[DOCID: f:hr188.110]
From the House Reports Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
110th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 110-188
======================================================================
TRUTH IN CALLER ID ACT OF 2007
_______
June 11, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Dingell, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 251]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 251) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to
prohibit manipulation of caller identification information, and
for other purposes, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill
as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Amendment........................................................ 2
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 3
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 3
Hearings......................................................... 4
Committee Consideration.......................................... 4
Committee Votes.................................................. 5
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 5
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 5
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures 5
Earmarks and Tax and Tariff Benefits............................. 5
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 5
Congressional Budget Office Estimate............................. 5
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 7
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 7
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 7
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 7
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation................... 7
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 9
Additional Views................................................. 11
Amendment
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Truth in Caller ID Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION REGARDING MANIPULATION OF CALLER IDENTIFICATION
INFORMATION.
Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (e), (f), and (g) as
subsections (f), (g), and (h), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new
subsection:
``(e) Prohibition on Provision of Deceptive Caller Identification
Information.--
``(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person within
the United States, in connection with any telecommunications
service or VOIP service, to cause any caller identification
service to transmit misleading or inaccurate caller
identification information, with the intent to defraud or cause
harm.
``(2) Protection for blocking caller identification
information.--Nothing in this subsection may be construed to
prevent or restrict any person from blocking the capability of
any caller identification service to transmit caller
identification information.
``(3) Regulations.--
``(A) Deadline.--Not later than 6 months after the
enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall
prescribe regulations to implement this subsection.
``(B) Consideration of related regulations.--In
conducting the proceeding to prescribe the regulations
required by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, the
Commission shall examine whether the Commission's
regulations under subsection (b)(2)(B) of this section
should be revised to require non-commercial calls to
residential telephone lines using an artificial or pre-
recorded voice to deliver a message to transmit caller
identification information that is not misleading or
inaccurate.
``(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
``(A) Caller identification information.--The term
`caller identification information' means information
provided to an end user by a caller identification
service regarding the telephone number of, or other
information regarding the origination of, a call made
using a telecommunications service or VOIP service.
``(B) Caller identification service.--The term
`caller identification service' means any service or
device designed to provide the user of the service or
device with the telephone number of, or other
information regarding the origination of, a call made
using a telecommunications service or VOIP service.
Such term includes automatic number identification
services.
``(C) VOIP service.--The term `VOIP service' means a
service that--
``(i) provides real-time voice communications
transmitted through end user equipment using
TCP/IP protocol, or a successor protocol, for a
fee or without a fee;
``(ii) is offered to the public, or such
classes of users as to be effectively available
to the public (whether part of a bundle of
services or separately); and
``(iii) has the capability to originate
traffic to, or terminate traffic from, the
public switched telephone network.
``(5) Savings provision.--Except for paragraph (3)(B),
nothing in this subsection may be construed to affect or alter
the application of the Commission's regulations regarding the
requirements for transmission of caller identification
information, issued pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-243) and the amendments
made by such Act.''.
Purpose and Summary
The purpose of H.R. 251, the Truth in Caller ID Act of
2007, is to prohibit people or entities from manipulating
caller identification information with the intent to defraud or
cause harm.
Background and Need for Legislation
Most companies that offer telephone service also offer a
caller identification (caller ID) service that can provide
their customers with the telephone number or the name of
calling parties, or both. Some callers, however, are employing
technology to alter the name or number that appears on the
recipient's caller ID display, a practice known as caller ID
``spoofing.''
Caller ID spoofing can make a call appear to come from any
phone number the caller wishes. For instance, the American
Association of Retired Persons issued a ``scam alert'' when
someone posing as a courthouse employee called a Sterling,
Michigan, woman claiming that she had missed jury duty that
week. The caller threatened that a warrant was being issued for
her arrest and then asked her to confirm her Social Security
number in order to verify her identity. This scam appeared even
more real when the con artist used a caller ID ``spoofing''
product that allowed the con artist to display the name and
number of the courthouse on the caller ID box.
Today, caller ID typically works through the use of
Signaling System 7 (SS7), which is the standard for connecting
phone companies' networks worldwide. SS7 allows the call
originator's local telephone exchange to send a Calling Party
Number (CPN), which includes the number of the caller and
whether or not the caller wants their number to be blocked. By
Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission)
regulation, when a telecommunications carrier uses SS7 to set
up a call, it must transmit the CPN and its associated privacy
indicator for that call to the connecting carrier. By
regulation, consumers also have the right to conceal their CPN
by dialing *67.
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service providers are
not currently subject to the same FCC caller ID regulations
that apply to traditional telephony. The Commission has not yet
established guidelines for VoIP providers to handle the
transmission of caller ID information to a called party.
Additionally, VoIP services can give the calling party far more
control over the content and transmission of caller ID. VoIP
customers are able to control the features of their phone
service through their Web settings. Some VoIP companies offer
customers the ability to change the caller ID information that
is distributed when a call is made. Other VoIP companies
restrict or block the ability of their customers to change the
calling party's phone number.
It has been possible for a number of years to ``spoof'' or
manipulate caller ID information, although it required specific
phone connections and expensive equipment. With advances in
technology and the advent of VoIP, however, it has become
easier for callers to transmit any caller ID information the
calling party chooses. Moreover, there are a number of online
Web sites that offer spoofing services, eliminating the need
for any specialized hardware. Not only can these services mask
the correct caller ID information, but many offer voice-
scrambling services that can, among other things, make the
caller sound like someone of the opposite sex.
Although these caller ID spoofing services promote
themselves for use in ``prank calls'' or for ``entertainment
purposes only,'' such services can be easily accessed and used
by criminals, identity thieves, or others who wish to harm or
deceive someone. Additionally, many business functions, from
credit card verification to automatic call routing, opt to use
caller ID for security purposes, which spoofing can thwart.
There are, however, legitimate reasons to alter caller ID
information. For example, the Committee received a letter from
the National Network to End Domestic Violence that explained
that many phones are set to refuse blocked or private calls. It
therefore becomes important for domestic violence shelters to
transmit caller ID information so a call is completed, but it
may be necessary to alter the caller ID information to ensure
the safety of the domestic violence victims. Moreover,
informants to law enforcement tip lines or whistleblowers have
additional reasons to keep their calling information private.
And many doctors, lawyers, and psychiatrists have legitimate
reasons to keep direct lines private, with no intention of
misleading anyone.
Although there are specific caller ID rules that govern how
telemarketers may transmit caller ID information, current FCC
regulations contain no broad mandate that all callers transmit
accurate caller ID information. H.R. 251 remedies this problem.
Hearings
The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
held a hearing on H.R. 251 on Wednesday, February 28, 2007. The
Subcommittee received testimony from the following: Ms. Kris
Monteith, Chief, Enforcement Division, FCC; Ms. Staci Pies,
Vice President, PointOne Communications, on behalf of the Voice
on the Net Coalition (``VON''); and Ms. Allison Knight, Staff
Counsel, Electronic Privacy Information Center.
Subcommittee Consideration
On Wednesday, February 28, 2007, the Subcommittee met in
open markup session. Chairman Markey offered an amendment in
the nature of a substitute that clarified the definition of
VoIP for purposes of H.R. 251 as any real-time voice
communications service using TCP/IP or a successor protocol
that is capable of connecting calls to, or receiving calls
from, the public switched telephone network. The amendment in
the nature of a substitute was agreed to by voice vote. The
Subcommittee forwarded H.R. 251 to the full Committee, amended,
by voice vote.
Committee Consideration
On Thursday, March 15, 2007, the full Committee met in open
markup session. Mr. Green of Texas offered an amendment to
direct the FCC to consider whether noncommercial calls made to
residential lines using an artificial or recorded voice should
be required to transmit caller ID information that is not
misleading or inaccurate. The Committee agreed to Mr. Green's
amendment by voice vote. The Committee ordered H.R. 251
favorably reported to the House, amended, by voice vote.
Committee Votes
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes
on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto.
There were no record votes taken on amendments or in connection
with ordering H.R. 251 reported. A motion by Mr. Dingell to
order H.R. 251 favorably reported to the House, amended, was
agreed to by voice vote.
Committee Oversight Findings
Regarding clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet held a legislative hearing
and made findings that are reflected in this report.
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
The objective of H.R. 251 is to prohibit people or entities
from manipulating caller ID information with the intent to
defraud or cause harm.
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures
Regarding compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of
the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds
that H.R. 251 would result in no new or increased budget
authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or
revenues.
Earmarks and Tax and Tariff Benefits
Regarding compliance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, H.R. 251 does not contain any
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.
Committee Cost Estimate
The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Congressional Budget Office Estimate
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate
provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:
March 20, 2007.
Hon. John D. Dingell,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 251, the Truth in
Caller ID Act of 2007.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susan Willie.
Sincerely,
Peter R. Orszag.
Enclosure.
H.R. 251--Truth in Caller ID Act of 2007
Summary: H.R. 251 would amend the Communications Act of
1934 to prohibit caller identification services (known as
Caller ID) from transmitting misleading or inaccurate caller
identification information with the intent to defraud or cause
harm. Prohibitions under the bill would apply to both
traditional telephone and voice over Internet protocol (VOIP)
services. Caller ID allows consumers to see the names and
telephone numbers of incoming calls. The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) would be required to develop regulations to
implement the new restriction.
Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing the bill would cost about $5
million over the 2008-2012 period. Enacting the bill also would
affect federal revenues by increasing collections of fines and
penalties, but CBO estimates that any such increase would not
be significant.
H.R. 251 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact is shown in the following table. The costs of
this legislation fall within budget function 370 (commerce and
housing credit).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Estimated Authorization Level...................................... 1 1 1 1 1
Estimated Outlays.................................................. 1 1 1 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the
bill will be enacted by the start of 2008 and that spending
will follow historical patterns for similar FCC programs.
Based on information from the FCC and subject to the
availability of appropriated funds, CBO estimates that
implementing the bill would cost $1 million annually in each
subsequent year to issue and enforce the new regulations.
Enacting the bill would likely increase federal revenues as
a result of collection of additional civil penalties assessed
for violations of the new law and regulations. Collections of
civil penalties are recorded in the budget as revenues. CBO
estimates, however, that any additional revenues that would
result from enacting the bill would not be significant because
of the relatively small number of cases likely to be involved.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 251
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or
tribal governments.
Comparison with other estimates: On February 15, 2007, CBO
transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 740, the Preventing
Harassment through Outbound Number Enforcement (PHONE) Act of
2007, as ordered reported by the House Committee on the
Judiciary on February 7, 2007. That bill would establish a new
federal crime for the fraudulent use of caller ID information
but would not require new FCC regulations. CBO estimated that
implementing H.R. 740 would have no significant cost to the
federal government. Enacting H.R. 740 could affect direct
spending and revenues, but CBO estimated that any such effects
would not be significant.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Susan Willie; Impact
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Theresa Gullo; Impact
on the Private Sector: Fatimot Ladipo.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Federal Mandates Statement
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that the
Constitutional authority for this legislation is provided in
Article I, section 8, clause 3, which grants Congress the power
to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes.
Applicability to Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation
Section 1--Short title
The short title of the bill is the ``Truth in Caller ID Act
of 2007.''
Section 2--Prohibition regarding manipulation of caller identification
information
Section 2 adds a new subsection (e) to section 227 of the
Communications Act. New subsection (e)(1) makes it unlawful for
any person, in connection with any telecommunications service
or VoIP service, to cause any caller ID service to transmit
misleading or inaccurate caller ID information with the intent
to defraud or cause harm. The Committee intends a common law
definition of the term ``fraud,'' meaning an intentional
misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person
to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of
inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other
person relies with resulting injury or damage. Further, the
Committee intends that ``the intent to defraud or cause harm''
standard set out in section 227(e)(1) includes all types of
harm that may result from such caller ID ``spoofing,''
including financial, physical, and emotional harm.
The Committee notes that the inclusion of the ``intent to
defraud or cause harm'' language is intended to prohibit the
use of caller ID technology for harmful impersonation. Such
language is included in the section to ensure that Congress
does not inadvertently prohibit the conduct of an individual or
an entity who is not intending to defraud or harm the recipient
of the call, but instead may be protecting privileged
communications or ensuring the safety of an individual. For
example, a domestic violence shelter may alter caller ID
information in order to return a call to a victim in a way that
will protect the shelter's confidential location and not alert
the victim's abuser that she has contacted a shelter program.
Because the shelter in this example is not intending to defraud
or harm the recipient of the call, the shelter would not be in
violation of the section.
Commission regulations currently provide that any caller
shall be able to block their caller ID information from
reaching the end user. New subsection (e)(2) is designed to
ensure that nothing in the bill prevents or restricts any
person from blocking caller ID information.
The Committee intends that this bill will not confer or
authorize any new powers for any intelligence or law
enforcement agency. This bill does not prohibit any lawfully
authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity
of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a
political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency
of the United States.
New subsection (e)(3)(A) requires the FCC to prescribe
regulations implementing new subsection (e) within 6 months of
enactment. Subparagraph (B) of this subsection, which was added
by the Green amendment, requires the Commission, as part of
that proceeding, to re-examine certain Commission regulations
originally adopted after enactment of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (the ``TCPA''). The TCPA contains a
general prohibition, found in section 227(b)(1)(B), against
initiation of any telephone call to any residential phone line
using an artificial or pre-recorded voice without express prior
consent of the called party. The TCPA, however, also contained
authority for the Commission, found in subsection (b)(2)(B)(i)
of section 227, to exempt from the prohibition ``calls that are
not made for a commercial purpose.'' The Commission's
regulations implementing section 227 contain this exemption.
The intent of the Green Amendment to H.R. 251 is to require the
Commission to consider re-examining this exemption for non-
commercial entities in circumstances where the caller ID
information is misleading or inaccurate.
New subsection (e)(4) contains the definition of ``caller
identification information,'' ``caller identification service''
and ``VoIP Service.'' VoIP Service is defined as a service
offered to the public that provides real-time voice
communications capable of placing calls to, or completing calls
from, the public switched telephone network (PSTN) through end-
user equipment that uses TCP/IP protocol, or a successor
protocol, with or without a fee.
New subsection (e)(5) contains a savings clause indicating
that, other than new section 227(e)(3)(B), nothing in the bill
shall affect FCC regulations issued pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--COMMON CARRIERS
PART I--COMMON CARRIER REGULATION
* * * * * * *
SEC. 227. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Prohibition on Provision of Deceptive Caller
Identification Information.--
(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person
within the United States, in connection with any
telecommunications service or VOIP service, to cause
any caller identification service to transmit
misleading or inaccurate caller identification
information, with the intent to defraud or cause harm.
(2) Protection for blocking caller identification
information.--Nothing in this subsection may be
construed to prevent or restrict any person from
blocking the capability of any caller identification
service to transmit caller identification information.
(3) Regulations.--
(A) Deadline.--Not later than 6 months after
the enactment of this subsection, the
Commission shall prescribe regulations to
implement this subsection.
(B) Consideration of related regulations.--In
conducting the proceeding to prescribe the
regulations required by subparagraph (A) of
this paragraph, the Commission shall examine
whether the Commission's regulations under
subsection (b)(2)(B) of this section should be
revised to require non-commercial calls to
residential telephone lines using an artificial
or pre-recorded voice to deliver a message to
transmit caller identification information that
is not misleading or inaccurate.
(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
(A) Caller identification information.--The
term ``caller identification information''
means information provided to an end user by a
caller identification service regarding the
telephone number of, or other information
regarding the origination of, a call made using
a telecommunications service or VOIP service.
(B) Caller identification service.--The term
``caller identification service'' means any
service or device designed to provide the user
of the service or device with the telephone
number of, or other information regarding the
origination of, a call made using a
telecommunications service or VOIP service.
Such term includes automatic number
identification services.
(C) VOIP service.--The term ``VOIP service''
means a service that--
(i) provides real-time voice communications
transmitted through end user equipment using
TCP/IP protocol, or a successor protocol, for a
fee or without a fee;
(ii) is offered to the public, or such
classes of users as to be effectively available
to the public (whether part of a bundle of
services or separately); and
(iii) has the capability to originate traffic
to, or terminate traffic from, the public
switched telephone network.
(5) Savings provision.--Except for paragraph (3)(B),
nothing in this subsection may be construed to affect
or alter the application of the Commission's
regulations regarding the requirements for transmission
of caller identification information, issued pursuant
to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
(Public Law 102-243) and the amendments made by such
Act.
[(e)] (f) Effect on State Law.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(f)] (g) Actions by States.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(g)] (h) Junk Fax Enforcement Report.--The Commission shall
submit an annual report to Congress regarding the enforcement
during the past year of the provisions of this section relating
to sending of unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile
machines, which report shall include--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE JOE BARTON
I do not intend the definition of ``Voice over Internet
Protocol (VOIP)'' Service in new section 227(e)(4)(C) to be
used in other contexts. This bill is designed to address the
rise in spoofing caused, at least in part, by the increased
ease with which individuals and entities can alter caller ID
information using VoIP and similar technologies. The inclusion
of this definition here to address that problem is in no way
intended to suggest that I endorse use of this definition for
other purposes, especially since the definition was
specifically tailored to include one-way VoIP services to
prevent such services from evading the prohibition on spoofing.
Joe Barton.
<all>