# Robocall Mitigation Database: a 2026 census of 11,467 filings

> We counted all 11,467 published FCC Robocall Mitigation Database filings: 42% certify full STIR/SHAKEN, 36% rely on mitigation only. Data and method.

Canonical: https://mobilevalidate.com/blog/robocall-mitigation-database-census · Last updated: 2026-11-02

![A donut chart with 42 percent highlighted for STIR certification, a stack of 11,467 filings, a growth bar chart and a shield labelled RMD.](https://mobilevalidate.com/images/blog/robocall-mitigation-database-census.svg)

*42 percent of filers certify full STIR/SHAKEN; 36 percent rely on mitigation only.*


By MobileValidate team (https://mobilevalidate.com/about) · Published: 2026-11-02 · Category: Research · Tags: Robocalls, Stir shaken, FCC, Original research, Call screening, Voice providers

We counted every published filing in the FCC's Robocall Mitigation Database on 29 September 2026: 11,467 in total. 42.3% certify a complete STIR/SHAKEN implementation, 16.8% a partial one, and 36.3% rely on robocall mitigation alone. Foreign filers are about half as likely as domestic filers to certify full STIR/SHAKEN.

## What is the Robocall Mitigation Database?

It is the FCC's public register of voice providers that have certified how they handle caller ID authentication and illegal robocalls. If a provider isn't listed, other US providers may not accept its traffic.

The database opened on 20 April 2021. Voice service providers had to file by 30 June 2021, and from 28 September 2021 intermediate and terminating providers were prohibited from accepting traffic from voice service providers not listed ([FCC DA 21-454, 2021](https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-21-454A1.pdf)).

Each filer certifies one of three positions under 47 CFR 64.6305 ([eCFR, 2026](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-64/subpart-HH/section-64.6305)):

- it has **fully implemented** STIR/SHAKEN across its entire network;
- it has implemented STIR/SHAKEN on **a portion** of its network;
- it has **not implemented** STIR/SHAKEN on any portion of its network.

Every filer must also describe a robocall mitigation program. The rule has since been extended from voice service providers to gateway and non-gateway intermediate providers, with the expanded filing rules effective 26 February 2024 ([Federal Register, 2024](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/01/25/2024-01167/advanced-methods-to-target-and-eliminate-unlawful-robocalls-call-authentication-trust-anchor)). Since 2026 every filer must recertify annually, on or before 1 March, with the first recertification due 1 March 2026 ([Federal Register, 2026](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/02/05/2026-02311/improving-the-effectiveness-of-the-robocall-mitigation-database-cores-registration-system)).

STIR/SHAKEN is the framework that signs calls with an attestation level. Our explainer on [STIR/SHAKEN attestation levels A, B and C](/blog/stir-shaken-attestation-levels) covers what the signatures mean.

## How many filers certify STIR/SHAKEN?

Fewer than half certify a complete implementation. Of the 11,467 published filings, 4,853 (42.3%) say they have fully implemented STIR/SHAKEN. The rest either implemented it on part of their network or not at all, and rely on robocall mitigation for the remainder.

| Certification (as filed) | Filings | Share |
|---|---:|---:|
| Complete STIR/SHAKEN implementation | 4,853 | 42.3% |
| Partial implementation, performing robocall mitigation | 1,929 | 16.8% |
| No STIR/SHAKEN implementation, performing robocall mitigation | 4,164 | 36.3% |
| N/A | 521 | 4.5% |
| **Total** | **11,467** | **100%** |

"Mitigation only" isn't automatically a violation. STIR/SHAKEN works on IP networks, and the rules contain extensions and exemptions, for example for providers on older non-IP networks. But it does mean that, for more than a third of filers, calls leave their network without a STIR/SHAKEN signature of their own. Downstream providers then rely on other signals to judge those calls.

The 521 "N/A" filings are almost all filers that did not declare themselves voice service providers: 519 of the 1,497 filers without that role answered N/A.

## Which types of providers file?

Mostly voice service providers. Filers declare one or more roles, so the rows below overlap.

| Declared role | Filings | Share of all filings | Complete | Partial | Mitigation only | N/A |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Voice service provider | 9,970 | 86.9% | 44.4% | 18.2% | 37.4% | 0.0% |
| Non-gateway intermediate provider | 1,626 | 14.2% | 29.2% | 13.8% | 25.2% | 31.9% |
| Gateway provider | 531 | 4.6% | 56.1% | 29.4% | 14.5% | 0.0% |
| Foreign voice service provider | 2,180 | 19.0% | 23.9% | 11.7% | 49.3% | 15.1% |
| Domestic (not foreign) filer | 9,271 | 80.8% | 46.7% | 18.0% | 33.3% | 2.1% |

Two contrasts stand out:

- **Gateway providers certify STIR/SHAKEN most often.** 56.1% of gateway filers certify a complete implementation and only 14.5% rely on mitigation alone. Gateways are the first US provider in the path of foreign-originated calls, and the FCC has put specific obligations on them.
- **Foreign filers certify full STIR/SHAKEN about half as often as domestic filers** (23.9% against 46.7%). Nearly half of foreign filers (49.3%) rely on mitigation only.

## Where are the filers based?

Mostly in the United States. Based on the organisation's business address, 9,561 filings (83.4%) have a US address. The largest other countries are Canada, the United Kingdom and India.

| Filer country (business address) | Filings |
|---|---:|
| United States | 9,561 |
| Canada | 340 |
| United Kingdom | 229 |
| India | 134 |
| Pakistan | 57 |
| Mexico | 55 |
| Hong Kong | 53 |
| Spain | 49 |
| Israel | 49 |
| Singapore | 40 |

US-based filers certify complete STIR/SHAKEN more often than anything else (45.9%). In each of the other nine countries, mitigation only is the most common certification, except Hong Kong, where complete and mitigation only are tied (41.5% each). Among Canadian filers, 34.4% certify a complete implementation and 45.9% rely on mitigation only; among UK filers, the shares are 24.5% and 56.8%.

## How has the database grown?

It grew in waves that follow FCC deadlines. We counted published records by the date each record was created:

| Year record created | Filings | Complete | Partial | Mitigation only | N/A |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| 2021 | 5,181 | 41.2% | 24.1% | 28.5% | 6.2% |
| 2022 | 706 | 47.5% | 8.8% | 33.9% | 9.9% |
| 2023 | 618 | 36.9% | 11.5% | 31.4% | 20.2% |
| 2024 | 1,586 | 52.9% | 9.9% | 36.9% | 0.3% |
| 2025 | 1,230 | 45.9% | 9.7% | 44.4% | 0.0% |
| 2026 (to 29 Sep) | 2,146 | 34.9% | 12.7% | 52.4% | 0.0% |

- **2021:** 45.2% of today's published filings date from the first year, when the database opened.
- **February 2024:** 490 records were created in one month, when the expanded filing rules took effect on 26 February 2024.
- **February and March 2026:** 615 and 572 records, around the first annual recertification deadline of 1 March 2026. Records were also updated heavily: 6,641 published filings (57.9%) were last updated in 2026.

The newest filings lean towards mitigation only. Of records created in 2026, 52.4% certify no STIR/SHAKEN implementation, compared with 28.5% of those created in 2021. We can't tell from the listing whether these are new market entrants, re-filings after a removal, or providers restructuring, so treat this as a trend worth watching rather than a finding about intent.

October 2025 stands out as a gap: only one published record was created that month. We did not investigate the cause.

## Does being listed mean a provider is trustworthy?

No. A filing is a self-certification, and the FCC has repeatedly found problems with them. In December 2024 the FCC's Enforcement Bureau ordered 2,411 companies to cure deficient certifications, for example a missing or incomplete robocall mitigation plan, or explain why they should not be removed. Removal would require all intermediate and voice service providers to stop accepting calls directly from them ([Federal Register, 2024](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/17/2024-29800/in-the-matter-of-2411-robocall-mitigation-database-filers)).

The rules have tightened since. Filers must keep information current, and the FCC adopted base forfeitures of $10,000 per violation for false or inaccurate information and $1,000 for failing to update changed information within 10 business days ([Federal Register, 2026](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/01/06/2026-00010/improving-the-effectiveness-of-the-robocall-mitigation-database-cores-registration-system)). In September 2026 the FCC proposed further measures, including clarifying who must file and which parts of filings may be publicly disclosed, with comments due 9 October 2026 and reply comments due 9 November 2026 ([Federal Register, 2026](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/09/09/2026-18366/improving-the-effectiveness-of-the-robocall-mitigation-database-call-authentication-trust-anchor)). The public listing may therefore look different after that rulemaking.

## What does this mean for businesses that screen calls?

Caller ID authentication covers a large share of US traffic, but not all of it. With more than a third of filers certifying mitigation only, and foreign filers even more often, some calls will reach you unsigned or with a weak attestation. That doesn't make them illegal, and a strong attestation doesn't make a call wanted.

For inbound screening, that points to layers:

1. **Use attestation as one input.** A-level attestation says the originating provider knows the customer and the number. It says nothing about the caller's intent.
2. **Add number reputation.** Our FTC research found that 92.5% of reported caller numbers appeared in just one complaint ([US nuisance-call complaints](/blog/us-nuisance-call-complaints-what-the-data-shows)), so reputation needs fresh data and should be combined with other signals. Our [spam reputation](/services/spam-reputation) check (limited access) returns reasons, not only a score.
3. **Look at line type and behaviour.** Line type, call patterns and your own history with the caller catch what a signature can't. See [screening inbound calls with spam reputation](/blog/screening-inbound-calls-with-spam-reputation) and the [call-center screening use case](/use-cases/call-center-screening).

If you originate calls, the database matters directly: make sure your carriers are listed and current, and ask them which attestation level your calls receive.

## How did we build the census?

### Methodology

1. **Source.** The FCC's public Robocall Mitigation Database listing, which shows filings with the status "Published" ([FCC, 2026](https://fccprod.servicenowservices.com/rmd?id=rmd_listings)).
2. **Download.** On 29 September 2026 we read the full listing through the same public page interface that browsers use, 100 rows per request with a pause between requests: 115 pages, 11,467 rows. (A first snapshot on 25 September 2026 had 11,463 rows; certification and role shares moved by at most 0.2 percentage points. The US count also rose because we now recognise addresses that spell out the state name.)
3. **Minimise.** For each row we kept only the certification type, the four declared-role flags, the record's creation and last-update dates and the country part of the organisation's business address. Contact names, contact telephone numbers, titles and full addresses were discarded in memory and never stored. We publish no provider names.
4. **Time series.** Counts by creation and update year or month come from each record's creation and last-update dates as the listing shows them.
5. **Aggregate.** Counts and shares by certification, role, foreign status, filer country and creation year. Country names were normalised; US addresses were recognised by a state abbreviation or state name followed by a ZIP code.

The aggregates are free to download as the [Robocall Mitigation Database census dataset](/datasets/robocall-mitigation-database-census-2026) (CSV and JSON, CC BY 4.0).

### Limitations

- **Self-reported.** Certifications and roles are what filers declare. They are not FCC findings and may be out of date or wrong.
- **Published filings only.** Removed, withdrawn or unpublished filings are not in the public listing, so the census describes the current register, not every provider that ever filed.
- **Creation date isn't first filing.** A provider that re-filed gets a new record, and updated records keep their original creation date.
- **Country is approximate.** It comes from free-text business addresses; 44 rows had no usable country. The foreign flag is the filer's own declaration and doesn't always match the address.
- **Roles overlap.** Shares by role don't add up to 100%.
- **One snapshot.** The register changes daily, and the FCC's pending rulemaking may change what is public.

## What are the key takeaways?

- The FCC's Robocall Mitigation Database listed 11,467 published filings on 29 September 2026.
- 42.3% certify complete STIR/SHAKEN, 16.8% partial, and 36.3% rely on robocall mitigation only.
- Gateway providers certify complete STIR/SHAKEN most often (56.1%). Foreign filers do so least often (23.9%, against 46.7% of domestic filers).
- Filing waves follow FCC deadlines, and records created in 2026 lean towards mitigation only (52.4%).
- A listing is a self-certification, not a quality rating. Screen calls with attestation, number reputation, line type and behaviour together.
- The aggregate data is free to reuse: [Robocall Mitigation Database census 2026](/datasets/robocall-mitigation-database-census-2026). We plan to refresh it periodically and will state the snapshot date each time.

## Sources

1. [Robocall Mitigation Database (public listing)](https://fccprod.servicenowservices.com/rmd?id=rmd_listings) — Federal Communications Commission, 2026
2. [Wireline Competition Bureau announces opening of Robocall Mitigation Database (DA 21-454)](https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-21-454A1.pdf) — Federal Communications Commission, 2021
3. [47 CFR 64.6305 — Robocall mitigation and certification](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-64/subpart-HH/section-64.6305) — Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, 2026
4. [Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Call Authentication Trust Anchor (effective-date notice, 89 FR 4833)](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/01/25/2024-01167/advanced-methods-to-target-and-eliminate-unlawful-robocalls-call-authentication-trust-anchor) — Federal Register, 2024
5. [In the Matter of 2,411 Robocall Mitigation Database Filers (89 FR 102144)](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/17/2024-29800/in-the-matter-of-2411-robocall-mitigation-database-filers) — Federal Register, 2024
6. [Improving the Effectiveness of the Robocall Mitigation Database; CORES Registration System (report and order, 91 FR 343)](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/01/06/2026-00010/improving-the-effectiveness-of-the-robocall-mitigation-database-cores-registration-system) — Federal Register, 2026
7. [Improving the Effectiveness of the Robocall Mitigation Database; CORES Registration System (effective-date notice, 91 FR 5242)](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/02/05/2026-02311/improving-the-effectiveness-of-the-robocall-mitigation-database-cores-registration-system) — Federal Register, 2026
8. [Improving the Effectiveness of the Robocall Mitigation Database; Call Authentication Trust Anchor (proposed rule, 91 FR 57454)](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/09/09/2026-18366/improving-the-effectiveness-of-the-robocall-mitigation-database-call-authentication-trust-anchor) — Federal Register, 2026

## Frequently asked questions

### How many providers are in the FCC Robocall Mitigation Database?

On 29 September 2026 the public listing showed 11,467 published filings. 9,970 of them declared themselves voice service providers, 1,626 non-gateway intermediate providers and 531 gateway providers; 2,180 declared themselves foreign providers. Roles can overlap.

### How many providers have fully implemented STIR/SHAKEN?

42.3% of published filings (4,853) certify a complete STIR/SHAKEN implementation. 16.8% certify a partial implementation plus robocall mitigation, 36.3% certify no STIR/SHAKEN implementation and rely on robocall mitigation only, and 4.5% answer N/A.

### Does a listing in the database mean a provider is trustworthy?

No. A filing is the provider's own certification. The FCC has ordered filers to cure deficient filings, including an order naming 2,411 filers in December 2024. A listing is a precondition for exchanging traffic, not a quality rating.

### Does this analysis publish provider names or contacts?

No. We publish aggregates only. Contact names, telephone numbers and addresses returned by the public listing were discarded during download, and filer country was derived only from the organisation's business address.