1

_____________________________________________________________________________

BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

______________________________________________________________________________ 2018-AD-69 MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

IN RE: ORDER ESTABLISHING DOCKET

TO INVESTIGATE POSSIBLE COURSES OF ACTION TO COMBAT MALICIOUS ROBOCALLS, CALLER ID SPOOFING, AND RELATED MATTERS

Pursuant to Rule 14 of the Mississippi Public Service Commission’s (“Commission’s”)

Public Utilities Rules of Practice and Procedure, CTIA1 files these comments in response to the

Order2 in the above-captioned docket, issued by the Commission on May 8, 2018.3

1 CTIA—The Wireless Association® (“CTIA”) (www.ctia.org) represents the U.S. wireless communications industry and the companies throughout the mobile ecosystem that enable Americans to lead a 21st century connected life. The association’s members include wireless carriers, device manufacturers, suppliers as well as apps and content companies. CTIA vigorously advocates at all levels of government for policies that foster continued wireless innovation and investment. The association also coordinates the industry’s voluntary best practices, hosts educational events that promote the wireless industry and co-produces the industry’s leading wireless tradeshow. CTIA was founded in 1984 and is based in Washington, D.C. 2 Order Establishing Docket to Investigate Possible Courses of Action to Combat Malicious Robocalls, Caller ID Spoofing, and Related Matters, Order, Docket No. 2018-AD-69 (issued May 8, 2018) (“Order”). 3 CTIA’s carrier members include the following telecommunications companies: AT&T Mobility, GM Onstar, Sprint Corporation, T-Mobile USA, SouthernLINC Wireless, TracFone Wireless, Inc., U.S. Cellular, and Verizon. By and through these Comments, such members respond to the Commission’s requirement that “all telecommunications companies that hold a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Commission” to submit written testimony or comments, although these companies do not and are not required to hold such a certificate under Mississippi law. These comments should be considered in complement to, and not superseding, any additional comments or testimony contemporaneously filed by the companies listed.

2

I. INTRODUCTION

CTIA appreciates the Commission’s concerns about unwanted and illegal robocalls,

which present a challenge for the entire telecommunications ecosystem. CTIA and its members,

working collaboratively with the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), are proudly

leading efforts to empower consumers and help fight illegal robocalls. Wireless carriers are

using network-based techniques, educating consumers, deploying new call authentication

protocols, and collaborating with aggregators, innovators, and regulators to help combat bad

actors. As a result, wireless carriers and their customers have seen tremendous growth in the

capabilities available to combat illegal robocalling.

The FCC has made stopping illegal robocalls its primary “consumer protection priority,”4

and CTIA and its members are closely coordinating with the FCC on this goal. The FCC has

recognized the importance of consumer choice in this regard and has facilitated innovation and

collaboration. This recognition of consumer choice in stopping unwanted robocalls, along with

other targeted FCC actions, has helped to facilitate innovation in the app space and led to a

number of positive results, including emerging call authentication protocols driven by industry

and the FCC authorizing additional, limited blocking activity.

In short, there is a flurry of both private sector and FCC activity to combat illegal

robocalls, and these efforts have made a significant impact. Amid such activity, regulatory

intervention at the state level is unwarranted, and could stifle consumer choice and innovation.

Moreover, state regulation would raise potential conflicts with the Commission’s jurisdiction

4 See, e.g., Remarks of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai at the FCC-FTC Policy Forum: “Fighting the Scourge of Illegal Robocalls,” Washington, DC (Mar. 23, 2018), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-349871A1.pdf; FCC, “The FCC’s Push to Combat Robocalls and Spoofing,” https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/fcc-initiatives/fccs-push-combat-robocalls-spoofing (last visited Aug. 1, 2018).

3

over wireless services under Mississippi law and the federal Communications Act. Instead, the

Commission and the state of Mississippi more generally should continue to support the

industry’s proactive efforts, as well as federal and state law enforcement efforts to target and

eliminate bad actors. Mississippi also can collaborate with the industry, federal government, and

state counterparts on education efforts to help consumers understand and access options to stop

unwanted robocalls while ensuring that they continue to receive the beneficial automated calls to

which they have consented.

II. THE COMMUNICATIONS SECTOR HAS MADE SIGNIFICANT STRIDES TO MITIGATE ILLEGAL ROBOCALLING, AND THERE IS MOMENTUM TO CONTINUE EMPOWERING CONSUMERS AND STOPPING HARMFUL CALLS

Illegal and unwanted robocalls present a significant consumer concern across the

telecommunications ecosystem. To address this concern, wireless carriers have partnered with

each other, other ecosystem players, and federal and state regulators to undertake voluntary and

collaborative efforts towards stopping harmful calls and empowering consumers.

A. The Wireless Industry Is Developing and Offering New Tools and Services to Stop Unwanted Robocalls

While the wireless industry has worked for years to suppress the scourge of illegal and

unwanted robocalls, it formalized its efforts through extensive participation in the Industry

Robocall Strike Force (“Strike Force”), founded in 2016. The Strike Force, supported by

targeted and careful FCC action, has galvanized carriers and the broader ecosystem to develop

new technologies, improve data analytics, increase collaboration, and educate consumers.5

5 The Strike Force issued its first report in October 26, 2016, and it subsequently issued another report on April 28, 2017. See Industry Robocall Strike Force Report to the FCC (Oct. 26, 2016), https://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/Robocall-Strike-Force-Final-Report.pdf (“Strike Force Report”). Industry Robocall Strike Force Report, FCC (April 28, 2017), https://www.fcc.gov/file/12311/download.

4

Indeed, in March 2017, the FCC rightly recognized that “[t]he Strike Force [has] made

significant progress toward arming consumers with call blocking tools and identifying ways

voice providers can proactively block illegal robocalls before they ever reach the consumer’s

phone.”6

That progress is ongoing and, if anything, accelerating: industry, consumers, and other

ecosystem participants today are evaluating and deploying new and innovative tools, even while

some FCC and industry efforts still are in the process of being implemented. The regulatory

flexibility afforded by the FCC in particular has allowed for innovation in this space. As a result,

wireless carriers currently offer numerous tools to consumers to help them identify and block

illegal robocalls, and many are available at no cost to the consumer. For instance:

• AT&T launched AT&T Call Protect for postpaid mobile wireless customers, a free opt-in service that automatically blocks fraudulent calls. It also labels calls from numbers associated with other suspect or potentially unwanted callers, such as telemarketers, and suspected spammers. The service works across AT&T’s nationwide wireless network, on any eligible iOS or Android smartphone, whenever the subscriber is located in an HD Voice coverage area.

• Sprint has partnered with TNS/Cequint to enhance its Premium Caller ID product. The product allows customers to subscribe to an optional add-on service that provides information about the type of caller attempting to reach them. It also empowers the customer to establish preferences to send such calls to voicemail or to block them entirely.

• T-Mobile’s Scam ID and Scam Block are automatic, free network-based services that identify for customers calls coming from likely scammers, and enable the blocking of such calls before they reach the consumer. T-Mobile also provides Do-Not-Originate blocking, both on its network and within the PrivacyStar solution.

• U.S. Cellular is currently offering all Android and iOS customers a device application that offers free and premium robocall identification and blocking capabilities. The application—Call Guardian—protects U.S. Cellular customers by revealing the names of non-malicious callers who are not in the called party’s contacts. The free subscription

6 Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry, 32 FCC Rcd 2306, ¶ 7 (2017).

5

identifies incoming calls with the highest risk/toxicity scores for free. Alternatively, the premium subscription identifies callers of all risk levels, and offers the subscriber the option to block calls based on the caller’s identified risk level.

• Verizon has deployed and continues to expand robocall mitigation features as part of its Caller Name ID service, including a spam filter that forwards to voicemail any calls corresponding to the spam risk level selected by the customer. In addition, Verizon’s Spam Alerts provide wireline customers who have Caller ID – whether they are on copper or fiber – with enhanced warnings about calls that meet Verizon’s spam criteria by showing the term “SPAM?” before a caller’s name on the Caller ID display.

As a result of these efforts, the industry collectively blocks millions of robocalls per day.

Indeed, between October 2016 and June 2018, AT&T, for instance, has stopped 3.9 billion

illegal calls from being delivered to customers.7 Likewise, T-Mobile’s Scam ID has tagged more

than 3 billion scam calls since the service was launched.

The future of blocking illegal and unwanted robocalls is even more promising: Among

the most encouraging of recent industry developments is the SHAKEN/STIR authentication

framework, which represents the next generation of anti-robocall measures. SHAKEN/STIR is a

set of leading-edge cryptographic protocols and operational procedures to authenticate calls and

mitigate spoofing and associated illegal robocalling. SHAKEN—which stands for “Signature-

based Handling of Asserted information using toKENs”—and STIR—which stands for “Secure

Telephone Identity Revisited”—were developed by the industry through a consensus process led

by the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (“ATIS”) and the SIP Forum.8 As

the Strike Force explained in its October 2016 report, “[t]he deployment of these standards under

a sound governance framework will result in higher end user confidence in the identification of

7 FCC Comments of CTIA at 4, CG Docket No. 17-59 (filed May 16, 2018) (“CTIA Comments”). 8 See Call Authentication Trust Anchor, Notice of Inquiry, 32 FCC Rcd 5988, ¶ 5 (2017) (“Call Authentication NOI”). The Call Authentication NOI describes and seeks comment on various aspects of implementing the SHAKEN/STIR framework.

6

incoming IP-only voice calls.”9 Indeed, this “call authentication work … is really one of the key

pillars into this overall effort” to help reduce illegal robocalling.10 The SHAKEN/STIR

framework has received broad support from across the entire communications ecosystem. As of

today, over a dozen industry members – representing the wireless, wireline, and cable sectors –

have committed to deploy the SHAKEN and STIR standards within their respective networks.11

But carriers are not the only entities in the wireless ecosystem offering consumers new

tools to stop unwanted calls. Consumers today also can choose from tools made available to

them by app providers and others. Some of these ecosystem partners are developing an array of

sophisticated analytics engines that help subscribing carriers and customers identify calls that are

likely to be illegal or unwanted. In fact, app stores have seen a 495% increase in the number of

available call blocking apps between October 2016 and March 2018.12 These third-party

robocall prevention apps can be effective and empowering options for consumers, offering a

customizable compliment to carrier efforts, and wireless carriers have worked with app

developers and taken steps to make their networks compatible with these third-party offerings.

B. Industry Efforts Go Beyond the Provision of New Blocking and Authentication Tools

The wireless industry’s efforts go far beyond the development and deployment of new

call blocking and spam call prediction tools, however. The industry also works collaboratively

on enforcement efforts and conducts extensive outreach to consumers.

9 See Strike Force Report at 3-5. 10 North American Numbering Council Meeting Transcript (Final) (Apr. 27, 2018), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-351087A1.pdf (Comments of Jay Schwarz, Wireline Advisor to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai). 11 See, e.g., CTIA Comments at 4. 12 Id.

7

Wireless carriers routinely assist law enforcement agencies with investigations into

unlawful robocalls and in prosecutions against robocallers. They also maintain relationships

with call fraud bureaus, which can initiate investigations after a suspected mass illegal

robocalling event. To further support investigations, carriers have worked with the USTelecom

Industry Trace Back Group to coordinate on robocall investigations in order to provide traceback

information to investigating authorities.13 Carriers also participate in the ATIS Service Provider

Contact Directory developed by the Strike Force to facilitate service of subpoenas for illegal call

traceback.

The industry also engages in consumer education. CTIA, its members, and organizations

like ACT—The App Association all provide online resources for consumers regarding

robocalls.14 CTIA, for example, has a webpage devoted to increasing awareness of robocall

prevention tools and providing consumers instructions on how to stop robocalls.15 This How to

Stop Robocalls page provides consumer tips and a comprehensive list of over 550 mitigation

apps, along with step-by-step video instructions for blocking calls on Android, BlackBerry, iOS

and Windows devices.

In short, the wireless industry has been heavily involved in the team effort to combat

robocalls through the development and deployment of new technological solutions to empower

consumers. Though these initiatives continue to evolve, they already have led to meaningful

13 CTIA Comments at 16. 14 See, e.g., Brian Scarpelli, “Robocalls & App Developers,” ACT—The App Association (Mar. 28, 2017), http://actonline.org/2017/03/28/robocalls-app-developers/; US Telecom, “A Sampling of Tools for Blocking Robocalls,” http://www.ustelecom.org/sites/default/files/files/documents/Robocalls-v5.pdf. 15 CTIA, How to Stop Robocalls, https://www.ctia.org/consumer-resources/how-to-stoprobocalls/.

8

reductions in illegal robocall volume, in spite of an increasingly sophisticated and dynamic threat

landscape.

III. A COMPREHENSIVE, FLEXIBLE APPROACH ACROSS FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS IS ESSENTIAL TO COMBAT ILLEGAL ROBOCALLS

A comprehensive, collaborative approach among federal government, state government,

industry, and consumers is critical to stopping unwanted and illegal robocalls.

A. Federal Government Agencies Are Actively Working to Address Illegal Robocalls

At the federal level, the FCC and other agencies with jurisdiction over robocallers have

closely coordinated with the industry and have embraced regulatory flexibility on robocalls to

facilitate industry-led innovation and collaboration. The FCC in particular has been active in

recent years. It has, for instance:

• Clarified in July 2015 that carriers could block calls at the request of the consumer irrespective of existing call completion regulatory obligations;16

• Initiated a proceeding to seek comment on methods to authenticate telephone calls in July 2017;17

• Responding to a Strike Force request for guidance, gave voice service providers in November 2017 “the option of blocking robocalls that illegally spoof certain categories of telephone numbers, including invalid numbers and telephone numbers that are subject to a do-not-originate request”;18 and

• Partnered with the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) on various efforts, including joint policy fora on fraudulent automated calls and expos on robocall blocking technologies.19

16 See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 7961, ¶ 152 (2015). 17 Call Authentication NOI. 18 Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, CG Docket No. 17-59, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 9706 (2017). 19 FTC and FCC to Host Joint Policy Forum on Illegal Robocalls, FTC Media Advisory (Mar. 22, 2018), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/03/ftc-fcc-host-joint-policyforum-illegal-robocalls; FCC, Stop Illegal Robocalls Expo (Apr. 23, 2018), https://www.fcc.gov/news-

9

The FCC now is seeking data and input from stakeholders to develop a staff report on the current

state of robocalling, with reply comments due August 20.20 The report is intended to catalog and

quantify progress made by industry, government, and consumers in combatting illegal robocalls,

as well as the remaining challenges to such efforts.21

The FTC also has taken proactive measures to mitigate unwanted robocalls. Among

other things, the FTC has sought to stimulate the development of new robocall mitigation

technologies by engaging the public. The FTC’s first robocall-related contest challenged

innovators to develop robocall blocking solutions with a $50,000 prize in 2012.22 Then, in 2014,

the FTC reached out to the white hat hacker community to build tools to lure in and identify

perpetrators of illegal robocalls,23 followed by, in 2015, a contest to build tools to automatically

block and forward robocalls to a so-called “honeypot.”24 In addition, as part of the National Day

of Civic Hacking on June 6, 2015, the FTC challenged developers to analyze call data in order to

create algorithms able to predict likely robocalls.25

events/events/2018/04/stop-illegal-robocalls-expo. See also FCC, Fighting the Scourge of Illegal Robocalls (Mar. 23, 2018), https://www.fcc.gov/fcc-ftc-robocalls-forum. 20 See Public Notice, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks Input for Report on Robocalling, CG Docket No. 17-59, DA 18-638 (June 20, 2018). 21 Id. 22 FTC Challenges Innovators to Do Battle with Robocallers, FTC (Oct. 18, 2012), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/10/ftc-challenges-innovators-do-battle-robocallers. 23 FTC Launches Contest at DEF CON 22 to Help Track Down Perpetrators of Illegal Robocalls, FTC (June 16, 2014), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/06/ftc-launches-contest-def-con-22-help-track-down-perpetrators. 24 FTC, Robocalls: Humanity Strikes Back, https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/contests/robocalls-humanity-strikes-back. 25 FTC, DetectaRobo, https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/contests/detectarobo.

10

The FCC and FTC, along with other federal government partners including the

Department of Justice and Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (“TIGTA”), also

play important and aggressive enforcement roles. Last year, the FCC issued a $120 million fine

– the largest the agency has ever levied – against Florida resident Adrian Abramovich, who,

according to the FCC, ran a “massive robocalling operation aimed at selling timeshares and other

travel packages.”26 The FCC asserted that Abramovich made close to 100 million spoofed

robocalls over three months in violation of the Truth in Caller ID Act and FCC rules. The FTC

likewise has ramped up its enforcement efforts, including in an action against two related

operations that “allegedly facilitated billions of illegal robocalls … everything from auto

warranties to home security systems and supposed debt-relief services.”27 TIGTA has focused

on IRS impersonators, indicting 56 individuals responsible for a $50 million scam.28 The scam

targeted 1.8 million people with an IRS impersonation call and resulted in more than 9,600

victims falling prey to it.29

26 FCC Fines Massive Neighbor Spoofing Robocall Operation $120 Million, FCC (May 10, 2018), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-350645A1.pdf; Adrian Abramovich, Marketing Strategy Leaders, Inc., and Marketing Leaders, Inc., Forfeiture Order, EB-TCD-15-00020488, FCC 18-58, ¶ 46 (rel., May 10, 2018); Jason Murdock, “Who Is Adrian Abramovich? Miami Man Accused of Making 97 Million Robocalls Fights $120 Million Fine,” Newsweek (April 19, 2018), https://www.newsweek.com/who-adrian-abramovich-miami-man-accused-making-97-million-robocalls-fights-120-892275. 27 FTC Sues to Stop Two Operations Responsible for Making Billions of Illegal Robocalls, FTC (June 5, 2018), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/06/ftc-sues-stop-twooperations-responsible-making-billions-illegal (emphasis added). 28 Inspector General Comments on Indictment of Alleged IRS Phone Fraud Scammers, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (Oct. 27, 2016), https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/press/press_tigta-2016-31.htm. 29 Id. These types of law enforcement efforts are protecting consumers: Data from the Better Business Bureau indicates that IRS-related scam complaints have dropped “dramatically” since the TIGTA enforcement action. Kelly Phillips Erb, Bogus IRS Calls Topped List of Most Reported Scams in 2016, Forbes (Jan. 8, 2017), https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2017/01/08/bogus-irs-calls-topped-listof-most-reported-scams-in-2016/#7e611b432076.

11

B. State Governments Can Best Address Illegal Robocalls Through Collaboration with Industry and Federal Government Partners

Given both industry and federal government activity, new state-specific regulatory

initiatives on illegal and unwanted robocalling would be unnecessary and duplicative. Moreover,

as discussed further below, such initiatives would moreover raise serious questions about

jurisdiction and preemption.

A flexible, national regulatory framework for robocalling is important not only to

encourage innovative solutions, as discussed above, but also to protect consumer choice.

Different consumers have different preferences regarding the blocking of robocalls: some may

prefer carrier solutions, others may prefer third-party applications, and some may desire a

combined approach. It is also important to note that not all robocalls are malicious. Consumers

may wish to receive automated calls regarding, for example, school closures or pharmacy

notices, two common types of beneficial robocall. Proscriptive state regulation could harm this

consumer choice, as well as create conflicting state-by-state regimes which could confuse

consumers and divert carrier resources away from evolving solutions.

That said, states such as Mississippi still have a crucial role to play in stopping unlawful

and unwanted robocalls. A collaborative approach is needed among state governments, the

federal government, and the industry to address the problem broadly, especially with regards to

education and enforcement. Because new tools become available at a rapid pace both from

carriers and third parties, the Commission has a role to play in educating Mississippi’s

consumers about their choices to combat malicious robocalling, and about how submitting

reports can help to identify bad actors for enforcement. In addition, the Mississippi Office of

Attorney General is fully empowered to bring actions against illegal and fraudulent robocallers

12

under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act30 and the Truth in Caller ID Act,31 and the

Commission, through its designated attorneys working with the Mississippi Office of Attorney

General, aggressively enforces the Mississippi Telephone Solicitation Act.32 Because illegal

robocallers are savvy and quickly change their tactics to skirt the law and evade enforcement,

concurrent and coordinated enforcement among federal and state law enforcement officials is

essential to stopping robocalls at their source.

Ultimately, a consistent and flexible national regulatory approach is essential to allow

carriers and app developers to continue to develop and provide to consumers new technologies,

mechanisms, and offerings to stop unwanted and illegal robocalls. As tools and policy solutions

are evaluated and implemented, states like Mississippi can aid the effort by participating in a

comprehensive, “whole of government” approach to illegal robocalls that empowers consumers

and prevents robocalls at their source.

C. State Regulation on Robocalling May Create Jurisdictional Conflicts

Collaborative efforts with federal and state partners and industry is the best way for the

Commission and the state of Mississippi to help to address unwanted robocalls. In contrast,

state-specific Commission regulation is unnecessary and also may exceed the Commission’s

30 Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-243, 47 U.S.C. § 227(6)(a) (“The chief legal officer of a State, or any other State officer authorized by law to bring actions on behalf of the residents of a State, may bring a civil action, as parens patriae, on behalf of the residents of that State in an appropriate district court of the United States to enforce this subsection or to impose the civil penalties for violation of this subsection.”). 31 Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, Public L. No. 111–331, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 227(e). 32 Miss. Code Ann. § 77-3-715, § 77-3-725. (“The [C]ommission may investigate alleged violations and initiate proceedings relative to a violation of this article or any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to this article.”). See, e.g., Commission charges 16 telemarketers for no-call violations, Daily Journal (Jan. 30, 2018), http://www.djournal.com/news/commission-charges-telemarketers-for-no-call-violations/article_e95ebc7e-9b75-5ab0-b031-a08f96d3d4e0.html.

13

jurisdiction under state law and conflict with the preemptive scheme set forth in the federal

Communications Act.

If the Commission is contemplating imposing on wireless carriers regulations to combat

robocalling, CTIA respectfully submits that such broad regulation would exceed the

Commission’s statutory jurisdiction and authority. As a creation of the Mississippi Legislature,

the Commission was given specific authority to regulate public utilities in accordance with the

provisions of Title 77 of the Mississippi Code,33 and in defining what is and is not a public

utility, the Mississippi Legislature removed “wireless services including commercial mobile

services” from the definition of public utility, and thus wireless carriers are not subject to the

jurisdiction of the Commission.34 Accordingly, wireless carriers are not public utilities under the

Mississippi Code and therefore are not subject to full regulation by the Commission irrespective

of whether or not they possess certificates of public convenience and necessity.35

Moreover, state regulation of wireless carriers in this proceeding could be inconsistent

with – and preempted by – federal laws and regulations, including Section 332(c) of the federal

Communications Act.36 Section 332 contains a broad preemption clause: “[N]o State or local

government shall have any authority to regulate the entry of or the rates charged by any

commercial mobile service.”37 Thus, state laws requiring wireless carriers to implement specific

mechanisms into their networks or services – such as, for example, a requirement to offer

33 Miss. Code Ann. § 77-3-2(2). 34 Id. § 77-3-3(d)(iii) & (n). 35 See Order at 3 (requiring “all telecommunications companies that hold a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Commission” to submit written testimony or comments.) 36 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(3); see also Bastien v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 205 F.3d 983, 987 (7th Cir. 2000) (“This clause completely preempt[s] the regulation of rates and market entry.”). 37 Id.