a decision last week, ruling on a number of objections to a 2015 fcc order, clarifying various aspects of the tcpa's general bar against automatic dialing devices to make uninvited calls. i was wondering if colleagues in the fcc can briefly describe what the circuit held and if the panelists can speak to whether that decision is like toe have have an impact on the government's ability to deal with unwanted robocalls or not. >> sure. i would say we're still digesting the opinion here. in a high level, the court rules on a couple things. the fcc's interpretation of the autodial which is relevant to robocalls made to wireless

phones as i mentioned earlier. also the past interpretation of reassigned numbers issue and then finally revocation of consent. there was one other issue as well. the d.c. circuit said past fccs decision or interpretation of auto dial was flawed. that was the big headline from the decision. secondly, the d.c. circuit reversed the past commission's decision on reassigned numbers including a one call safe harbor where the pass commission said that the caller had one call to find out that a number's been reassigned and after that, they're on the hook for liability. so the d.c. circuit set that aside. and then finally upheld the past decision finding consumers have a right to revoke past consent. so, again, we are digesting that decision, it's somewhat complex. i think our view here is a lot of initiatives we have taken at the fcc aren't dependent on any specific tcpa decision or interpretation. for example, the court noted favorably the reassigned numbers initiative that was voted on

yesterday. likewise, caller i.d. authentication and call blocking really don't depend on any specific tcp interpretation. so i would expect as the commission's digesting the decision and thinking about next steps, these other efforts to protect consumers will proceed. >> and on the enforcement side, the largest couple of cases that we have released in the past year have been, at least the notice of apparent liability of proposed fines, were based on the truth in the caller i.d. act, not the tcpa, the focus of the court's action in the most recent decision. so, in terms of putting folks like adrian abramovich out of business, the court's decision doesn't really affect our work to enforce the spoofing laws. even the decision on, when we

assigned for violating the tcpa -for-the illegal robocalls. those robocalls included a prerecorded voice message. so under the tcpa, the auto dialer issue that was the key focus of the decision, doesn't really enter into that. so, we feel confident that we will continue to bring cases against the adrian abramoviches of the world, especially when those mass spoofrs -- or, sorry, the mass robocallers are engaging in spoofing, which violates a completely separate statute. you will see more from us, even after this aca decision. >> great. thank you. turning to possible solutions to overcoming the challenges the folks on the panel mentioned. with changes on the law whether that be helpful to you to try to deal with unlawful robocalls?

i'd be interested in hearing from any of the panelists think there are changes in statute or regulation that could be helpful, and if so, how could they be helpful. >> the ftc has been on record now for more than a decade for repeal of the common carrier exemption. it's obsolete. it just doesn't make sense in this day and age. it hasn't made sense for the last decade or more. it does impede or at least hinder our ability to go after some bad actors out there, particularly in the reselling market where we do see specific carriers that, in effect, are hosting robocallers that are placing illegal calls. we encounter instances in law enforcement work where we see entities that are, if they're not actual carriers, purport to be carriers. it raises the enforcement cost going after them. that's the big one from us.

>> the fcc has also been on record for a couple improvements that would help in terms of enforcement. one is extending -- we have a one-year statute of limitations. so extending that to two years instead of one would be enormously helpful. previously, we talked about the difficulty finding bad guys when they use spoof numbers. pretty much all of the bad guys use spoofed numbers. that just slows down our ability to find them, which means, from a practical perspective, several months may go by, even if we are notified of the robocall the day after it happens, it will take us some amount of time to figure out where that call came from and identify, you know, untangle the nest of shell companies like lois mentioned. and that eats into that one year statute of limitations.

it seems like a long time, but from an enforcement perspective, it really isn't. the other change we talked about publicly is under the tcpa and under the communications act, when we find a robocaller, and this is just for the robocall violations of the tcpa, if that violator is not a authorize holder, a permit or license holder of the fcc, the maximum enforcement action that we can take against that robocaller is to send them a citation. which is effectively a legal warning letter, don't do this in the future or you'll get in trouble. the purpose for that, you know, as enacted by congress was to make sure folks who aren't necessarily well versed in fcc law don't get swept into the more nuanced portions of the communications act, which manges -- makes sense.

but at this point, it's so well known that robocalls are a problem, and the targets that we're going after are so clearly and obviously intentionally violating the law, that having a warning letter at the outset is really frustrating and it would be helpful to exempt, as congress did in the spoofing context, to exempt that part of the communications act from the citation requirement. >> thank you. one thing that folks have noted is many of the bad actors and their assets are located abroad. what are the sort of things that are impediments to proceeding against foreign-based actors and are there things that can be done to overcome those obstacles? maybe ask lois to respond to that first. >> well, we have, through safe web act, the ftc does have lots of tools that it can use to seek

to obtain information on entities located offshore. so, we can issue process and do parts of an investigation. obviously, where there are assets offshore, that's incredibly complicated. we tend, though, to see, even the indian telemarketing operations that are targeting u.s. citizens and canadians and others, we'll often see something in the u.s., something that we can freeze as part of a federal district court proceeding and in some instances, we have defendants who for a variety of reasons are actually willing to repatriate assets that are located offshore. so we've had a fair amount of success, but there's no question this is a challenging area. >> in terms of shake and stir, it should be possible if two countries have these systems in

place and they can coordinate their systems appropriately, these systems should be able to work across borders, so it would be possible to have international calls be vouched as well. it does require more coordination and that's something we hope to see in the future. >> it's very challenging when you identify a bad guy robocaller and determine that they are operating overseas. i don't think it's any secret, there are some countries that we have great relationships with in terms of the united states has a great back and forth and cooperative relationship for law enforcement purposes, and there are other countries for whom that is not at all the case. and so we have been frustrated before, tracing back calls to locations and countries that have a difficult or, you know, even overtly hostile relationship with the united states because there's, you

know, practically speaking, very little chance that we are going to be able to persuade the lawmakers or, you know, authorities in those jurisdictions to go after citizens. and help us in those investigations. that becomes frustrating. but that's where cooperation with the ftc and other elements of the united states federal government, state department, other law enforcement agencies becomes extremely vital to have that communication back and forth. >> i want to draw an imperfect line. my colleagues from ftc will, i'm sure, correct me if i'm wrong. much of what i call the abusive telemarketing where they are selling home alarm systems, medical alert devices, energy solar panels, i think most of that is emanating from the united states. that what we're seeing -- and the king pin telemarketer

robocall center might have a call center in the philippines or nicaragua, but the core of that operation, the abusive telemarketing is in the united states. where we see the international, significant international posed is where we are seeing hard core fraudulent telemarketing. >> right. >> thank you. another question we hear a lot on the first panel about what industry is doing. i would like to hear from each of the panel imp -- panelists as to what's the most important thing industry does to help you do your job and what could industry do different or better to help you protect consumers from illegal robocalls? maybe start at this end with denise this time. >> i mean, i think the most helpful information from private industry is helping us locate the originating phone calls and not allow those massive

robocalls to keep going through the carrier's system. but, you know, obviously the subpoena responses we obtain from the companies in our investigation, i think more outreach and education to the consumers that there are different apps available, certain things to avoid when you get these robocalls would be helpful. especially to those that are senior citizens. we see that especially in the state of florida where we have a great consumer population of senior citizens. they are not aware of the technology that is available. they are more trusting of people that call on the phone and speak to them. they are more likely to send money for the scams and they don't want to be rude and hang up the phone when they probably should. more outreach, informing consumers and their family members that those tools are out there and available, would greatly assist us from our enforcement side. >> one word, innovate. do what you do best. it is just remarkable to see the

proliferation and variety of call blocking technology that have developed over the last several years. sitting from the ftc, we are proud of the role we play with spurring these technological developments starting in the 2012 first robocall challenge. i'm looking at some people i've visited recently. it's wonderful to come in and tell us what you are doing, tell us how we can assist. the dynamic shift in the marketplace from just a few years ago when it was like, call blocking is illegal, we can't do it, there's just -- don't even say the words, to now, concerns with perhaps the unintended consequences of too much call blocking. that is a dynamic marketplace and that's exactly what we want to see happening. >> so, i think the call authentication standards are industry developed, and i think that's one of the great things

that's been happening in this field. as for what can be done, i think it really is a matter of, you know, they have been developed, they are being tested, it's a matter of them being deployed as fully and quickly as we can get them out there. so making sure that industry is working together with each other and coordinating properly to bring that out, that these systems are going to be out there and useable to a wade variety of actors. >> for us, it's call blocking. we worked very well with industry, i think, the telecom industry to encourage call blocking on an objective bases, that it's based on good objective criteria. at the same time, the fcc made call blocking optional, it's voluntary. one thing we are interested in hearing is, what is difficult about call blocking for some carriers? it is a cost issue? it is other issues? we would like to see more carriers block based on the

grounds that we've said you can block on. so i think that's a big part of our work, is to determine how carriers view that and what they be some of the struggles they're facing as they implement blocking. >> from my perspective on the enforcement side, the best thing that the carriers and industry have done for us in the last few years is -- and can continue to do -- is work with us. continue to share information with us, continue to think of new ways to combat an ever evolving landscape of illegal activity. the fraudsters that we are up against are creative. they are highly skilled and very adaptive. when you close off one way they get in, they will explore and expand into another way. so, that presents a challenge that will require law

enforcement and industry and consumer groups all to work together. in this space, there's not one of those individual pieces that has all the answers or the ability to control the whole ecosystem and stop it. it really requires every, you know, consumers and government and industry all working together to solve the problem and to keep talking to each other about the new issues that are coming up when they come up so we can tackle them immediately. >> thank you. one thing that has been mentioned a number of times on the panel is the value of partnerships, whether it's federal-federal, federal-state among government officials. i wonder if you could talk about, are there things that partners -- governmental partners could do better or differently in the future to be more effective. >> speaking for us, i think we

developed a great relationship with federal trade commission. i think, in my shop, we do a lot of rule making and the ftc has been instrumental in making -- in offering great comments on how we might move forward. i think also doing outreach together is a really good idea. i think this is part of that. i think the ftc has terrific outreach materials, we do as well, and i think making sure that consumers understand, you know, we're one federal government working for them would be great. a lot of times we get questions around do i file a complaint with the ftc or fcc. i think that's an opportunity for us to work together and continue to improve that. >> i think we do a good job at it. you know, i appreciate what mark says and other panelists here, but we have been working cooperatively with the fcc on this issue for however long. state partners have been tremendous, not just florida but we work through n.a.g. with monthly calls on what's

happening on the telemarketing front. it's a target-rich environment. we all need to be at the table. we are all at the table. >> you know, working with the federal trade commission has been a wonderful experience, going to federal court, getting consumers and provide injunctive reli reli relief like a life-long telemarketing ban, or making sdetive and misreceptions when it services over the telephone. i think the partnership has been great. we are in communication with the federal communications commission because their targets, some of them are located in florida, so we're constantly in communication with federal partners and work with

different state regulators. located in florida, so we are in constant communication with the federal partners. we also work with our different state with the latest in florida. we have the license and armor of the telemarketing start you which is the part -- the department of agricultural and community -- consumer services. we are constantly sharing information with canada and other foreign countries, federal partners, and also various states. one question comes up anytime we are talking about the consumer protection law is how we can work better with consumer advocates and other nonprofit organizations, nongovernmental organizations and the like. what is their role in dealing with unwanted robo calls, unlawful robo calls, and are there things we could do better working with them to help consumers?

i'm sure they will have their own fears, but i view them as the enormous resources. if i have questions about what is going on, i asked them. if there are some particular push i would like them to assist with, i will readily turn to them. i hope, and it has been my experience that will do the same with us. they have an ability to reach people through pipelines that we don't. we rely on them to do just that. >> i would echo that, we rely tremendously on consumer groups to help us. a lot of our proceedings are people proceedings. so, we really depend on their submissions, both all legal and policy questions. in addition to informing our policy, it is important they are helpful in the average perspective, that they help us get the word out on what we are

doing, but that we are also able to hear from them what consumers are experiencing every day. they are invaluable. >> consumer complaints drive what i do every day. we look at what consumers are talking about, and what the problems they face, the file complaints with us, they filed complaints with the ftc. we don't believe in enforcing solutions which there are no problems. we owe -- go after what consumers tell us we need to go after. right now that is robo calls. what we hope to get the most out of consumer groups and out of consumers themselves is information, actionable intelligence, something that we can, and that information back and start an investigation to solve that problem, find about the bad guy that is making hundreds of millions of illegal mobile calls. i will work with consumer

advocacy groups have been helpful. we have been able to say and explain, this is what we need in consumer complaints in order for us to pick it up and start the process. it has been great help receptive consumer groups have been, and also working with folks who offer consumer solutions to the problems, also have feedback for us, folks like nomar -- no more robo. they have interfaced daily with consumers, and they are users that can say hey, these are the patterns we are seeing. those conversations help us, help our enforcement efforts, and make my job significantly easier. >> thank you. i guess we have got about 10 minutes left. i want to impose one last question i let people elaborate on that. the question is just, if each panelist can identify what is the most important thing they

think the government can do to decrease the prevalence of unwanted or unlawful robo calls? we will start with denise this time. what is the most important thing we can do to decrease unwanted or unlawful robo calls going forward? >> i think it is going after baking pans of these industries that are very well known. they are connectors, they connect different businesses to each other. they are very sophisticated and constantly have scams that are evolving. really targeting those individuals and going against them with the full force of the law that we can with the tools that we are provided, and what remedies were provided under the law. it causes the deterrent effects. i remember we went into, they were selling robo calls, they were calling nursing homes and other cedar -- senior citizens with this rubble, that said

this is john from shipping, a family member or friend recommend you get this device, it is similar to a life alert device, it is not life alert, it is someone else. the consumer thought oh my gosh, my family member things i need this. it is free as the robo calls that, let me just give them the information. behold, we found out the consumer was charged a monthly fee. when they tried to cancel they couldn't. when we went into the room and we saw the large telemarketing room with individuals on the phone with sophisticated dialing systems at their computer and their fingertips, and we heard from the business owners that their marketing costs for these robo calls are achieved, really there was no incentive to stop her when we went in and we went in with the receiver, and with the -- attorneys from the federal trade commission, along with the department of agricultural

services with criminal powers, they came in with us, we showed them that we were very serious about stopping this. a lot of those telemarketers later told us they did not realize what they were doing was wrong, because they were told something else from their bosses. i think it really causes a deterrent effect we go to these businesses, and we sees the personal assets of the business assets, and later get a federal court order banning them from the industry, and later it goes out into the internet, and these people can never find jobs. some will go out in the industry, because that is all they know. they are now tagged with our law enforcement efforts, and cannot find a job in the industry. from top to bottom, i think really being aggressive with these robo callers and working with our partners in really taking a stand those cause a deterrent effect, and i've seen it firsthand. >> three problems, one is sustained relentless enforcement

i want to tease that out a bit when we are talking about the abuse of telemarketing. another fraudulent. the dish network case was filed in 2009. it took years to get a litigated decision and the president setting $280 million penalty. but the nature of the telemarketing set up there, the network, essentially you had a seller saying i am not responsible for how my product is marketed, how my product is telemarketer. this is what we hear time and time again when we are looking at abuse of telemarketing. you have the dialer who says i don't know who is using my platform, how can you possibly know? it is easy to know. or, you have the reseller, i want to call, it is not me. if it is a home warranty, if it is a vacation, or whatever. you have the person who is just doing the robo, that says press

one if you want a home warranty, saying i don't know what i am carrying on that. i don't know what the mechanism is. on the law enforcement part, our job at the ftc is to push the case law to develop more cases like this. again, the same type of affiliate telemarketing network where you have the seller saying, i am not responsible for how my product is motivated so moving the case law so that there is greater clarity and greater deterrence is a top priority from where i sit. the other two areas, i'll say it again, innovation, sparing technology, ensuring the marketplace is free to develop the tools that are needed. the third prong is always outreaching consumer education. you will hear from that on the next paddle is his panel. the materials we put out our great. we partner with the fcc and the states. the message is not just hang up if you don't recognize, the

message is also here is information of all the great call blocking tools out there. here are other things you can do to protect your privacy. i have been here talking about efforts to come back spoofing. feel free to accuse me of tunnel vision when i say i think that is one of the most important efforts. it does address most of the most egregious type of fraud, and it also provides more information into the whole system that allows carriers, third-party developers, manufacturers, developers, and consumers themselves to deal with these problems first hand. >> i agree, i think the biggest thing is, i did -- authentication. we can also do greater enforcement, but and the end spoofing is a big part of the problem. the big party blocking apps and devices are somewhat dependent on spoofing. not all of them, but spoofing is a way to evade some of that.

it is longer-term, but it strikes me that the call id authentication is really where everyone should be focusing. >> i would echo the same thing. i 100% agree. rolling out call authentication is i think going to make the biggest difference in the government's ability to stamp out illegal abusive robo calling. and also, the ability of the carriers to do exercise, to aid their customers in blocking those calls that their customers also do not want. that is the biggest piece. the second piece is in the meantime, as you know mark was going to, in the meantime it is incumbent on all of us to continue to work together and bring the expertise and resources that each one of us has, consumers, government, and

industry together, to combat the problem while the technological upgrades are being completed. >> thank you very much. i think we are out of time. i want to thank all of our panelists for sharing their insights. also all of the information there -- on what they're trying to do honorable calls. thank you again and tom and all of our panelists. our next featured speaker is ftc commissioner terrell mcsweeney. >> what a polite audience, thank you very much.

i want to say good morning and what a pleasure it is to be here this morning. thank you to the fcc for hosting this discussion, and thank you very much for -- to all of the federal trade commission staff who have been working tirelessly on this issue for a number of years. it has been a pleasure to know them. i've been at the ftc, and they really as i think you can see from the discussion on the last panel, worked collaboratively with the ftc, with state partners to find the discourage of robo calls with the tools that they have. i want to commend them for their efforts. i am going to start with the usual disclaimer that i am giving you my own views, not the official views of the ftc. i think it is the official view of the ftc that robo calls are top consumer complaints year over year, and that we need to be using all of our tools to combat the problem. i want to start by noting,

though, that the origins of some of our authorities in this area, privacy and more specifically, americans were to control over the data is once again in the news. if they are noting that the origin of the do not call registry stemmed from a bipartisan effort to protect americans privacy in 2003, unanimously passed the senate. at the time democrats and republicans can together to provide a way for people to protect themselves from unwanted intrusion of telemarketing calls. i recognize we are here today because technology and scammers find ways around those protections. more about any minute. i don't think that makes the achievement of providing consumers with stronger protections any less notable. i mean if anything, the news and events of the last week that american consumers deserve stronger protections for the data. the technology we are all using in our daily lives is increasingly for -- sophisticated. the amount of data we are sharing is increasingly intimate. without proper protections, our

own data can be, and potentially is being used against us. the incentives of the market place drive toward ever greater collection of the data. the fcc, ftc, and other expert consumer protection regulators all have a role to play in providing protection for consumers. without a stronger and more resilient framework, one that includes requiring choices for the monetization but -- of sensitive information, american consumers are going to be left vulnerable at a time when we can at least afford to be. american consumers need stronger protections for the digital age, and those would include comprehensive data security, privacy laws, transparency and accountability for data brokers, and rights to control over our data. it is time for democrats and republicans to come together again to make progress on the significant privacy issue, just like they did 15 years ago. i am happy to be here today to

say that i think it is very encouraging to hear how the ftc, the fcc, and our state partners are engaged in unrelenting enforcement efforts to shut down life -- law violators that continue to flood our phones with illegal calls. here we can all agree that having as many law enforcement partners on the beat as possible to safeguard consumer privacy, and protect consumers from fraud and abuse, is a no- brainer. as we just heard, multiple enforcement partners leverage different expertise, different jurisdictional authority, and different resources to combat this threat. i am particularly proud of the enforcement action the ftc announced today against a home security insulation company, alliance security and its telemarketers. according to our complaint, the alliance defendant made at least 2 million illegal calls to consumers. violating the law is no way to sell security. as we know, even with many cops on the beat, the calls keep

coming. consumers need effective tools to stop the seemingly endless call, and we need meaningful choices to select the best tool for them. the good news is today there are a growing number of, blocking tools and choices. when i first came to the commission in 2014, consumers have very few options to stop unwanted calls. as a result of the federal trade commission's first robo calls call it looks as challenge, no more robo was available for voice over ip home phone number which is a good start. there are also very few options for wireless, and little to no options being offered directly by the providers. after three more ftc challenges and continue his work with the industry and all of our partners, today the landscape is very different. a number of providers offer some type of call blocking services directly to their voice over ip, wireless customers, or both, and wireless customers now have a number of call blocking apps to choose from. ctia, who will hear -- we will

hear from on the next paddle, put in a list of 40 apps. why aren't these tools having a greater impact, and what can we do to help? first off, many consumers don't know that there are more tools available today to stop illegal or unwanted calls. we are working to change that. in today's event, the upcoming expo next month, and through our consumer education, and i'm delighted that the ftc today is putting out additional consumer education materials through our office of consumer and business education. second, these tools are not available to all consumers, not all providers offer call blocking solutions -- solutions to their customers. shouldn't they be able to expect there getting the best available protection ? consumers with traditional copper landline still have very few options to stop illegal calls. there is no app for that.

the best way to fill these gaps, and what i am excited to hear more about from the next panel, is to empower and expect providers to deploy solutions other network level that will reach every consumer. effective call blocking tool should be available to all consumers. of course, trust must be restored to caller id information through adoption of the framework for caller id authentication, sooner rather than later. i know that the ftc stands ready to do our part, and make sure that consumers understand these tools, and how to use them to protect themselves. with that, i am excited to turn it over to the next panel for a discussion of the solutions and tools that are available to consumers. thank you very much. >> thank you commissioner mcsweeney. as commissioner mcsweeney said,

our third panel is entitled solutions and tools for consumers. it is being moderated by julie knapp, who is chief of the fcc's office of engineering and technology. i invite julie to come up and all of the panelists to come up as well. >> i'll turn it over to julie.

>> good morning. there is a lot of pressure on this panel, because it is the last panel before lunch. this panel is going to talk about some of the solutions. i know in my home, when the phone rings, and the first thing you do is listen for the announcement of the id. i get a lot of calls from unavailable and out of area. then, when there is a number that you see, perhaps in new york where you may have relatives, and you wonder, you don't recognize the number, should i pick it up? maybe it is somebody calling about something has happened with my brother or sister. do i take a chance of not answering it? i know my wife will mutually say to me, why did you pick

that up? this panel is going to talk about some solutions. the pressure is on for me, if i don't have something good to say when i get home, i might not get in the door. so obviously, with a lot of good -- terrific work that is going on, just to start, i would like to have each of our panelists introduce themselves, and say a little bit about their organizations. >> my name is alex, i am here from high up, i am the ceo of the company. we are a seattle-based business. one of the business lines is to help our partners deal with these robo calls. we also have apps that we provide for direct download by consumers, but that is not as -- a significant part of our business. we have the largest team of -- in the industry dedicated to

determining who are the bad callers, who are the good callers, which is equally important, and provide as much information at the fingertips of our user base, so they can make informed decisions. i am a jimmy, i am here with alliance. here in the contacts -- context, which will be discussed today, came from the task force. i have been fortunate enough to have been involved in that activity since the very beginning when we decided it had to be called shaken, because it was not stirred. >> i am alex, i am the ceo of you mail. we provide a call blocking app for mobile phones. we also supply the robo call index which is our estimate of what the world looks like in

terms of robo calls every month. we have got some traction in terms of having blocked well over 1 billion cold at this point. >> hi, i am margot saunders, i work with the national consumer law center. we are a national public interest law firm that represents consumers before congress in the federal agency. >> i am chris, and i am a vp at ctia. we represent the wireless industry from the carriers to the manufacturers. we have been working on fighting illegal robo calls for some time. we were significantly involved with the industry robo call a strike force. we helped draft that report. after the strike force ended, we took on the work and developed a ctia rubble call working group that meets every week. we are continuing working on robo call solutions. we are also a member of the ftc's nancy call authentication

working group, we are working hard right now on getting the government instruction for call authentication up and running so we can onboard all of the industry to fight that. and, we are also a member of the fcc's consumer advisory committee who has made many recommendations on call blocking, and call authentication during the last year. i am really looking forward to talking about all of the great tools that our own carrier members are doing, and the wonderful ecosystem that is out there represented today by the two alex is on the panel. >> i am not wet from the federal trade commission, where i leave the consumer business education. it is our responsibility for letting regular people understand how to have better experiences as consumers, and to help but it is businesses comply with consumer protection law and also be protected in

the workplace. >> to kick it off, talk a little bit about how consumers can protect themselves against robo calls. i thought we would start a little bit on the government side, and then we will said that and also as we are having our discussions. so, it is a privilege and an honor to work so closely with ftc. terrific things happen. i think that happens when cross government agencies work together. there is terrific information online at the sec website. we have got pamphlets in the back. for those of you who are watching over the web, if you want to check it out, it is www.sec.gov/robo calls. there is a lot of terrific information on their about what you can do as a consumer, and the resources that are available i will just turn it

over to ned. >> what i would tell us that he was frustrated by unwanted calls is there are lots of great resources. i'm excited about this panel to hear more about the tools that the industry is coming out with, and where we are headed with cost authentication. a few years ago, it was not so easy to get this device. the services are really effective now, and are becoming worse over time. we put out some information today, and for people in the room, you can get this on the table. for people online, you can go to ftc.gov/calls. the first thing you want to take about is what kind of phone you are using. if you have a new -- mobile phone, you might want to download an app. some are free, some are provided through the carrier services. the second thing you can do is see if there is built in features from your phone. if you have a landline, you may need to buy a device, and there

are some that use blacklist or white list to limit the calls to make sure the only calls you want are getting through. if you have internet phones, and many people it is not that easy to tell, check with your carrier. it is a lot of the same sort of advice that we can for people who have a mobile phone. there might be blocking services that either stop the calls, or have the information show up about whether it is possibly a scam call or a telemarketer. or, it will possibly put those messages straight through to voicemail. the do not call registry still has some value, especially in signaling. it is not necessarily going to stop a lot of illegal robo calls. it -- you know if you are on the national do not call registry, and you get a call from somebody attempted to sell

you something, that they are not respecting the registry. if they're not respecting that law, you probably don't want to do business with them. if you get any sort of unwanted robo call, hang up. there's no reason to stay on the line. and, keep yourself informed about the scams that are out there, that is always a good idea. one of the things -- ways he can do that is go to www.ftc.gov/scams, and sign up for scam alerts. >> the telephone consumer protection not only provides the tools for public enforcement, government enforcement against robo callers, but it provides the ability of consumers to hire an attorney, and bring an action against robo callers themselves. that is a very valuable tool that people should know about that they can go into court and get $500 for every illegal robo call that they received. >> i might be rich.

>> let's hear a little bit, i know there is a lot of activity that has been going on across industry in trying to develop solutions to prevent the calls from getting through, the illegal calls from getting through in the first place. if we can hear a little bit from service providers and what they are doing. jim, maybe we can start with you? >> i have a little bit of tunnel vision around shaken. i want to step back and put that into perspective. it is not the first thing that we have done. in a sense, basic caller id is a tool for identifying calls you don't want to receive. white list, blacklist, is built on that. there are a number of services that happened over the years. that led to the apps, either internal ones, and of course the third-party ones that are represented here today. those help. again, spoofing makes it harder

for them to do their job. that is where shaking comes in, not as a solution, shaken by itself is not a solution. it is an enabling technology that provides reliable information into these apps and can make them fundamentally more effective in the long term, and help with the enforcement initiatives through the ability that it puts to trace the calls back to the origin in a reliable way. it is a key enabler is the key thing, but in a long context. >> and i just follow up, did you say a little bit, is this something the consumer needs to do with their provider, and can you a little bit more about what shaken is if you are explaining it? >> that is a long question. at its core, shaken allows the originating service provider to sign the call, and basically to

attest to what they know. that is one of the key things, all calls that are signed or not the same. if the service provider knows that is remember, that they can sign over this is remember. if they don't know it is your number, but they know who originated it, this is my customer i know who they are, i know how to find them, if they do something that, you can do a lower level adaptation that says this is somewhat reliable. then, you have the ones that is a gateway coming in from who knows where. i don't have any idea, but i know where it entered my network, which might be very useful both for call blocking and also for tracing. then the other thing, on the receiving end, that information is verified. the cryptic has to be signed and verified, so you can't mess with it in between. the other key thing is that when that assigned, the service provider attaches a unique

origination id, which is just an opaque strain that can be used again and traced back, that allows you to identify when you go back to follow-up, that yes, i now know exactly where that came from, not just the service provider. it provides more information about the call, primarily to assist the engineers who at that into the mix of what they already do. >> chris, maybe you can talk more on the wireless side tonight since jim focused on call authentication, i am going to focus on the tools that are wireless carriers have in place now that are not dependent on a customer necessarily downloading an app. then i'll get a little bit into the optical system which has exploded over the last couple of years. >> just a few examples, at&t is to start launched a product

called at&t protect. that was back in december 2016. it is a free network service. it allows customers that have iphones and android handsets to automatically block assessor -- suspected fraudulent calls. it flags suspected spam calls, so the customer can choose whether to answer or not. using an interface provided by the at&t, protect app, they also have an app, customers can manually block an unlimited number of telephone numbers for 30 day intervals. you can download the app across the optical system app stores, or on the at&t website. at&t on the wireline side made, protect available to its ip wireline home phones users. and alex will talk about this. through this initiative, they blocked today to 3.5 billion

unwanted robo calls. sprint offers a service as well , premium caller id service, this is on a subscription basis. it includes for android, smart phones, the ability to not only identify a higher percentage of these nuisance calls, but also an option to block them as well. they work with a company called sequence. t-mobile launched a product called scam id. it was last year at this time, march 2017. it is an automatic network base, and it is free for t- mobile customers and metro pcs customers. it identify calls from known scammers on smartphones and feature phones. if a scam call is detected, the caller id is going to display something called scam likely on the device, this gives customers the option to answer or permanently block the number. there is another product called

scam blocks, customers can choose to use, it is also free. that service will allow calls from a known scammers to be blocked. t-mobile is working with a company called privacy star, who also has an app. they have blocked more than 3 billion scam calls tagged since the launch of the product. verizon right now, they are currently trialing a free robo call labeling solution. it is called scam alert. this is for all wireline customers will call id, and this includes copper customers and files digital customers, which is great. the features are warning customers about robo calls, and it is available to their entire wireline customer base, and a more robust version with thousands of additional numbers will be in production within the next month. they also work with the internet but to all know, no

more rowboat to develop a quick solution that simplifies fios digital -- customer ability to block that third party service. on the wireless side, they offer all customers to subscribe to the caller id name service, a feature at no additional charge, that identifies the spam calls, and displays the level of risk with a risk meter. besides all of those tools that our carriers have and play today, the app ecosystem has exploded in the last two years. in 2016, we studied across the board ios, android, windows, and blackberry. at that time there were a lot of apps. there were over 85, blocking or labeling apps available. we have recently went through and looked at it again. now, there are 550 call

blocking or labeling apps available. that is a 495% increase in those apps since we launched our website dedicated to educating consumers on this issue. i think the marketplace is working with the amount of tools. we still need to finish up our work on call authentication. that is key. for now, consumers have something to work with until we do finish that. >> i want to hear a little bit about the third party providers. i want to ask questions on the consumer side. >> our company is called high up. we have an upset can direct -- download directly onto iphone and android. as krista said, that is a lot of choice for consumers. there is over 500 apps which is

astounding. i think the app stores are pretty effective in guiding consumers to which are the more effective versus the less effective apps. i'm concerned about the fact that you're in the u.s. market the iphone is a bit crippled relative to what google has done on the android side. i can comfortably say that i feel like to download an android app that is well rated, you can probably avoid most of nuisance calls right away. on iphone, if you download an app, you actually have to go through settings, then phone menu, then you get down to call blocking identification to make this work. most consumers, they don't understand that. i think about half the u.s.

market, even though there are good apps available for iphone, most consumers are unable to activate the services. that is the problem. otherwise, i think on the operator side, we are very excited to be working with an announced partner and other folks as well. what i am concerned about is the industry's ability to find the right solutions. it does not have to be hours. maybe just to be a little bit controversial, because i think this is such an important issue. we have got to solve this issue. >> how soon, the spacing issue is huge. there is a lot companies can do to combat bad collars and spoofing as well.

how fast can we actually move along on this? i think jim and ottis are doing great work. we are really eager to see something coming out. there are some talk about how soon can i govern on authority be placed into action. that is the foundation that will be that much stronger if the spoofing issue can be dealt with. the foundation that hundreds of companies are building their services on top of. >> i want to talk a little bit about some of the ops first how the email differs. the call blocking app is to decide when the number is a bad guy, and not ring. that is the default behavior. everybody has different ways to decide if the number is a bad guy. we took a slightly different approach, which was we do not think hanging up was good

enough. we have replaced your mobile voicemail, and we played the guy -- bad guys that service tone. that stops them from making the call. you want to try to block us at the source. we try to fool the bad guys. that is one thing we did. the second thing we realizes it is not black and white. it is easy to say good guy, backup a and irs scammer is a bad guy. and cv is telling you your prescription has arrived is a goodbye this is good guy. there is a huge amount in the middle. we took an approach that says if we think it is in the middle, we are not sure if it is a bad guy, we brought them to voicemail without ringing your phone. it turns out that replacing your voicemail has nice effects, we can take the bad grading, and take the middle of the road and throw the middle guys into voicemail and let the

consumer decide what they want to do. >> there are pleasant minuses of having lots of things to choose from. on one hand it is great, you can sort through. on the other hand, you can feel overwhelmed. can anybody comment on what the consumers reactions and experiences happen with this? are they effective? i stumped the panel. >> i think some of the solutions rolled out by the carriers have been very effective. we have stats here that add up to at least 6 million phone calls from those being blocked recently. it is starting to work. there is a lot more work than is to be done, still. am always concerned about maybe some companies being overly aggressive, and to quickly fighting the bad robo callers.

what is needed is a scalpel in terms of starting out to be bad once from the good ones. i am a bit concerned there might be too many solutions. >> one thing we were supposed to find out is the consumers the bazooka. on our android app, we have means that the color is not in your contacts, your phone will ring. we did this is a sin, it is very. you have to find it. we put it out there to say does anybody want this? it turns out at the rate it is going, more consumers will have it on and off. that is a bazooka which is look, if it is not something i know, send them to voicemail. >> i'll just note, on our webpage, this is the consumer

tips robo calls tab. the top apps, and they are based on user ratings, number of downloads, and most recent version date, i have also attached pdfs of the entire apple ecosystem platform. i don't pick and choose. i want consumers to decide. there is a way to help consumers try some of the top rated ones. >> whenever we give consumer advice, we try to play out what we are saying to make sure it is useful. one call blocking apps first started coming out, and after the ftc challenge, we would test some of these to see if it was useful or not. my personal experience a few years ago just downloading a third-party app, but then the call try to ring through the op

as opposed to through regular phone app. ultimately we decided we weren't ready for that. the fact we are seeing now, really people should check out these apps, is kind of significant. there are a few ways people can try to sort out what is best for them. if you want to check a list that has been curated, it can be useful. also going onto the app stores and typing in your carrier with call blocking, you ought to be able to bring some of, then. one of the things that consumers tell us is that their preferred price point is zero. the first place a lot of people are going to want to start is to see what is offered through their carrier. i have been using one of the services that we have been talking about that is offered to my carrier, and it is night and day from where it was just a few days ago, and that's now the call ring through my regular phone app, i am using ios, it labels some calls and blocks others, and a provide a lot of information.

>> i know alex touched on this, how do you distinguish the bad actors, the things you want to block from the things that should get through? can you say a little bit again, not for technical, but for consumers about how does this work? so that i make sure maybe some choose to take the bazooka, but others like i talked about, maybe this is a call i really wanted to have come through. how do you sort those things? >> we are looking at a bit over 30 attributes, and our team in seattle as a whole set of advanced algorithms to use machine learning techniques on a real-time basis to detect, really assign a repetition to

the caller. it's really a daunting technical challenge. one thing i'm excited about is we don't really have a so- called blacklist. we are looking at every call as an event on its own, and depending on what else we have seen on the network, we may choose to solve is assigned the call a bad or a good reputation. the worst kind of reputation would result in the callers being blocked. very few calls actually result in being blocked, and have that reputation. those get a lot of attention, and rightly -- likely so, those calls can also be dangerous. that is when they demand money. i think we are seeing a 1200% increase this year compared to last year in irs scams. then, there is all of the shades of gray. then there are calls that we consider to be spam or of a

nuisance nature. it is very subjective. who can -- considers that, a nuisance? you can just look at party affiliation, when fundraising calls come through, there is a 50-50 chance that the person wants to receive a call from that party. there have been instances here about school alerts and so forth. of course, it is important to receive those notifications. given that our company is premised on fighting these bad calls, i consumer comfortably, that there are other examples, too, in terms of debt collectors for example. i changed my credit card recently, and had our service blocked out the debt collector from being through to me, i would have missed the price, or my credit rating would have gone down the tubes. it is important that some of these calls get through. 2 million people employ them call centers in the u.s.,

nevermind outside. a lot of these people are doing important work, and they need to get through to consumers. we take the false positive very seriously. our reported false positive rate is .01%. we are very proud of that. >> what are the sorts of things that you are trying as a service provider that are the clues that this is an unwanted call, or an illegal call? >> i want to step back and talk about how we need to approach this solution is found to be effective. the key thing is how do you identify the bad actors, and how do you identify the good actors that might look a little bit like good actors if you're not doing the right thing. shaken will help a little bit with that, but it does not solve it, because dr. evil can still go get a phone number if it will be fully tested, and it

is still dr. evil. that doesn't mean it is not a bad call. that is part, but not all of it. you can also be assured that as soon as we work out some technique to differentiate the good actors from the bad actors, they will change the techniques. spoofing worked because it works. when it stops working, they will do something else the good news is, where that goes, as you need to have the stakeholders in all of the key segments, the stakeholders in a shaking ecosystem, the stakeholders of the call blocking apps, and the users, the people who actually want to get through. the stakeholders from all of those have to work together to identify the techniques. that is not a one-shot thing, again, as soon as they decide to work, it will change. that is why you need to ensure that structure is flexible and ongoing, and that is flexible, so when they try something different, you come back, you look at it, you work out what needs to be done, and you change the way you are doing it on a timescale that is consistent with their

timescale. flexibility and quick response of all of the stakeholders is key. if you have that you are well- positioned. if you don't have that, it will end badly. >> we behave somewhat similar to chaya, and -- in we have a dynamic blacklist in a dynamic white list. a dynamic blat with -- blacklist is a list that makes us believe this is a bad thing. cvs calling with her pharmacy prescription is a good example of that. we actually built in technology be called audio fingerprinting that looks at the voicemails and the audios that had been left by a given number at a given time, and from that we can tell when another number is leaving something similar, is it good or bad. the particular number of calls, we know that a cbs, if another number leaves a similar message, we know that is

another cds number. -- the cbs number. >> i want to talk about the difference between good and bad. i think there may be some difference of opinion on which group different colors fit. working with emails, robo call index, the top 20 robo callers in february and the nation, 16 of them were debt collectors. 16 were debt collectors. according to many debt collectors manuals, they will call as many as 10 times a day to collect each account. many student loan borrowers have eight accounts. they are subject to getting aiding -- 80 calls a day from a debt collector. is that a debt collector a good or a bad guy?

i'll just leave it at that. >> it depends on whether there is a debt. >> even if there is a debt, 80 calls a day maybe too much. >> absolutely. anybody else on the distinction? >> the solutions, i mentioned at the start, the number that most likely comes from new york and is spoofing, are the things we have been talking about effective against spoofing? how does that come into play? >> there is a bit of a mess out there but nothing can redo against spoofing until shaken takes place. i think we need to get it in place as quickly as possible. we are seeing almost 30% of nuisance calls today that are the so-called neighbors spoofing scan. you said typically skim calls

that you are not familiar with, it is basically, these bad actors they will call you, whatever number you have and the originating number has the same six digits in the beginning. sometimes advocate your own member, so they call you from your own number, so some are curious to see who is calling. usually it is the first six digits. we have some techniques to spread that out. the technique would be to block any, that comes in from those first six digits, but then you might block out people who happen to randomly have a similar phone number to you. i can't tell you what technique we are using, because of any of these guys are watching this video -- that technique would no longer be effective. that is an example of spoofing

where actually if you are smart about how you go about it, you can block out those calls. >> you can do a lot without shaken. the way i look at shaken is again, there are effective techniques that have been built today, but in many senses because of spoofing, the foundation has weaknesses. what shaken is doing is providing a firm foundation for those things. they will be able to do that much more of an accurate assessment. we don't have to wait for it. i am sure it will help. >> we are already seeing the neighborhood speakers get smarter by changing their definition of a neighborhood. it used to be in pa, and the first six digits had to match. then we started seeing the five digits with match, or four digits with match. it turns out to be a really

hard problem. what has happened with our user base, as they are deciding, i would rather just white list. there's too many of those calls getting through, i don't want them anymore. everybody else who calls me, i want to hear from again, i will call for my contacts. consumers are taking it into their own hands and dealing with that problem. >> let's talk about the progress on caller id authentication. we have been touching on this. where are we on that, and what is involved in accomplishing it? >> in january 2017, the shaken spec was published. shortly after that, we partner with new start to provide a testbed to the industry. that is continuing to be available at low cost as of today. we have had as of recently over

a half dozen vendors or providers who have completed testing. we have a similar number who have actively in the process of testing, as well as others who are watching and getting ready. all of that is proceeding in terms of the infrastructure to deploy that. in terms of the government's authority, we issued the government framework document, but -- about the middle of last year. our intention will be did that was frankly by about now, we would have the governments already set up and beginning to get the processes in place. i talked about the needs of various stakeholders to share information, and to work together to work out how we respond to bob. that is the kind of thing that would do. to be honest, the trust anchor notice inquiry slowed that down a little bit. we are not set up and running now. we are hoping that as the

working group finishes up with work that that will get that process up and running. really, the key thing here is because of that need for all of the stakeholders to be involved, to understand each other's problems and perspectives, and be prepared for reacting to the bad guys, you actually need to have the governments authority up and running almost before you actually have it deployed in the network. you don't want to deploy it and then trying to figure out how to manage after the fact. moving forward, we want to move forward faster.. >> the testing is being done, i encourage all carriers to get on board with the testing if you have not tested already. as far as nancy's work we are working towards that report with recommendations by may of this year. i am hopeful that the fcc takes

the recommendation, whatever it is, to set up that government structure as quickly as possible, so we can get this going. this question in the last panel. we focused on what to do after it happens. and just to discourage it through enforcement. but what, from your perspective, can the government do to do to develop solutions across the board? to anyone. >> what the goal should be is a vibrant ecosystem of different apps. carriers should do what they can do but you really want a whole bunch of different apps because that is where the innovation is taking place.

not just our apps but i look at a lot of apps all the time and there are a lot of interesting ideas and had to get better at stopping these calls, so the question becomes how do you get that ecosystem? so what you get is by providing access to the platforms, having the carrier, to open more things up to the app, so they have the day-to-day use of the network elements they can use to drive the hands to make it easy to sign up and use these apps, like alice gave a great example on the iphone where it is really a bear to turn on blocking. he left out that apple has a fixed list. if you have 1,000,000 1/2 numbers that you have to load as an app into the phone to say block these things. android at least gets apps get into the middle of a call and hang up although they have their own set of problems there. you never know where the next solution is going to be. >> -- actually, as a lawyer, i

think it would be with engineering. but the law still has a very important place. there is a decision by the dc circuit lady. that really throws the definition of the autodialer to the fc's the and that is a really critical question that will have tremendous ramifications about what types of calls are considered covered by the consumer protection law. if the fcc moves forward like the industry would like it to and does not include within that definition many of the types of equipment that are currently generating the calls, that those calls will be covered by that loss. and all the human -- all the calls in which a human is

actually talking to the receiver, the person who is getting the call, there will be no coverage. no ability, no requirement that the consumer has to consent, most more importantly, no ability of the consumer to say stop calling me, and have a lot require that that callers stop calling. as i described a minute ago with the debt collection calls, the ability to, for a consumer to be able to say stop calling for these automated calls is really a critical consumer protection, whether that caller is in the white list or the gray list or the blacklist. the ftc rule, which is also very important, do not cover these robo calls that have a human at the end, the only cover prerecorded and artificial voice. so the whole burden really will be on the federal communications commission to make sure to cover these calls

so that consumers have some ability to control them. >> got it. i don't have an opinion on enforcement, but i think in terms of what the fcc and fcc -- ftc have been doing, we are holed up in our tech bubble on the west coast most of the time. it has been really nice to see what an effective spark took place a couple of years ago here and it has stoked all cuts of good conversation around spoofing and actual action is taking place now. i am a little bit concerned about there being maybe too much discourse about coverage or the ability to detect these bad callers and maybe not has much on the false positives. so it would be a very long-term

view and ultimately, one third should be innovation and solutions available to customers, but i think there was an example, just recently, with self driving cars, you know, hitting someone, and now that is shut down innovation for -- temporarily -- for self driving cars. i can think of all sorts of awful scenarios that would take place if too many calls are blocked. and i'm not going to do specific examples, but they are -- some of them are life and death. and i don't think that it is necessarily governments role to enforce how this happens, but i think elevating the cost of false positives warrants -- really healthy to make sure that innovation will continue in the long run as rapidly as possible.

>> i think a specific area we are continuing to have a conversation among industry and the industry associations and government will be in the labeling of calls. there has been some interesting work going on, it will be even more important as standards come into effect, so that people understand that if they get a green or yellow or red, what that means and it is not unique across every type of device. the other kind of information sharing that is really important is the actual data about calls and what people are reporting. we are really happy that we have been able to take the information that people report to us, it is really important that people have a bad experience, experience a scam call, to report it to us. they can always report unwanted calls if they are on the

national do not call registry, do not call.gov, and we are now making the information available on a daily basis, so that can help make the algorithm smarter, better informed of blacklist, and both types of information are really important. >> good. we are down to the last few minutes on a schedule for our panel. any final thoughts that you wanted to add that we did not cover? >> i'm glad the lawyers and the engineers are all on the same panel. >> i would like to say, it really is exciting the amount of innovation. we go back to have working in the do not call registry which was 15 or more years ago and we get it, it is not stuff unwanted calls now. but we feel like we have come into an area where there is a lot of really promising technologies that are doing that and i going to do even better, so we hope people, regular people will take advantage of those, and check

out some of these apps and services and devices. if they go to ftc doug -- ftc.gov, they can learn how to do that. you can check out some of the apps in the app store, going to give them a good result. >> the work is not done and we are going to continue working at it with partnerships, the wireline wireless industry, everybody at the table, the third-party app developers and unfortunately, the illegal robo callers are going to keep at it so we cannot sit on our laurels, even after call vindication gets up and running even after with 550 apps we have got out there. we have to keep fighting every day. >> i would support that totally. this is a long haul. it will get better probably it will take longer than we would like, but we need to keep at it in one of the things that i always -- when people talk

about solutions to this problem, i think it is the wrong mindset, this is a long stretch we need to keep working at. it will get better but it will never be totally solved. so let's keep going. >> i agree will never get settled. is an ongoing battle. but i do think -- i want to thank the panelists. is encouraging all the work that is being done, and there is progress being made. i know we are still working to have the numbers turn in the opposite direction. and it just underscores the importance, i think, of government industries, third- party providers, and all of the stakeholders, the consumers, just as well, all pulling together to tackle responses, so thank you, and give yourself a round of applause.

tonight, american history tv features programs about 1960 politics. starting with a look at conservatives. followed by cbs face the nation interviews with ronald reagan and at oneãgeorge wallace. 1025, a segment on liberal politics from that year and finally, president lyndon johnson's announcement that he would not seek reelection. next, we continue our series, 1968, america in turmoil with a look back at conservative politics 50 years ago. perceived liberal accesses and disenchantment with the size of government gave rise to the -- the resurgence of richard nixon and a republican presidential victory. ronald reagan made his debut as a presidential candidate for shadowing the conservative revolution to come. our guest to discuss his politics are robert mary, editor of the american conservative and author of

where do they stand. the american presidents in the eyes of voters and historians. matthew dallek, george washington university professor in the graduate school of political management. he is the author of the right moment. ronald reagan's first victory and the decisive turning point in american politics. first, here's richard nixon accepting the republican nomination for president. at the gop national convention in miami beach, august 8, 1968. >> we make history tonight, not for ourselves, but for the agents. the choice we make a 1968 will determine not only the future of america, but the future of peace and freedom in the world for the last third of the 20th century, and the question that we answer tonight, can america meet this great challenge? for a few moments, let us look at america. let us listen to america. to find the answer to