FCC’s onshore call center push draws broad industry opposition
NEW YORK, UNITED STATES — The Federal Communications Commission‘s proposed rules to repatriate United States call center work — filed under Chairman Brendan Carr in March 2026 and covering English proficiency standards, offshore call percentage limits, agent location disclosure, and a $100,000 bond requirement — drew broad opposition when the comment period closed in late May.
According to a report from Customer Experience Dive, the FCC framed the proposal partly as a response to illegal robocalls originating from overseas contact centers.
Cost burden and outdated data draw industry pushback
The Association of TeleServices International warned that member companies — employing 25-250 domestic staff with offshore components as small as 5-25 agents — operate on margins too narrow to absorb new compliance costs.
The $100,000 bond requirement was specifically flagged as disproportionate for small and mid-sized operators.
The Voice on the Net Coalition questioned the proposal’s evidentiary foundation, noting the FCC’s cited data is “more than 10 years old” — a significant gap in a sector transformed by cloud telephony, AI-assisted quality assurance, and distributed delivery models during the intervening period.
“These businesses operate on narrow margins and cannot absorb the added costs,” the Association of TeleServices International stated in its comment.
Quality and security work regardless of agent location
The National Retail Federation — whose members use hybrid models combining U.S.-based and global teams — argued that quality, privacy, and security “can be achieved no matter the location,” directly rejecting the FCC’s implicit premise that geographic origin reliably predicts service standards.
The U.S. and India Strategic Partnership Forum stated that location-based restrictions are “unlikely to address the principal drivers of scams,” framing the anti-fraud rationale as structurally disconnected from how robocall fraud actually operates.
AnswerConnect warned the proposal would accelerate AI customer service adoption, citing a survey of 6,000 adults finding 83% prefer speaking to a human — a figure rising to 90% in healthcare, legal, and home services.
The FCC proposal creates a regulatory wedge between what consumers say they want (human agents) and what compliance pressure may produce (faster AI adoption) — an outcome that would contradict the rule’s stated consumer protection intent.
For BPO and CX outsourcing firms serving U.S. clients from offshore delivery centers, the FCC’s final rulemaking will determine whether the proposal becomes operational disruption or regulatory noise.
The breadth of opposition — spanning retail associations, telecommunications groups, and U.S.-India trade bodies — signals sustained pressure for modification or legal challenge.
The proposal’s most-cited structural weakness, as multiple commenters argued, is that geographic restrictions would not meaningfully reduce robocall fraud: overseas geography is not the driver, and location-based rules do not close the enforcement gaps that enable it.
