What the FCC Wants Before You Can Make a Phone Call

A proposed rule would require government-issued ID, home address, and an alternate phone number from every wireless customer at signup. The intent is to stop robocalls. The consequences would reach further than the FCC seems to realize.

Team Phreeli

PUBLIC STATEMENT  ·  FCC DOCKET NO. 17-59

Phreeli wants to ensure that its service isn’t used by scammers and bad actors. The public deserves phone service free from fraud, harassment, and illegal calls. That's not a policy position; it’s a core commitment.

That's exactly why we're filing formal comments in response to a recent FCC proposal that, despite its good intentions, we believe would make things worse and not better for everyday consumers.

The FCC's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 26-27) would require originating phone carriers to collect and retain a wide range of identifying information from customers before allowing access to voice services. That data includes, at minimum: name, physical address, government-issued ID, and an alternate phone number. For high-volume callers, even more documentation would be required.

We have a number of concerns with this approach, and we'll be laying each of them (among other concerns) out in detail in our formal filing:

It forces a waiver of basic, reasonable expectations of privacy. Wireless service, due to its mobility and affordability, remains one of the most private forms of communication widely available to Americans. Carriers’ customers shouldn’t be expected to waive their reasonable expectations of privacy to get basic service.

It burdens the people it's meant to help. In a world where payphones and landlines are going extinct, prepaid and low-cost wireless plans are a lifeline for millions of Americans, including low-income households, elderly users, and people in underserved communities. Stringent identity verification requirements could make it harder, or impossible, for these customers to access voice services at all. That's not an acceptable tradeoff.

It puts your data at risk. The current standard for data security is data minimization, not maximization, and carriers have a documented track record of data breaches. Mandating collection of sensitive identity documents, with five-year retention requirements, doesn't protect consumers; it creates a larger, more attractive target for hackers, including increasingly sophisticated AI-assisted attacks. Privacy by design is our best defense against data-security risk.

It won't actually stop robocalls. Identity verification happens once, at the point of signup. Bad actors can satisfy a KYC checklist and still originate illegal calls the next day. The evidence is clear: ongoing traffic monitoring, behavioral detection, and rapid response to anomalous calling patterns are what reduce illegal calls, not static data collection that creates a false sense of security.

We also believe that any framework the FCC adopts must protect the privacy of people who have legitimate reasons for anonymous communication, including survivors of domestic violence, whistleblowers, and journalists. Voice service is not a privilege to be conditioned on handing over a dossier. Even if KYC is implemented on some level, we believe there should still be a more private option available to the public.

We support the FCC's goal of a safer phone network, and we're committed to doing our part. We'll continue to invest in technological solutions like STIR/SHAKEN, flagging accounts that send unusual amounts of SMS, and other tools that actually work. What we cannot support is a policy that trades away consumer privacy and access in exchange for the appearance of security.