{"slug": "leave-fcc-comment-on-mandatory-kyc-for-phone-lines", "title": "🇺🇸 Leave FCC Comment on Mandatory KYC for Phone Lines", "summary": "Privacy advocate Jonah Aragon is urging Americans to submit comments to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) opposing a proposed rule that would require government ID, physical address, and an alternative phone number for every phone line in the U.S. The deadline for reply comments in Docket 17-59 is July 27, 2026, and the comment period for Docket 02-278 ends August 10, 2026. Aragon warns the mandate would be a disaster for personal privacy, while commenters note that most spam calls originate from outside the U.S. and would not be affected.", "body_md": "[jonah](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/u/jonah)\n(Jonah Aragon)\n1\nThe deadline to comment on the FCC’s proposed rule to **require government ID, physical address, and alternative phone number for every phone line in the US** is nearly here.\n\nYou can submit a comment by going to [https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express](https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express), selecting Express Comment at the top of the page, and entering **17-59** and **02-278** as the docket numbers in the first field, like so:\n\nGenuine (not AI generated!) personal accounts will be most compelling. If you are an American, please consider speaking out against this proposed change, which will be a disaster for personal privacy in the USA.\n\n11 Likes\n\nWould KYC help with spam? An explanation of why it wouldn’t be effective could be helpful for my comment.\n\n[nateb](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/u/nateb)\n(Nathan Bartram)\n4\nI would fact check me but the vast majority of spammers I think are calling from outside the US, so it’s not really solving anything IMO. They’re in foreign countries spoofing US numbers.\n\n1 Like\n\nSubmitted a comment, and am urging my family and friends to do so as well. Thanks for the heads up.\n\n1 Like\n\n[[Federal Register :: Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Robocalls](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/12/05/2025-22063/advanced-methods-to-target-and-eliminate-robocalls) ]\n\nThe Commission further proposes to require voice service providers to implement measures to ensure that consumers know which calls originate from outside of the United States and to prohibit spoofing of United States telephone numbers for calls that originate from outside of the United States.\n\n[[Federal Register :: Enhancing Know-Your-Upstream-Provider Requirements and Strengthening STIR/SHAKEN (Call Authentication Trust Anchor; Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls)](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/07/09/2026-13874/enhancing-know-your-upstream-provider-requirements-and-strengthening-stirshaken-call-authentication)]\n\nAdditionally, the Commission proposes and seeks comment on additional steps to close caller ID authentication gaps, such as refining provider definitions, reconsidering exemptions, requiring providers serving end users to assign STIR/SHAKEN attestations, and ensuring calls maintain authentication information. The Commission also seeks comment on special circumstances, including addressing issues with foreign-originated calls.\n\nThis is what they are claiming to do to prevent scams\n\nBut like you said who knows if it will work or provide any benefits. To reduce scammers?\n\n1 Like\n\nNot to dissuade anyone from commenting *now*, but are we sure the deadline is actually July 25th, 2026? I am looking on the website and for Docket 17-59, it says that the Comment Period End Date is August 10, 2026. As for Docket 02-278, it says that the Comment Period End Date is JUNE 25, 2026, and the Reply to Comment Period End Date is July 27, 2026. (no images or fancy links right now because I’m on my phone and need to sleep, but you can look them up using the docket numbers in the Proceedings field here: [https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings](https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings))\n\n[jonah](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/u/jonah)\n(Jonah Aragon)\n9\nNo, you’re right I did misread it, it is the 27th lol\n\nAnd yes the other one is further out, but it is really good to cover both at once and thankfully their form makes this easy to do.\n\nThe July 27th date is the the **Reply** to Comment Period End Date , not the Comment Period End Date. The Comment Period End Date came and went about a month ago. My understanding is that the Reply to Comment Period End Date is when people should expect responses to their comments that they already left, but I’m having a hard time finding anything explicitly spelling that out. Do you happen to know if comments submitted after the Comment Period End Date has passed but before the Reply to Comment Period End Date are still considered? It would seem to me that they are not, and that we have already missed our chance for Docket 02-278.\n\n[jonah](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/u/jonah)\n(Jonah Aragon)\n13\nThat is not correct, no. Well, *ideally* you do make your initial arguments in the first comment period yes.\n\nThe “Reply to Comment Period” is the final deadline though, and the second round is for **you** to reply to any comments that were posted in the initial round, if some company/person posted something you want to argue against for example.\n\nHowever, you can also just use the time to strengthen existing arguments, and you don’t need to be replying to a *specific* comment (or even read any of the initial comments at all), so that is basically what we’re doing.\n\nIf you bring up an *entirely new* argument or use-case in your comment that was never mentioned *by anyone* in the initial round, then your comment might be disregarded since you wouldn’t have given other people a chance to formally respond to you. It’s probably pretty unlikely that’s happening though, I’m sure everything’s been said.\n\nI think there is no obligation for the FCC to ever send you an individual response to your comment.", "url": "https://wpnews.pro/news/leave-fcc-comment-on-mandatory-kyc-for-phone-lines", "canonical_source": "https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/leave-fcc-comment-on-mandatory-kyc-for-phone-lines/39337#post_9", "published_at": "2026-07-25 17:17:38+00:00", "updated_at": "2026-07-25 17:55:56.323437+00:00", "lang": "en", "topics": ["ai-policy"], "entities": ["Federal Communications Commission", "Jonah Aragon", "Privacy Guides"], "alternates": {"html": "https://wpnews.pro/news/leave-fcc-comment-on-mandatory-kyc-for-phone-lines", "markdown": "https://wpnews.pro/news/leave-fcc-comment-on-mandatory-kyc-for-phone-lines.md", "text": "https://wpnews.pro/news/leave-fcc-comment-on-mandatory-kyc-for-phone-lines.txt", "jsonld": "https://wpnews.pro/news/leave-fcc-comment-on-mandatory-kyc-for-phone-lines.jsonld"}}