Federal Communications Commission	DA  22-1219

Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of

Global UC Inc
)
)
)
)


EB-TCD-22-00034406

REMOVAL ORDER

Adopted:  November 22, 2022	Released:  November 22, 2022

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

I. INTRODUCTION
1. By this Order, we remove Global UC Inc (Global UC or Company) from the Robocall Mitigation Database.  Global UC failed to correct its deficient Robocall Mitigation Database (Database) certification or demonstrate why the Enforcement Bureau should not remove its certification from the Database following the Enforcement Bureau’s October 3, 2022 Order directing it to do so. Global UC Inc, Order, DA 22-1037, para. 1 (EB Oct. 3, 2022).
  Removal from the Database requires all intermediate providers and terminating voice service providers to cease accepting the Company’s traffic. Call Authentication Trust Anchor, WC Docket No. 17-97, Second Report and Order, 36 FCC Rcd 1859, 1903, para. 83 & 1904, para. 86 (2020) (Second Caller ID Authentication Order); 47 CFR § 64.6305(e)(1).  
  Furthermore, Global UC shall not re-file a Robocall Mitigation Database certification without the prior approval of the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Enforcement Bureau.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Robocall Mitigation Database Requirements on Originating Providers
2. Protecting Americans from the dangers of unwanted and illegal robocalls is the Commission’s top consumer protection priority. The Commission receives more complaints about unwanted and illegal calls than any other issue.  FCC, Consumer Complaint Data Center, https://www.fcc.gov/consumer-help-center-data (last visited May 10, 2022).
  As part of the Commission’s multi-pronged approach to combatting illegal robocalls, the Commission has mandated adoption of the Secure Telephony Identity Revisited/Signature-based Handling of Asserted Information using toKENs (STIR/SHAKEN) caller ID authentication framework. See 47 CFR §§ 64.6300-64.6308; Call Authentication Trust Anchor, Implementation of TRACED Act Section 6(a)—Knowledge of Customers by Entities with Access to Numbering Resources, WC Docket Nos. 17-97 and 20-67, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 3241 (Mar. 31, 2020) (First Caller ID Authentication Report and Order and Further Notice).
  The Commission extended the implementation deadline for certain voice service providers on the basis of undue hardship or material reliance on a non-IP network. Second Caller ID Authentication Order, 36 FCC Rcd at 1892-93, para. 66; Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED Act), Pub. L. No. 116-105, 133 Stat. 3274, § 4(b)(5)(A)(i) (TRACED Act); 47 CFR § 64.6304.  On December 9, 2021, the Commission shortened the deadline to implement STIR/SHAKEN for non-facilities-based small voice services providers and small voice service providers of any kind suspected of originating illegal robocalls.  Call Authentication Trust Anchor, WC Docket No, 17-97, Fourth Report and Order, FCC 21-122 at para. 9 (2021) (Fourth Caller Authentication Order); see also TRACED Act § 4(b)(5).
  Service providers that received an extension were required to implement a robocall mitigation program to prevent unlawful robocalls from originating on their networks. TRACED Act § 4(b)(5)(C)(i); 47 CFR § 64.6305(a)(1); Second Caller ID Authentication Order, 36 FCC Rcd at 1897-98, para. 75.
  Furthermore, all voice service providers—not only those granted an extension—were required to file certifications with the Commission stating whether their traffic is authenticated with STIR/SHAKEN or, alternatively, is subject to a robocall mitigation program. 47 CFR § 64.6305(c)(1); Second Caller ID Authentication Order, 36 FCC Rcd at 1902, para. 82.  This obligation was formerly codified at section 64.6305(b).  The Commission has also adopted rules applying this requirement to traffic from gateway providers, which will go into effect 90 days following the deadline for gateway providers to submit a certification to the Robocall Mitigation Database.  Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Call Authentication Trust Anchor, CG Docket No. 17-59, WC Docket No. 17-97, Sixth Report and Order in CG Docket No. 17-59, Fifth Report and Order in WC Docket No. 17-97, Order on Reconsideration in WC Docket No. 17-97, Order, Seventh Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CG Docket No. 17-59, and Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 17-97, FCC 22-37, paras. 34, 131 (2022) (Gateway Provider Order); 47 CFR § 64.6305(e)(3).
  Voice service providers whose traffic is subject to a robocall mitigation program must detail in their certifications the specific reasonable steps that they have taken to avoid originating illegal robocall traffic. 47 CFR § 64.6305(c)(2)(ii); Second Caller ID Authentication Order, 36 FCC Rcd at 1902, para. 82 (quotations omitted).
  These certifications and robocall mitigation plans are publicly available in the Robocall Mitigation Database. FCC, Robocall Mitigation Database, FCC, https://fccprod.servicenowservices.com/rmd?id=rmd_welcome (last visited Oct. 1, 2021). 
  
3. Commission rules prohibit any intermediate provider or terminating voice service provider from accepting voice traffic directly from any originating voice service provider that does not appear in the Robocall Mitigation Database. 47 CFR § 64.6305(e); Second Caller ID Authentication Order, 36 FCC Rcd at 1904, para. 86.  
  The Enforcement Bureau may take enforcement action, including removal of a certification from the Robocall Mitigation Database, against voice service providers that have deficient certifications.  Second Caller ID Authentication Order, 36 FCC Rcd at 1902, 1903, paras. 81 n.322, 83.
  A deficient certification includes one that fails to describe specific robocall mitigation steps as required by section 64.6305(a) of the Commission’s rules. 47 CFR § 64.6305(c)(2)(ii); see also Second Caller ID Authentication Order, 36 FCC Rcd at 1900-02, paras. 77-82.
  Prior to removing a certification from the Robocall Mitigation Database, the Enforcement Bureau must provide notice to the originating voice service provider and allow an opportunity to cure. Second Call Authentication Trust Anchor Order, 36 FCC Rcd at 1904-05, para. 88.  We may take other enforcement actions such as requiring the voice service provider to submit more specific robocall mitigation measures or imposing a forfeiture.  Id. at 1903, para. 83.
 
B. Global UC’s Deficient Certification
4. Global UC filed a Robocall Mitigation Database certification on July 1, 2021. Global UC Inc, Robocall Mitigation Database, FCC (July 24, 2021), https://fccprod.servicenowservices.com/rmd?id=rmd_form&table=x_g_fmc_rmd_robocall_mitigation_database&sys_id=b30aaf861b0178107ccf20ecac4bcb73&view=sp (Robocall Mitigation Database Filing).
  Global UC certified that it had implemented the STIR/SHAKEN framework on part of its network, and that the remainder of the calls originating on its network were subject to a robocall mitigation program. Id.
  The Company’s certification did not include any specific reasonable steps that it was taking to avoid origination of illegal robocall traffic.  Instead, it only included a document that described background technical information about STIR/SHAKEN; the information was unrelated to the Company and did not include a description of the Company’s robocall mitigation plan. Id.; see Global UC Inc, Order, DA 22-1037, para. 5 (EB Oct. 3 2022).
  The FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau contacted the Company on October 19, 2021, via the e-mail listed in its certification.  The Wireline Competition Bureau notified the Company that the attached description of its robocall mitigation program submitted with the certification did not satisfy the requirements under the Commission’s rules. E-mail from Wireline Competition Bureau to Global UC Inc (Oct. 19, 2021) (Warning Notice).  
  The Wireline Competition Bureau did not receive a response from Global UC acknowledging or addressing the notice, and Global UC did not correct its certification.  
5. The Enforcement Bureau released an Order on October 3, 2022, requiring Global UC to demonstrate why the Enforcement Bureau should not remove Global UC’s certification from the Robocall Mitigation Database. Global UC Inc, Order, DA 22-1037, paras. 6-7 (EB Oct. 3, 2022).
  The Order notified the Company that it was required to cure the deficiencies in its robocall mitigation program or submit an explanation as to why the certification was not deficient and imposed a deadline for response of October 18, 2022.  Global UC responded to the Enforcement Bureau on October 3, 2022, stating that “We are not needing this certification.” E-mail from Ricky Perez, Global UC Inc to Daniel Stepanicich, Attorney Advisor, Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Oct. 3, 2022 15:27 EDT) (Global UC Response).
  It offered no explanation for why it believed that it was not required to submit a compliant certification.  The response further asked how to remove Global UC’s certification from the Robocall Mitigation Database. Id.
  In response, Enforcement Bureau staff directed Global UC to the Robocall Mitigation Database filing instructions. E-mail from Daniel Stepanicich, Attorney Advisor, Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau to Ricky Perez, Global UC Inc (Oct 3, 2022 17:03 EDT).
  To date, Global UC has neither removed its certification nor corrected the deficiencies.
III. DISCUSSION
6. We find that Global UC has filed a deficient Robocall Mitigation Database certification.  The Company certified that it is subject to a robocall mitigation program, See Robocall Mitigation Database Filing (attesting that the Company has partial STIR/SHAKEN implementation and is performing robocall mitigation).
 but it failed to describe specific reasonable steps that the Company is taking to prevent the origination of illegal robocall traffic. See 47 CFR § 64.6305(a); Second Caller ID Authentication Order, 36 FCC Rcd at 1902, para. 82.
  Instead, it only attached a document providing background technical information about STIR/SHAKEN; the information was unrelated to the Company and did not include a description of the Company’s robocall mitigation plan. Robocall Mitigation Database Filing.
  The Company’s certification therefore was deficient because it did not describe any robocall mitigation program. See 47 CFR § 64.6305(c)(2)(ii) (requiring voice service providers subject to a robocall mitigation program to provide the specific reasonable robocall mitigation steps taken).
  
7. Global UC did not take any corrective action after the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Enforcement Bureau, separately, informed Global UC of the deficiencies in its certification. See Warning Notice; Wireline Bureau Referral; Global UC Inc, Order, DA 22-1037, paras. 6-7 (EB Oct. 3, 2022).
  Global UC claimed, without further explanation or action, that it no longer needed a certification in the Robocall Mitigation Database. Global UC Response.
   We therefore conclude that Global UC’s Robocall Mitigation Database certification is deficient.
8. Accordingly, we remove Global UC’s certification from the Robocall Mitigation Database.  All intermediate providers and terminating voice service providers must cease accepting traffic from Global UC within two (2) business days of this Order. 47 CFR § 64.6305(e)(1); Second Caller ID Authentication Order, 36 FCC Rcd at 1904, para. 86.
  Downstream providers may not block 911 calls and must take reasonable efforts not to block calls from public safety answering points (PSAPs) and government emergency numbers. 47 CFR § 64.6305(e)(4).
  Global UC shall not refile unless the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Enforcement Bureau determine that Global UC has addressed and resolved any deficiencies or shortcomings in its Robocall Mitigation Database certification.
9. Additional Information.  For further information about this Order, contact Daniel Stepanicich, Attorney Advisor, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, at daniel.stepanicich@fcc.gov or (202) 418-7451.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 227b, 251(e), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, sections 0.111, 0.311, 1.102(b)(1), and 64.6305 of the Commission’s rules, 47 U.S.C. §§ 4(i), 4(j), 227b, 251(e), 403; 47 CFR §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.102(b)(1), 64.6305.
 and the Second Caller ID Authentication Order, Second Caller ID Authentication Order, 36 FCC Rcd at 1902, 1903, paras. 81 n.322, 83.  
 Global UC is IMMEDIATELY REMOVED from the Robocall Mitigation Database.
11. IT IS ORDERED that Global UC shall not refile until the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Enforcement Bureau determine that Global UC has addressed and resolved any deficiencies or shortcomings in its Robocall Mitigation Database certification.
12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Order shall be sent by email and registered mail, return receipt requested, to:  Ricky Perez, Manager, Global UC Inc, 4613 Aspen Way, Fort Worth, TX 76137 and rick@globaltelelinks.com.


						FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION




						Loyaan A. Egal
Chief
Enforcement Bureau
3