On March 27, the FCC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking for call centers located outside the U.S. On April 21 the National Retail Federation wrote to express its opposition to the proposal. It is not hard to see why. On the surface the proposed rule runs contrary to the Commission’s ongoing efforts to eliminate unnecessary regulation in its "Delete, Delete, Delete" docket. In substance, the Federation calls it “a stunning lack of understanding of how customer service actually works.”
The proposal would interfere with a sophisticated global trade in call center services. This in turn would likely add costs and delays to consumer calls. More important, it would have the Commission go beyond its primary duty of regulating the communications networks that handle international calls of whatever kind and involve it in regulating both the content and organization of specific business calls. Something it is not equipped to do.
The FCC’s proposed rule seeks to accomplish a number of things. It would require call center employees to speak fluent English and limit the amount of consumer service calls that could be made from offshore. Call centers would have to notify callers that the call is being handled offshore and give them the option of transferring it to a call center in the U.S. Finally, the rule would require companies to store sensitive customer only at centers in the U.S.
Call centers do not rank high on consumer satisfaction surveys. However, they perform an important business function. Retailers have a strong incentive to keep consumers satisfied because it is often cheaper to keep an existing customer than to attract a new one. Growing U.S. wages have led companies to move some call centers overseas. Retailers did this not out of a sense of animus toward the U.S., but out of a desire to reduce costs, a benefit that has largely been transferred to customers. Any requirement to move calls back to the U.S. would certainly raise prices and probably waiting times.
Similar proposals have been introduced in Congress. These should also be opposed. As a basic point, there is little evidence of any market failure. Operating call centers involves a balance between cost, waiting times, and call quality. The right balance should be determined by business principles, not politics.
The Commission’s notice requests a great deal of data regarding how its rule would work. Commissioner Anna Gomez refers to the rules as “extensive,” hinting at a large information burden on companies. At present, however, the Commission’s analysis relies heavily on anecdote. The FCC will also have to struggle with other issues, including how to handle non-English speaking consumers, the application to non-voice communications such as bots, requirements for providers of Internet-only services, and automation. The proposal would certainly speed the transition from workers to AI-driven programs.
The public justification for regulating robocalls and scams is clear cut. The need to regulate legitimate call centers is much less so. It would involve the FCC partly determining both the content of consumer calls and the structure of the call industry. Both lie beyond its primary duty of ensuring that communications networks promote the creation of value. A safer alternative would be to promote the collection of best practices for handling calls, securing data, and training workers.
Posts
