Robocall Mitigation Database filing statistics
The deadline for service providers to file their certification in the FCC Robocall Mitigation Database (RMD) has passed, so we reviewed the filing statistics to see who filed, and how. Let’s have a look.
Implementation type
Here’s a breakdown for all filers by implementation type:
Implementation by type, all providers
Implementation | Count | SHAKEN | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
No STIR/SHAKEN | 1,519 | 48.8% | ||
Partial STIR/SHAKEN | 742 | 23.8% | 742 | 68.4% |
Intermediate provider | 509 | 16.4% | ||
Complete STIR/SHAKEN | 343 | 11.0% | 343 | 31.6% |
Total | 3,113 | 100.0% | 1,085 | 100.0% |
This list includes intermediate providers. Most were brought over from the Rural Call Completion Database. This represents 16.4% of filings, which makes it difficult to get a sense of implementation types among the other 84% of filers. Let’s look at the numbers without intermediate providers:
Implementation by type without intermediate providers
Implementation | Count | SHAKEN | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
No STIR/SHAKEN | 1,519 | 58.3% | ||
Partial STIR/SHAKEN | 742 | 28.5% | 742 | 68.4% |
Complete STIR/SHAKEN | 343 | 13.2% | 343 | 31.6% |
Total | 2,604 | 100.0% | 1,085 | 100.0% |
![analytics graphic](/assets/img/analytics-graphic-400x250-e730c2fc6e.jpg)
Almost 42% are using either partial or complete SHAKEN. Clearly these providers view SHAKEN as a market requirement, for these reasons:
- Enterprise customers want their outgoing calls signed with full attestation to improve call completion.
- Subscribers want to see whether incoming calls are verified to help them decide whether to answer.
Almost 9% of the filers were foreign service providers. Did their filings distort implementation filing statistics? Here are the numbers for U.S. providers only:
Implementation by type, U.S. providers
Implementation | Count | SHAKEN | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
No STIR/SHAKEN | 1,342 | 56.7% | ||
Partial STIR/SHAKEN | 706 | 29.8% | 706 | 68.9% |
Complete STIR/SHAKEN | 319 | 13.5% | 319 | 31.1% |
Total U.S. providers | 2,367 | 100.0% | 1,025 | 100.0% |
This is a surprise. The distribution of implementation filings is almost the same. Let’s look at just the foreign providers:
Implementation by type, foreign providers
Implementation | Count | SHAKEN | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
No STIR/SHAKEN | 177 | 74.7% | ||
Partial STIR/SHAKEN | 36 | 15.2% | 36 | 60.0% |
Complete STIR/SHAKEN | 24 | 10.1% | 24 | 40.0% |
Total foreign providers | 237 | 100.0% | 60 | 100.0% |
This seems surprising. Over 25% of foreign service providers are doing SHAKEN, either partial or complete. How is this possible? Let’s see where they’re located:
Foreign providers doing SHAKEN
Country | Complete SHAKEN | Partial SHAKEN | Total SHAKEN |
---|---|---|---|
Canada | 1 | 12 | 13 |
United Kingdom | 2 | 5 | 7 |
India | 2 | 1 | 3 |
Ireland | 3 | 3 | |
Belgium | 2 | 2 | |
China, Hong Kong SAR | 2 | 2 | |
Israel | 1 | 1 | 2 |
Philippines | 1 | 1 | 2 |
Singapore | 2 | 2 | |
Argentina | 1 | 1 | |
Australia | 1 | 1 | |
Azerbaijan | 1 | 1 | |
Bolivia | 1 | 1 | |
British Virgin Islands | 1 | 1 | |
Colombia | 1 | 1 | |
Costa Rica | 1 | 1 | |
El Salvador | 1 | 1 | |
France | 1 | 1 | |
Guatemala | 1 | 1 | |
Honduras | 1 | 1 | |
Italy | 1 | 1 | |
Luxembourg | 1 | 1 | |
Martinique | 1 | 1 | |
Netherlands | 1 | 1 | |
New Zealand | 1 | 1 | |
Nicaragua | 1 | 1 | |
Pakistan | 1 | 1 | |
Palau | 1 | 1 | |
Panama | 1 | 1 | |
Paraguay | 1 | 1 | |
Republic of Korea | 1 | 1 | |
Senegal | 1 | 1 | |
Switzerland | 1 | 1 | |
Totals | 24 | 36 | 60 |
Sixty service providers from 33 countries are doing SHAKEN. Sorting by the total number of providers doing SHAKEN, either partial or complete, Canada tops the list. This makes sense. Canadian providers must deploy SHAKEN on their IP networks by November 30, 2021.
But what about service providers from the other countries? Who are the other 47 providers?
Filtering the filings for foreign service providers doing SHAKEN, excluding Canadians, we found some interesting results. Seven filings were Microsoft companies in the following countries:
- Ireland
- Republic of Korea
- New Zealand
- Singapore (2 filings)
- Australia
- Luxembourg
Four of the filings were Telefonica companies in the following countries:
- Nicaragua
- Bolivia
- Paraguay
- Honduras
Onvoy had two filings:
- Ireland
- United Kingdom
These companies seem to be laying the groundwork for international SHAKEN.
TransNexus solutions
We offer STIR/SHAKEN and robocall mitigation solutions in our ClearIP and NexOSS software platforms. We can make your STIR/SHAKEN deployment a smooth process.
In addition, we help service providers with all aspects of STIR/SHAKEN deployment, including registering with the Policy Administrator and filing their certification with the FCC.
Contact us today to learn more.
Our STIR/SHAKEN products:
- Work with your existing network
- Support SIP and TDM
- Affordable, easy to deploy