FCC Adopts FNPRM to Strengthen Caller ID and Combat Robocalls

Your phone rings. The screen says “Local Number.” Your brain says “Maybe it’s the school nurse… or maybe it’s a robot
who somehow knows you once looked at car insurance.” Welcome to modern caller ID: a helpful tool that has become
wildly overqualified at lying.

In late 2025, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) moved to make caller ID more trustworthy by adopting a
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) aimed at improving how caller identity is verified and displayed, and
tightening the net around illegal robocallsespecially calls entering the U.S. from abroad. The big idea is simple:
if your phone is going to show you a caller identity, it should be accurate, verifiable, and harder for scammers to fake.

This article breaks down what the FNPRM proposes, why it matters, and what practical changes could follow for consumers,
phone companies, and legitimate businesses that depend on phone calls (think banks, hospitals, pharmacies, schools,
delivery services, and pretty much every place that has ever told you, “We tried to reach you by phone”).

What’s an FNPRM, and Why Should Anyone Care?

An FNPRM is basically the FCC saying, “We already have a case file open, and now we want focused public input on the next
set of upgrades.” In a normal NPRM, the agency proposes new rules and asks for comments. In a Further NPRM,
the FCC is building on an existing proceedingoften because the problem evolved, the technology changed, or the earlier
record didn’t fully answer the practical questions.

Translation: the FCC thinks caller ID and robocall defenses are improvingbut not improving fast enough, not improving evenly,
and not improving in the specific ways consumers actually notice. You may have heard about “call authentication” and still
be asking the more important question: “Why does my phone still say ‘Potential Spam’ for my dentist?”

The Problem: Caller ID Has a Trust Issue

Caller ID started as a straightforward concept: show the phone number (and sometimes a name) so people can decide
whether to answer. But as scammers learned to spoof (fake) caller ID, the system drifted from “helpful label” to “creative fiction.”

Spoofing Isn’t Just AnnoyingIt’s Weaponized Confusion

Spoofing lets bad actors impersonate local numbers, government agencies, banks, or even your own area code to increase
answer rates. That’s why you’ll get a call that looks like it’s from your town, and then the voice insists you owe money
to a “federal office” that somehow can’t email you, mail you, or spell your name correctly.

U.S. law already targets malicious spoofing, but enforcement is difficult when calls can bounce across networks and borders.
Meanwhile, consumers are left doing the world’s least fun version of “Guess Who?” with every ring.

The Current Fix: STIR/SHAKEN (Good, But Not a Magic Shield)

The FCC’s main technical defense against spoofing in IP networks is the STIR/SHAKEN framework. Think of it like a digital
“seal” that helps confirm whether the number shown on your screen was tampered with as the call traveled through the network.
It’s a major upgrade over “just trust the number,” which is the telecom equivalent of leaving your front door open with a sign
that says “Please knock.”

Attestation Levels: A, B, and C

Under STIR/SHAKEN, calls can carry different levels of “attestation” depending on how confidently the originating provider
can vouch for the caller and their right to use the number:

• A-level attestation: the provider knows the customer and knows they’re authorized to use the calling number (highest confidence).
• B-level attestation: the provider knows the customer but can’t fully confirm the right to use the calling number.
• C-level attestation: the provider can’t reliably identify the caller (lowest confidence).

That’s useful for reducing spoofed numbers, but it doesn’t automatically answer the question humans care about most:
Who is calling? A call can be “authenticated” in the technical sense and still be unhelpful if your phone shows
“Unknown” or a misleading name pulled from outdated databases.

The “Non-IP Gap” Is Real

Another limitation: STIR/SHAKEN works on IP networks. If part of the call path runs over legacy (non-IP) infrastructure,
authentication info can be lost or never added. So even a strong framework can’t protect what it can’t reach, and calls may arrive
without meaningful verification data.

What the FCC’s FNPRM Proposes

The FNPRM focuses on improving the availability, accuracy, and presentation of caller identity informationplus adding
stronger signals for calls that originate outside the United States. It also explores streamlining certain robocall-related rules
that may be outdated or creating confusing side effects.

1) Define “Caller Identity Information” (So Everyone Stops Arguing in Circles)

One surprisingly important step is defining what counts as caller identity information. “Caller ID” can mean a number, a name,
a brand label, a logo, a verified check mark, or a combination depending on the device and carrier. If rules are going to require
accurate presentation, regulators need a clear target.

A clear definition helps align expectations across carriers, analytics providers, handset makers, and businesses that want to display
accurate informationwithout letting scammers hide behind ambiguity.

2) Require Verified Caller Name When an A-Level Attestation Is Present

Here’s the headline upgrade: the FCC proposes requiring terminating voice service providers (the last carrier in the chain before the
call reaches you) to transmit verified caller name or other verified caller identity information when they indicate a call received an
A-level attestation.

In plain English: if the network is confident the call’s number is legitimate, your phone should also be able to show an identity
that’s been verifiedso consumers can make a smarter decision in real time.

This matters because today a call can be “technically authenticated” yet still display a vague, outdated, or manipulable name via older
caller name databases (often called CNAM). The FNPRM is trying to reduce that mismatch between network-level trust signals and
what the user actually sees.

3) Explore Rich Call Data (RCD) and “Call Branding” as a Secure Identity Layer

The FNPRM digs into Rich Call Data (RCD), which can transmit more than a numbersuch as a verified business name, logo,
and additional information that helps consumers recognize legitimate calls. It’s sometimes described as a form of “call branding,”
essentially a more informative caller ID experience that can be tied to verification.

The FCC asks whether providers should be required to use RCD on IP networks to deliver verified caller name, whether other
solutions should be allowed, and whether the Commission should set minimum requirements that push the ecosystem toward
secure, interoperable identity data rather than proprietary islands.

There’s a practical reason for this: consumers don’t just want fewer spam calls. They want fewer “unknown” calls from legitimate
businesses too. When hospitals, schools, pharmacies, and banks get mislabeledor show up as an unhelpful string of digitspeople
stop answering. Then missed appointment calls become missed care, and fraud alerts become fraud wins.

4) Require Originating Providers to Verify Caller Identity Information

Verified caller name only works if someone is responsible for making sure the identity information is accurate at the source.
The FNPRM proposes requiring originating voice service providers to verify caller identity informationmeaning the entity that injects
the call onto the network can’t treat caller identity like a “type whatever you want” field.

This isn’t just bureaucracy. It’s the difference between a “Verified Bank” label meaning something and meaning “someone typed bank once.”
Verification, done well, makes identity claims harder to fake and easier to trust.

5) Make Foreign-Origin Calls Harder to Disguise

Many illegal robocalls originate outside the United States, often using spoofed U.S. numbers to look local. The FNPRM proposes a set of
steps to make foreign-origin calls more visible and easier to block, including:

• Gateway providers (points of entry for international calls) would be required to mark calls that originate outside the U.S.
• Intermediate providers would be required to pass that “foreign origin” marker through the call path without stripping or changing it.
• Terminating providers would be required to transmit an indicator to consumers when they knowor have a reasonable basis to knowa call originated outside the U.S.
• Providers using call-blocking analytics would be encouraged (and potentially required) to factor foreign origin into those analytics.
• The FCC seeks comment on prohibiting spoofing of U.S. telephone numbers for calls that originate outside the U.S.

The consumer-facing effect could be straightforward: you might see a clear label that a call is foreign-origin, even if the number looks
domestic. That’s not a silver bulletbad actors adaptbut it’s a strong friction point against “pretend to be local” tactics.

6) Modernize and Streamline Certain Robocall-Related Rules

Beyond technical caller ID improvements, the FNPRM also explores changes to certain rules that the FCC suggests may be outdated or
no longer working as intended.

One example: the FCC seeks comment on consent revocation ruleshow consumers can opt out and how broadly an opt-out should apply.
The agency also asks whether callers should be allowed to designate specific methods for revoking consent (instead of honoring any “reasonable means”),
and whether refinements could give consumers more control without blocking wanted calls (like critical healthcare or account-related messages).

The FNPRM also raises related questions about special-purpose calls such as fraud alerts, where consumers generally want timely contact,
but rules must still protect people from unwanted or misleading robocalls.

Timing and Status: When This Happened (and What’s Closed Already)

The FCC’s fact sheet for this “Call Branding FNPRM” was dated October 7, 2025, in advance of an October 2025 open meeting agenda.
The rulemaking text was later published in the Federal Register on December 5, 2025, with comments due January 5, 2026 and reply comments
due February 3, 2026.

As of February 9, 2026, that initial comment cycle has closed. That doesn’t mean the proceeding is overit means the FCC is now weighing the record,
refining options, and deciding whether (and how) to adopt final rules.

Why These Proposals Matter in the Real World

For Consumers: Fewer “Mystery Calls” and More Useful Warnings

The best robocall defense isn’t just blockingit’s clarity. When a phone displays a verified identity, people can answer legitimate calls with confidence
and ignore suspicious ones without accidentally ghosting their doctor.

A foreign-origin indicator adds a helpful signal too. Most people don’t expect urgent local business calls to originate overseas. A visible marker won’t
stop every scam, but it helps consumers calibrate skepticism appropriately.

For Legitimate Businesses: Better Answer Rates (If You Earn the Trust)

Businesses have been living in the “spam filter era” for years. Customer outreach teams routinely see calls ignored, mislabeled, or blockedespecially if
they use outbound calling platforms, multiple locations, or rotating numbers.

Verified caller identity could be a win for legitimate enterprises, but it comes with homework: accurate identity data, clean number governance, and
coordination with providers. If verification becomes standardized, the business case for doing things the right way gets strongerbecause trust becomes visible.

For Providers: New Technical and Compliance Expectations

Carriers and voice service providers would face additional duties: transmitting verified identity where appropriate, ensuring identity markers aren’t altered in transit,
and potentially upgrading systems to support RCD at scale. Smaller providers may raise cost and complexity concerns, and the FCC will have to balance consumer
benefit with implementation realities.

Potential Tradeoffs and Hard Questions the FCC Must Solve

Accuracy vs. Privacy

More caller identity data can help consumersbut it must be handled carefully. Rules need to prevent misuse (for example, making it too easy for bad actors to
scrape identity signals or manipulate branding ecosystems). Verification must be meaningful, not performative.

Interoperability vs. Proprietary Branding

“Branded calling” exists today in multiple flavors, some more proprietary than others. A major FCC challenge is avoiding a future where verification depends on
which carrier, phone model, or third-party labeling partner you happen to have. Consumers don’t want caller ID trust to be a subscription add-on.

The Non-IP Network Reality

As long as parts of the network remain non-IP, there will be gaps where authentication and rich identity features can’t travel reliably. The FNPRM acknowledges this
tension and seeks comment on what can be done now, while the broader transition continues.

International Calls: Precision Matters

A foreign-origin indicator is only useful if it’s reliable. If lawful international calls are mislabeled, consumers may miss important contacts. If the marker can be
stripped or spoofed, scammers will target that weakness. That’s why the FNPRM emphasizes marking at gateway points and preserving the signal down the line.

Specific Examples: How the FNPRM Could Change What You See

Example 1: The Pharmacy Refill Call That Currently Looks Like Spam

Today: The pharmacy calls, your phone shows a generic number and maybe an outdated name. You ignore it. Later: “Your prescription was returned to stock.”
Everyone loses.

Under the FNPRM vision: If the call is A-attested and the identity is verified, your phone could display a verified pharmacy name (and potentially richer identity data).
That increases the chance you answer or at least recognize it as legitimate.

Example 2: A “Local” Number That Actually Originated Overseas

Today: A scammer calls from abroad using a spoofed local number. The call feels familiar, you pick up, and now you’re in a conversation you didn’t consent to.

Under the FNPRM vision: The call is marked at the gateway provider as foreign-origin and that signal follows the call. Your phone receives a clear indicator that the call
originated outside the U.S., giving you a crucial context clue before you engage.

Example 3: Bank Fraud Alerts and Consent Rules

Consumers want fraud alerts quickly, but robocall rules must still prevent abuse. The FNPRM’s discussion of streamlining certain rules suggests the FCC is looking for
ways to keep high-value consumer protections while reducing unintended friction for important, wanted calls. The best outcome is a system where fraud alerts are more
trustworthy and less easily mimicked by scammers.

What Consumers Can Do While the Rules Evolve

Even as the FCC refines policy, consumers can reduce robocall pain today:

• Use built-in phone tools to silence unknown callers or screen suspected spam.
• Enable carrier spam-blocking features (many carriers offer free baseline options).
• Register with the National Do Not Call Registry to reduce lawful telemarketing calls (it won’t stop scammers, but it cuts the noise).
• Report suspicious calls to federal agencies so enforcement and analytics improve over time.
• Be skeptical of urgency: scammers love deadlines, threats, and “act now” scriptsespecially when caller ID looks official.

The bigger structural fix, however, is what the FNPRM is aiming for: making caller identity data more accurate and harder to fake so that consumer tools have better input.
Spam filtering is only as smart as the signals it receives.

Real-World Experiences: What This Feels Like in Practice (About )

If you’ve ever watched a phone ring and felt your mood drop, you already understand why the FCC is pushing beyond “stop spoofing” into “make identity useful.”
The experience of robocalls is not just the volumeit’s the constant doubt. A normal ringtone becomes a tiny stress test: “Is this important? Is this a trap?
Is it going to be a robot who says ‘Please stay on the line’ while I slowly age into a new life stage?”

One common experience is the “legit call that looks shady.” You’re expecting a delivery, a school update, or a medical office confirmation. The call arrives from
a number you don’t recognize. The caller name is either blank, weirdly generic, or (my personal favorite) a name that looks like it was typed by someone who
lost a bet: “SERVICE CALL” or “UNKNOWN WIRELESS.” You ignore it because that’s what you’ve trained yourself to do for self-defense. Then you miss something
you actually wantedan appointment reminder, a prescription question, or a fraud alert that could’ve saved you a headache.

Businesses feel this pain too, just from the other side of the screen. Customer support teams call back after you submit a form, and their calls get blocked.
A bank tries to verify suspicious activity, but the customer assumes it’s a scam (because, honestly, it could be). Call centers rotate numbers and locations,
and even when they’re following the rules, they inherit the reputation of the worst actors. That’s the hidden cost of bad caller ID: trust collapses for everyone,
not just the scammers.

Then there’s the experience of “local-looking calls that aren’t local.” The number shares your area code, maybe even your exchange. It’s a psychological trick:
humans are more likely to answer what feels familiar. But many scam operations aren’t in your cityor even in your country. They borrow the costume of “nearby”
because it works. An international origin indicator won’t stop every scam, but it changes the moment of decision. It’s one thing to ignore “Unknown.” It’s another
to see a clear sign that the call originated outside the U.S. while wearing a U.S. number like a Halloween mask.

Finally, there’s the experience of being tired. Tired of second-guessing, tired of blocking, tired of explaining to relatives why “No, the IRS doesn’t call like that.”
Policy proposals can sound abstractattestations, gateway providers, rich call databut they add up to something very human: restoring the basic ability to answer
your own phone without feeling like you’re gambling. The FCC’s FNPRM is trying to move the industry from “we can sometimes spot a fake number” to “we can show
a trustworthy identity.” That shift is what makes caller ID feel like a safety feature again, not a trivia game you never agreed to play.

Conclusion: A Smarter Caller ID Future (That’s Worth Fighting For)

The FCC’s FNPRM is a clear signal that robocall policy is moving from “block the bad” to “prove the good.” Strengthening caller ID means not only detecting spoofing,
but also delivering verified caller identity information that consumers can actually use. Pair that with stronger labeling for foreign-origin calls, and the result could be
fewer successful scams and fewer missed legitimate calls.

There’s still work aheadtechnical implementation, cost considerations, privacy safeguards, and decisions about whether to mandate RCD or allow alternative solutions.
But the direction is coherent: caller ID should be accurate, verified, and consistently presented, so trust can re-enter the conversation. Ideally, your phone becomes a
communicator again, not a roulette wheel.