The Federal Communications Commission is proposing rules to bring call centers back to the United States and improve customer service quality, but not everyone is happy with its methods.
Under the leadership of Chairman Brendan Carr, the FCC in March proposed establishing English proficiency standards for call center agents and limiting the percentage of customer service calls coming through foreign call centers. The FCC also proposes requiring communication providers to disclose a customer service agent’s location and establishing a consumer right to transfer to call centers in the U.S.
As part of this effort, the FCC is looking into ways to address “illegal robocalls” originating in overseas contact centers.
While there is widespread business support for the FCC’s goal to protect consumers, many companies and lobby groups question the proposal’s suggested methods. Some question whether its efforts will actually bring call centers back to the U.S., while others say such measures will hurt small businesses and customer service quality.
The Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking this spring. Its period for comment closed last week, despite requests from groups like the Chamber of Commerce for an extension to review the proposed measures.
CX Dive took a look through three dozen comments and gathered excerpts here.
The Association of TeleServices International
The Association of TeleServices International, a non-profit trade association representing the telephone answering service industry in North America, voiced its support of the ethos behind the proposed rules but disagreed with the measures.
“As drafted, the proposed rules risk imposing severe and disproportionate burdens on [telephone answering service] providers whose operations bear no resemblance to the practices the Commission seeks to address,” the Association of TeleServices International said in its comment.
Telephone answering providers are predominately small businesses in the U.S. that employ between 25 and 250 domestic staff, according to the Association of TeleServices International. When used, offshoring staffing generally only accounts for 5 to 25 agents for translation or continuity support.
“These businesses operate on narrow margins and cannot absorb the added costs of expanded reporting, bond requirements, system modifications, and administrative staffing. Absent appropriate carve-outs, the proposed regulations would have severe and potentially catastrophic effects on [telephone answering service] providers and the small businesses, medical practices, and community organizations they support.”
The association also took issue with FCC’s proposal that businesses would have to file a bond in an effort to make illegal scam calls expensive enough to deter them in the first place. “The proposed $100,000 bond requirement would disproportionately burden small [telephone answering service] businesses while imposing comparatively less impact on large offshore call centers operating at scale.”
AnswerConnect
AnswerConnect, a provider of human customer communication services, cautioned that the current FCC proposal will accelerate businesses’ adoption of AI customer service, rather than encourage companies to employ U.S.-based customer service.
This would be anathema to the FCC’s goal to improve customer service, AnswerConnect goes on to say.
“Because the FCC proposal does not incentivize businesses to use human agents, the majority will adopt AI-dominant customer service systems. However, this is contrary to what US consumers want.”
AnswerConnect, in partnership with OnePoll, conducted a survey of 6,000 adults, which found that 83% of consumers prefer speaking to a human over AI. Preference rises to 90% in high-stake services such as healthcare, legal and home-services.
“AI is a powerful tool that should support the human workforce, behind the scenes, enhancing operations and routine tasks,” AnswerConnect said. “However, it should not be allowed to replace humans on the frontline of customer service.”
National Retail Federation
Though the FCC’s proposal is directed primarily at the communications providers it regulates, the NRF isn’t taking any chances. The federation is concerned that the moves could impact broader policy environment and eventually extend its requirements to retail customer service operations.
Retailers are keen to maintain high levels of customer service, according to the NRF, and offshoring is one tool to maintain quality.
“Many NRF members rely on hybrid service models that combine U.S.-based teams with global support partners to ensure reliable coverage across all U.S. time zones,” the NRF said. “These systems provide surge capacity during high-volume shopping periods such as holidays and promotions and meet the language-access needs of diverse consumer populations.”
The FCC’s proposed approach proceeds from a premise that offshore customer service is “inherently problematic,” the NRF said. “Again, for retail customer care, quality, privacy, and security can all be achieved no matter the location of the customer service representative.”
Consumer-rights groups
The National Consumer Law Center submitted a comment on behalf of its low-income clients, applauding the FCC’s efforts to protect consumers from robocalls. They were joined by consumer-rights groups Public Knowledge, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Consumer Action, the Consumer Federation of America, the National Consumers League and Consumer Reports.
“We strongly support the Commission’s proposal to require a telemarketing provider to post a substantial bond or equivalent security as a condition of registering in the Robocall Mitigation Database,” it said. “This will help to ensure that scammers do not gain access to the U.S. telephone network.”
Low-income consumers, especially older Americans on fixed incomes, cannot afford to lose their savings to scammers, they write. “The Commission’s leadership in addressing illegal calls is laudable and much needed.”
Provenant Inc.
Provenant Inc., a U.S.-based communications trust infrastructure company, builds and operates open-standard systems that allow enterprises show customers who is behind a communication.
While the company supports the FCC’s effort to protect consumers from foreign-originated scam traffic, AI-assisted impersonation and exposure of sensitive consumer data, it takes issue with some of the commission's assumptions to combat such problems.
“The proposals in this Notice focus heavily on geographic origin and language characteristics as indicators of risk and legitimacy,” Provenant said. “Operational experience suggests those indicators are becoming unreliable faster than the regulatory process can adapt to them.”
“What distinguishes a legitimate communication from a fraudulent one — now and in an AI-saturated future — is not necessarily where it physically originates or what accent it carries,” Provenant said. “It is whether the enterprise behind it can be identified, whether that enterprise is authorized to use the number, brand, and display information being presented, and whether any agent acting on its behalf — human or automated — is operating under verifiable, auditable authority.”
U.S. and India Strategic Partnership Forum
The U.S. and India Strategic Partnership Forum and its member companies struck a familiar tone: while supportive of the FCC’s goal to protect consumers, they say its proposed approach raises concern.
“Specifically, prescriptive location-based restrictions on customer service operations are unlikely to address the principal drivers of scams and unlawful robocalls, and would impose substantial costs on providers, ultimately borne by U.S. consumers,” it states. “A more targeted, evidence-driven, risk-based framework would better serve the Commission's stated objectives.”
The group goes on to state that the FCC’s statutory authority does not extend to workforce location mandates and that blanket localization would impose substantial costs without corresponding consumer benefits. It contends that location-based restrictions are ineffective against fraud and cybersecurity risks and that the industry already has consumer safeguards.
Voice on the Net Coalition
The Voice on the Net Coalition questioned the FCC’s legal authority and its assumptions about consumer satisfaction regarding customer service calls.
The FCC is operating under the premise “that US consumers regularly experience frustration when they connect to call center located abroad, suggesting that language makes it difficult for consumers to get a satisfactory resolution to their problem,” the coalition said. The group criticized the data and anecdotal evidence used by the FCC as “more than 10 years old that’s not specific to the communications industry.”
“There are numerous aspects of customer care services that can impact consumer satisfaction, including hold times, hours of availability, the call taker’s language skills, adequate call-taker training, and effective escalation processes, among others,” the Voice on the Net Coalition said. “The adoption of rigid rules by the Commission could result in reduced hours of availability and/or increased wait times, to the detriment of consumers.”
