PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 14, 2015
Phone Scam Prevention Act of 2015
Requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to publish on its website a report that identifies existing technologies that consumers can use to protect against misleading or inaccurate caller identification information.
Requires the FCC, within one year after enactment of this Act, to submit to Congress a report detailing a plan to expeditiously develop, within six years after submission of such report, reasonable authentication standards for voice service providers to validate caller information so that subscribers may obtain secure assurances of a call's origin, including the calling party's number and identification.
Extends the prohibition on the provision of inaccurate caller identification information to persons outside the United States if the recipient is within the United States.
Expands the definition of "caller identification information" to include text messages.
Revises caller identification requirements to make standards applicable to voice communications using resources from the North American Numbering Plan (currently, the requirements apply to telecommunications or IP-enabled voice services).
People & committees
Sen. Nelson, Bill [D-FL] · D–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1759 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1759 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1759 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1759 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.