A Policy Shift Worth Watching
For years, the conversation around call center reshoring lived mostly in congressional hallways, showing up as a bill that got reintroduced every session without ever quite crossing the finish line. That changed on March 26, 2026.
The Federal Communications Commission voted to adopt a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 26-16) that formally launches a proceeding on the use of offshore call centers. This is not a law yet. But an FCC NPRM is a significant step. It opens a public comment period, establishes the regulatory framework under consideration, and signals where the Commission intends to go.
The leaders who navigate regulatory change best are the ones who engaged proactively. They don’t wait for the rule to become a requirement.
One important scope note up front: the current NPRM is specifically focused on communications providers regulated by the FCC, including telecom and wireless companies. It does not, at this stage, apply to all industries. That said, FCC action in this space often sets a precedent that broader legislation follows. If you’re in any industry that relies on outsourced customer service, this is worth understanding now.
What the FCC Is Actually Proposing
The NPRM covers four distinct areas. Each one carries real operational implications.
1. Onshoring incentives and domestic routing
The FCC is seeking comment on ways to encourage businesses to bring call center jobs back to the U.S. Specific proposals under consideration include empowering consumers to request a transfer to a U.S.-based agent and requiring that calls involving sensitive information be handled domestically.
2. Location disclosure
The proceeding asks whether covered providers should be required to disclose the location of the call center during the customer interaction, and to report on the extent of their use of U.S.-based call centers. Transparency, not just routing, is a core theme.
3. English proficiency requirements
This is the proposal that has drawn the most attention. The FCC is asking whether call center workers should be required to be proficient in American Standard English and trained specifically for resolving issues with U.S. customers. This is a significant proposal with complex operational and legal implications that are still being worked through.
4. Robocall and fraud deterrence
The NPRM also addresses the role of foreign call centers in facilitating illegal robocall scams. It seeks comment on using fees or bonds to financially deter offshore operations that enable fraud. The FCC noted that bad actors frequently leverage the infrastructure of legitimate call centers to defraud Americans, and that overseas centers often handle sensitive payment and account data.
📋 Where Things Stand (As of April 2026)
- The FCC voted 3-0 on March 26, 2026 to adopt the NPRM (FCC 26-16), with Chairman Carr and Commissioners Gomez and Trusty approving.
- This opens a formal public comment period. Final rules are not yet in place.
- Current scope covers communications providers regulated by the FCC.
- Broader call center consumer protection acts have been introduced in Congress repeatedly since 2011 or remain pending at the federal level.
- Several states have already pursued their own disclosure and routing requirements independently.
Why This Is Happening Now
The FCC’s own language is pointed: it cites nearly 70 percent of U.S. companies outsourcing at least one department and describes consumer frustration with offshore support as widespread. Several forces have converged to make this moment different from earlier attempts.
Consumer satisfaction data has consistently favored domestic support for complex interactions. A 2023 CFI Group study found measurably higher scores when escalated calls reached domestic agents. (CFI Group, Contact Center Satisfaction Index, 2023) The political climate has made reshoring a bipartisan win. And the FCC’s explicit focus on robocall fraud and data security adds national security weight that earlier consumer-satisfaction arguments lacked.
On the industry side, the calculus has also shifted. AI is handling more routine interactions, which narrows the cost premium of domestic agents for complex calls. And nearshore markets, particularly in Latin America, have matured enough to offer a credible middle path between offshore cost savings and full domestic delivery.
What It Could Mean for Contact Center Operations
The current NPRM applies specifically to FCC-regulated communications providers. But the framework it establishes, and the public comment record it creates, will likely inform broader federal and state action. Here’s a practical look at the compliance picture for companies in scope now and the strategic picture for everyone else.
Companies with diversified delivery models (onshore, nearshore, and offshore) are already better positioned than those running a single-geography program.
If you’re a telecom or wireless provider: This proceeding is directly relevant and you should be engaging in the comment process. The proposals around domestic routing infrastructure, location disclosure, and English proficiency training could require meaningful operational changes.
If you’re outside the FCC’s current scope: Now is the right time to understand your exposure. State-level legislation is already moving in multiple jurisdictions. Congressional proposals are active. And the FCC has a history of setting frameworks that other regulators follow.
For any company running offshore or nearshore contact center programs, here’s what compliance readiness looks like:
- Agent location tracking: You need clean, real-time visibility into where every agent handling U.S. customer contacts is physically located. Many enterprise programs don’t have this data organized today.
- Routing infrastructure: Supporting domestic-agent routing on request requires IVR and ACD architecture to be built for it. For some programs, that’s a real technical lift.
- Language and training standards: The English proficiency proposal is still being defined, but it signals that agent quality and training documentation will face greater scrutiny.
- Data handling review: The NPRM’s emphasis on sensitive information and data security means offshore programs need clear protocols for what information can and cannot be handled outside the U.S.
- BPO contract review: Your agreements with outsourcing partners may need updated clauses around disclosure compliance, routing capability, location transparency, and data handling.
How Different Delivery Models Are Affected
| Delivery Model | Current Exposure | Strategic Implication |
|---|---|---|
| 100% Offshore | High | Disclosure, routing, and data security requirements all apply; domestic routing option may need to be built. |
| 100% Domestic | Low | Minimal compliance burden; potential competitive differentiator as scrutiny on offshore grows. |
| Nearshore Only | Medium | Disclosure requirements still apply; nearshore does not equal domestic under current proposals. |
| Blended (Domestic + Offshore/Nearshore) | Low to Medium | Best positioned; domestic routing option likely already exists within the program. |
| AI + Human Hybrid | Varies | Depends on where human agents are located; AI routing layers may add flexibility on domestic escalation. |
The Strategic Opportunity Hidden in the Noise
Regulatory pressure is a forcing function for strategic clarity. Companies that use this moment to audit their BPO footprint consistently find optimization opportunities they weren’t looking for. This includes gaps in location visibility, routing infrastructure that doesn’t exist yet, contracts that predate current data security expectations.
It’s also worth stress-testing whether your current vendor mix is actually optimized or simply inherited. Many organizations are running on BPO relationships established five or more years ago. A lot has changed.
Start by asking your partners the questions that matter right now:
- Can you confirm agent locations in real time?
- Do you have domestic routing infrastructure?
- What are your data security protocols for offshore interactions?
- Do you have onshore or nearshore capacity we’re not using? If the answers are vague, that’s useful information.
What to Watch For
A few markers worth tracking as this moves forward: the FCC comment deadline (watch the Federal Register), whether the Commission signals scope expansion beyond telecom, movement on the Call Center Consumer Protection Act in Congress, and how “American Standard English proficiency” ultimately gets defined.
Informed Beats Reactive
The FCC’s vote on March 26 moves this conversation from “something to watch” to “something to act on,” at least for communications providers, and strategically for everyone else.
Regulatory uncertainty is uncomfortable. But it’s also a window to audit, to optimize, and to get ahead of conversations you’ll eventually have to have anyway.
That’s where Outsource Consultants comes in. We’ve spent over 20 years matching CX leaders with the right BPO partners across domestic, nearshore, and offshore delivery models. We know which providers are compliance-ready, which have domestic routing infrastructure in place, and where the cost savings are.
The comment reply period on FCC 26-16 is open now. Whether you’re directly in scope or just watching this unfold, the time to act is before you’re required to.
Schedule a CX Strategy Call and let’s get ahead of it together.
