FCC adopts proposed rules for presentation of caller name

In its October 2025 Open Commission Meeting, the FCC adopted its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) on “Improving Verification and Presentation of Caller Identification Information.” Let’s have a look.

Proposed rules

The FNPRM includes the following rules on caller name and foreign-originated calls:

These rules are intended to give consumers better information about who is calling them so they can decide whether to answer a call.

The FNPRM also mandates the identification of foreign-originated calls and includes the removal of several telemarketing rules. We won’t address these changes in this article.

Is this a good idea?

At first glance, some might be alarmed by the prospect of showing the caller name for all A-level calls at termination. After all, some bad calls are authenticated with A-level attestation.

We’ve been following prolific robocall signers for some time, and they authenticate most of their calls with A-level attestation. Do we really want to display the caller name on calls that we might not trust?

However, that isn’t exactly what the rule requires. It only requires the display of the verified caller name if the terminating provider is also going to indicate that the call was authenticated with A-level attestation. For example, some providers display a check mark with such calls or insert “[V]” in front of the caller ID display.

We encourage all terminating service providers to consider the reputation of the authentication provider as part of the reasonable analytics you use to protect subscribers from bad calls. If the analytics indicate that an authentication provider has a poor reputation for the traffic it sends, then you may decide not to display the caller’s name. For example, you might display “<SPAM>” or something similar instead.

If this rule is adopted as proposed, then you would also need to remove the attestation indicator, e.g., the check mark or “[V]”, from the caller display. We expect that most providers have already configured their systems this way.

Note that your call analytics might be blocking some of these calls anyway.

Bottom line: if you trust the call originator/authenticator and want to indicate full attestation, then you must also include the caller’s name. If you don’t trust the call, then be sure to remove both the caller’s name and the verification indicator—which you might be doing already.

Next steps

Comments and reply comments by interested parties will be accepted by the Commission after publication of the adopted rules in the Federal Register. Comments will be due 30 days after publication, and reply comments will be due 60 days after publication.

More information

• FNPRM: Seventh Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 17-97 (this document also includes proposed rules in regard to three other dockets).

TransNexus solutions

TransNexus is a leader in developing innovative software to manage and protect telecommunications networks worldwide. The company has over 25 years of experience in providing telecom software solutions including toll fraud prevention, robocall mitigation and prevention, CDR and call analytics, advanced call routing, billing support, STIR/SHAKEN, and branded calling.

Contact us today to learn more.

Note: This article was updated on October 29, 2025, with a link to the adopted version of the FNPRM released by the Commission on that date.