Week ending October 30, 2026

Chairman Carr circulated a draft order on October 28 that would require every interconnected VoIP provider with direct access to numbers to certify it is not on the Covered List and does not use covered equipment. It is set for a vote on November 19. A day later the Commission adopted Covered List and foreign-ownership rules for international §214 holders. On Friday it released an accessibility NPRM that asks whether multifactor authentication can be a barrier under the disability-access rules, and the country’s first Phase 2 NG911 deadline, in Massachusetts, arrived with NCTA asking for six more months.

Covered List certifications come to VoIP numbering

An interconnected VoIP provider can get telephone numbers directly from the numbering administrator, without going through a carrier, if it holds an FCC VoIP numbering authorization. The draft Fourth Report and Order and Fourth FNPRM (FCC-CIRC2611-03, WC 13-97, 07-243, 20-67) adds a national-security screen to that authorization, for new applicants and existing holders alike. Each would have to certify three things:

1. It is not on the Covered List, the FCC’s list of equipment and services found to pose a national-security risk (Huawei, ZTE and Hikvision among them), and is not an affiliate or subsidiary of an entity on it.
2. Its network does not use covered equipment or services “based on producer/provider-based determinations,” meaning the entries that cover everything a named company makes or provides rather than one specific product.
3. It has not had a domestic or international §214 authorization denied or revoked on national security or law enforcement grounds.

A provider that cannot certify has to file “a detailed explanation describing their relationship to the relevant Covered List entry and/or use of ‘covered’ equipment or services and any proposed mitigation or remediation measures,” which the Wireline Bureau reviews with PSHSB. New applicants would also have to list the states where they first intend to request numbers, which formalizes a question staff already ask.

The record on the certifications was thin. The draft calls VON “one of the only commenters to address these proposals” and quotes its position that “[t]here is no benefit to restricting new VoIP numbering authorizations or reevaluating existing [authorizations] for entities that may be identified on the Covered List.” The Commission disagrees. The order also changes what the numbering administrator does when a holder’s updated filing raises a question. Under the Second Report and Order, the Wireline and Enforcement Bureaus could direct the NANPA to suspend new number requests. Under the draft, they direct it by public notice to deny all pending and future requests until review is finished, as ATIS asked, on the ground that denial “would be less complicated for the NANPA to implement from an operational perspective, as it eliminates the need to track suspended applications for numbering resources.” The NANPA contract is held by Somos (SomosGov), as the draft’s footnote 4 notes.

The FNPRM goes further. It proposes a presumption that an applicant certifying Covered List status or covered equipment “is not qualified to hold a VoIP numbering authorization,” which can be overcome only “through clear and convincing evidence.” It asks about disqualifying foreign-adversary financing, partnerships and senior officials, NIST-based cybersecurity baselines, a five-year corporate-history disclosure, a business-model narrative, and a list of every affiliate that will use the numbers as a wholesale customer. On addresses: “In reviewing scores of filings, Bureau staff have observed that some applicants provide an address to a co-working space, a business that provides a virtual office for businesses, a delivery service mailing center, or other such locations.” The proposed definition of a bona fide address in footnote 133 matches, nearly word for word, the one in the RMD FNPRM (FCC 26-49) and in FCC 26-32 (WC 17-97, CG 17-59). The FNPRM also asks whether VoIP numbering authorizations should expire unless renewed.

The international §214 Report and Order and FNPRM (FCC 26-74, IB 23-119), adopted October 29, applies the same Covered List approach to international carriers: a prohibition on adding covered equipment or services, NIST-style baseline cybersecurity practices, ownership reporting at 5 percent, and disclosure of whether carriers use foreign adversary-controlled third-party service providers. The order text is not yet out. According to the news release, about 1,235 of roughly 7,000 international §214 holders answered the 2023 Evolving Risks collection, four reported foreign adversary ownership, and “two entities known to have such ownership did not respond.”

The RMD FNPRM drew a reply from the Pakistan Voice Communications Council (cross-listed in WC 17-97 and CG 17-59), filed October 30, ten days before replies are due. The Council describes itself as “an ad hoc group formed merely to submit these reply comments” whose members are “a plurality of Robocall Mitigation Database filers with an operational connection to Pakistan.” Its complaint: “Downstream providers and prospective downstream providers increasingly treat traffic originating in or transiting Pakistan as presumptively associated with illegal robocalls.” It supports vetting filers before they are listed, with “more than 11,000 filings already in the Database,” and wants that work “shared with a third party, such as an outside administrator or independent auditors.” It opposes a letter-of-credit or surety-bond requirement as the costliest option. The letter is signed by Abdul Rahim of LexSol LLP in Islamabad.

Accessibility, relay and 911 in the IP transition

The accessibility NPRM (FCC 26-76, CG 10-213, 03-123, GN 21-140), adopted October 29 and released October 30, is the first general review of the Part 14 rules since 2011 and of the §255 rules since 1999. Two of its sections are about identity. On multifactor authentication: “Inflexible MFA requirements may leave some customers with disabilities unable to meet the requirements to access their own devices or accounts.” It lists CAPTCHAs for blind users, hardware keys for people with limited dexterity, code relay that times out under a screen reader, and voice verification and voice biometrics for deaf and hard-of-hearing users, the last two drawn from an October 19 letter by Neil Snyder of Americans for Hearing and Communication. It then asks whether the Commission should treat authentication measures as “network features, functions, or capabilities that impede accessibility or usability” under §617(d).

On numbers: “Currently, Video Relay Service (VRS) and IP Relay customers must maintain two telephone numbers; one for TRS calls and one for their wireless device for text-based communications, including RCS, SMS, and RTT.” The NPRM ties the problem to verification traffic, because “automated text-based reminders, confirmations, and authorizations have become central to consumer interactions,” and to 911, where the choice of number decides how location is shared. It cites RIT and MITRE’s Project IRIS and the NANC Interoperable Video Calling Working Group’s 2019 and 2020 reports, which recommended a numbering-database approach. It also asks about Direct Video Calling for customer service and cross-references the DVC-to-911 framework in FCC 26-39. Comments are due 30 days after Federal Register publication, replies 60.

The TRS compensation NPRM (FCC-CIRC 2611-05, CG 03-123), also on the November 19 agenda, puts the transition date in writing: “The Commission has proposed a target date of December 31, 2028, for transitioning support for voice services away from time division multiplex (TDM) networks to IP-based services.” TTY, STS and CTS were built for the TDM network and “may, as a practical matter, be prime targets for sunsetting.” The draft expects states to close their TRS programs and asks who pays when users move to the federal fund. It also proposes separate IP Relay rates for CA-assisted and fully automatic service.

The first Phase 2 NG911 compliance date in the country arrived October 30 in Massachusetts. Two days earlier NCTA asked for a waiver of §9.30(a)(2) through April 30, 2027 for its wireline members (PS 21-479, 25-143). The petition attributes the delay partly to the fact that “this is the first Phase 2 implementation in the country,” and says many steps “have taken more time than originally anticipated.” NCTA says its members rebuilt address databases for CLDXF and updated SBCs for i3 SIP headers and PIDF-LO. It also points to the Massachusetts State 911 Department’s own specifications: Intrado built i3 “location by value” in 2023–24 and now “is developing code” to add “location by reference” to every VoIP record to meet the state’s specification.

On October 29 Carr circulated an order that would preempt California’s carrier-of-last-resort rules to the extent §214 preempts them or their enforcement conflicts with an approved discontinuance. The order also resolves a petition for reconsideration and two applications for review of two AT&T discontinuance applications in California. It is a circulation item, not on the November agenda, and no draft has been released. WC 26-214 took six express comments this week, none with attachments.

Cyber Trust Mark: new lead, label rules out for comment

PSHSB put out for comment (DA 26-1162, PS 23-239) the Cyber Trust Mark label design, QR-linked registry information, certification renewal and post-market surveillance rules. The recommendations date from June 2025, when UL Solutions was Lead Administrator. UL withdrew in December 2025, and the Bureau picked the ioXt Alliance in April. The notice says ioXt filed new technical recommendations on October 26 “but did not submit additional recommendations addressing label design, post-market surveillance, or renewal,” so commenters are responding to UL-era documents. Comments are due 30 days after Federal Register publication, replies 45.

The next day Carr named Commissioner Olivia Trusty to lead the program’s rollout. Trusty: “Our goal is a program that is practical for manufacturers, credible to consumers, and effective in encouraging better security across the marketplace.”

Honorable mentions

CGB set the dates for the FCC 26-67 consent-revocation FNPRM: comments November 25, replies December 28. The adopted rules also take effect November 25. Sirveil (Ben Tobin), which discloses that it sells software to check whether removal requests took effect, filed suggested rule text for a confirmation that states what the caller did: “A rule written to the request is satisfied when the caller records that it processed the revocation. A rule written to the outcome is satisfied when the calls stop.” Somos replied in the USF administration NPRM (WC 26-173, FCC 26-52) on a single question, whether a future administrator should be limited to not-for-profit corporations. It says yes, cites the EU Data Governance Act’s non-profit requirement for data altruism organizations, and notes that it “does not have any transactional experience with the Universal Service Administrative Company.” On October 29 the FTC reported 14 enforcement actions and more than $80 million in redress under the Impersonation Rule since 2024, plus 19 FTC-imposter websites taken down after letters to registrars. Comments on whether to extend the rule, or write a new one, to cover platforms’ ad tools close November 30 (FTC-2026-1552). Leo Wrobel’s 911 Invisible Callers Union asked the Commission in the 911 framework NOI (PS 26-197) to designate 999 as a signaling-only code that sends a callback SMS when a 911 call fails.

Looking ahead

The November 19 meeting carries the numbering access order and the TRS compensation NPRM. The Sunshine notice should post around November 12 and close the ex parte window. RMD FNPRM replies are due November 9 and 911 NOI comments November 16. No Bureau action on Club for Growth’s AI-voice political-call petition had appeared in CG 02-278 by Friday, four days before the election. Frontier’s customer notices give November 30 as the earliest copper discontinuance date, and Federal Register publication will set the comment dates for the accessibility NPRM and the Cyber Trust Mark notice.