Plain-language summaries of FCC rulemakings, enforcement actions, AI calling rules and network security decisions — with what each one actually means for a carrier running traffic on its own switch. Every entry links to the official source.
49 state attorneys general urge the FCC to mandate upstream provider vetting
Attorneys general from 49 states filed comments pressing the Commission to require voice providers to vet their upstream providers, alongside the Anti-Robocall Multistate Litigation Task Force's Operation Robocall Roundup.
The state task force has been running its own enforcement track in parallel with the FCC: warning letters to dozens of smaller voice providers, with several already ordered by the Commission to fix their robocall mitigation practices or lose the ability to route calls.
The message to the FCC is that voluntary diligence is not working — the states want know-your-upstream-provider checks to be a binding obligation, not a best practice.
What it means for your switch
State-level pressure is now aligned with the FCC's own rulemaking direction. Providers should assume upstream vetting will become mandatory and build the records to prove it before the rule lands.
FCC proposes a major expansion of the Robocall Mitigation Database
A new Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would turn the RMD into a broader gatekeeping tool, with stricter accuracy, completeness, and currency requirements for filings. Comments are due 30 days after Federal Register publication.
The proposal continues the Commission's recent approach: purge bad actors from the database and rely on carriers to block unregistered traffic. If adopted, the rules would raise the bar for entering and staying listed in the RMD.
This is one of the most significant robocall-related proposals since STIR/SHAKEN implementation, and it is squarely aimed at filing quality rather than call-by-call behaviour.
What it means for your switch
Treat your RMD certification as a living document with an owner and a review cycle. The direction of travel is that an inaccurate filing alone — no illegal traffic required — is enough to lose network access.
FCC tightens the Robocall Mitigation Database again
A further FCC action on the effectiveness of the Robocall Mitigation Database, tied to the Call Authentication Trust Anchor and unlawful robocall proceedings, was published in the Federal Register.
The Commission continues to treat the Robocall Mitigation Database as an enforcement instrument rather than a filing formality. This item sits in the same line of proceedings as the earlier filing-requirement rules and the Call Authentication Trust Anchor docket (WC Docket No. 17-97).
The practical direction of travel has not changed since 2024: certifications must be accurate, current, and backed by a robocall mitigation plan the provider can actually demonstrate. Stale or copy-pasted filings are the ones drawing attention.
What it means for your switch
If your RMD certification still describes a mitigation program you no longer run, update it before someone else reads it for you. Downstream carriers are entitled to refuse traffic from providers whose filings are deficient or removed.
FCC removes 14 voice providers from the Robocall Mitigation Database
In a single sweep, the Commission struck 14 named companies from the Robocall Mitigation Database for violating robocall rules.
Removal from the RMD is not a paperwork penalty. Once a provider is off the list, other US carriers are required to stop accepting its traffic — the commercial effect is immediate and total.
The action follows the pattern the Enforcement Bureau has used repeatedly: warning letters and requests for information first, then removal for providers that do not respond or cannot show a real mitigation program.
What it means for your switch
Two jobs for an originating or intermediate provider. First, keep your own certification defensible. Second, check the RMD status of every upstream partner you accept traffic from — accepting traffic from a removed provider puts your own registration at risk.
Nine providers face RMD removal for ignoring traceback requests
The FCC moved to remove nine voice providers from the Robocall Mitigation Database after they failed to respond to multiple traceback requests from the industry traceback consortium — a direct breach of their own certifications.
Every RMD certification includes a commitment to respond to traceback requests within 24 hours. These providers certified that commitment and then did not honour it, which the Bureau treats as a defective filing.
Removal from the RMD is the practical equivalent of a shutdown order: once removed, other providers must stop accepting the company's traffic.
What it means for your switch
Traceback response is an operational discipline, not a legal one. Make sure someone owns the inbox, the 24-hour clock, and the escalation path — silence is itself the violation.
Know-Your-Upstream-Provider rules and stronger STIR/SHAKEN
The Commission moved to strengthen know-your-upstream-provider obligations alongside STIR/SHAKEN call authentication requirements.
The regulatory logic is straightforward: illegal traffic usually enters the US network through a provider that did not look closely at who handed it the calls. Tightening upstream diligence pushes responsibility back up the chain instead of leaving it entirely with terminating carriers.
For carriers this converts what used to be a commercial judgement — who you peer with — into a compliance obligation you may have to evidence.
What it means for your switch
Keep documented KYC records for every upstream and customer: legal entity, contacts, expected traffic profile, and what you did when the traffic did not match that profile. Records created after an inquiry arrives carry little weight.
A Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking set out measures to make STIR/SHAKEN a sharper tool against illegal calls, including improved know-your-upstream-provider requirements (WC Docket No. 17-97; CG Docket No. 17-59).
The FNPRM signals that attestation quality itself is under review. A-level attestation is meant to mean the provider knows the customer and the customer's right to use the number — not simply that the call originated on its own switch.
Proposals at this stage are not yet binding rules, but they are the clearest available preview of where compliance expectations are heading.
What it means for your switch
If your platform hands out A attestation broadly, start measuring how much of that traffic you could actually justify. Getting attestation logic right before it becomes mandatory is far cheaper than retrofitting under an inquiry.
FCC proposes forfeiture against Voxbeam over robocall traffic
The Commission issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture against Voxbeam Telecommunications Inc. (FCC 26-22, EB-TCD-25-000386591) in connection with illegal robocall traffic.
The case follows the established enforcement pattern: an intermediate or gateway provider carrying high volumes of illegal traffic, with the Commission examining what the provider knew about its upstream sources and what it did in response to traceback.
As with other NALs, the penalty is proposed rather than final — but the reasoning sets the compliance standard every carrier is measured against.
What it means for your switch
Gateway and intermediate providers are firmly in scope. Documented customer diligence, attestation decisions, and traceback responses are the difference between a defensible position and a proposed fine.
FCC orders 35 companies to fix RMD filings or face removal
The Enforcement Bureau ordered 35 companies to cure deficiencies in their Robocall Mitigation Database certifications and notify the Bureau, or explain why their certifications should not be removed from the database.
This is the Bureau's standard pre-removal step: providers get a defined window to correct deficient certifications before being struck from the database.
The deficiencies at issue are typically incomplete mitigation plans, missing contact details, or certifications that do not match the provider's actual operations.
What it means for your switch
If you receive a cure letter, the clock is short and the response must be substantive. Providers that treat it as a formality are the ones that appear in the next removal order.
FCC cuts off a provider from US networks over robocall rules
The Commission acted to immediately prevent a provider that violated robocall rules from connecting to US networks.
Actions of this kind end a carrier's US business overnight. There is no phased wind-down: other providers are directed to stop accepting the traffic.
The trigger is usually the same — high volumes of illegal traffic, a mitigation program that exists only on paper, and slow or incomplete responses to the Enforcement Bureau.
What it means for your switch
Respond to traceback requests quickly and completely. A provider that can show call detail, attestation decisions, and the action it took on a flagged customer is in a fundamentally different position from one that cannot.