This FCC Proposal is About More Than Offshore Call Centers

The FCC’s proposed action on foreign-based call centers is not just a regulatory story. It is a signal that the customer experience industry has reached an inflection point. 

According to Reuters, the proposal under consideration would require foreign-based customer service workers at communications providers to be proficient in American Standard English, explore limits on call volume from overseas call centers, and consider requiring companies to disclose call center location or let consumers request transfer to a U.S.-based location.  

FCC Chair Brendan Carr has said the commission plans to vote on the proposal this month, and the agency is also seeking comment on the extent of its legal authority in this area. 

Consumer frustration with customer service is real. Regulators are responding to that frustration. And they are right to focus on it. 

But let’s be honest about what is really happening here: this is not just a debate about offshore versus domestic support. It is a debate about trust, transparency, quality, and accountability in an industry that has been forced to evolve faster than many of its operating models. 

Geography is Not the Root Cause of Bad Service 

Too much of the public conversation collapses this issue into a simple narrative: offshore support creates poor customer experiences, so bringing work back onshore fixes the problem. 

That is too simplistic. 

At Liveops, Inc., we believe poor customer experiences are usually the result of weak system design. They happen when companies underinvest in training, rely on poor workflow design, over-script conversations, create bad handoffs, or optimize too aggressively for cost. Geography can influence the experience, but it is rarely the root cause of failure. 

The best customer service models already prove this. High-performing organizations combine strong training, clear language standards, fit-for-purpose routing, and the right supporting technology to deliver quality at scale. 

The real issue is not where an agent sits. The real issue is whether the system behind that interaction was built to solve the customer’s problem. 

Molly Moore reinforces that point in this KOGO Radio clip, where she explains that poor experiences are often caused by weak training, poor system integration, and badly designed automation rather than offshore support alone.

Transparency Changes the Equation 

One of the most important pieces of the FCC proposal is disclosure. 

If customers are told where their service agent is located, expectations change immediately. Preferences become more visible. Some customers will ask for U.S.-based support. Some companies will feel pressure to redesign how they segment interactions. Regulated industries and high-trust brands will likely feel this most acutely. 

That matters. 

Transparency forces companies to be more intentional about how they structure service delivery. It raises the bar on quality. It also forces executive teams to confront a reality many have delayed: customer service models can no longer be built around cost efficiency alone. 

They have to be built around trust. 

That idea carries into this KOGO Radio interview, where Molly notes that policymakers are right to focus on the consumer experience, while emphasizing that geography alone does not determine whether service meets the standards customers deserve.

The Industry is Moving Toward Hybrid Models Faster Than Ever 

If regulators place tighter constraints on offshore support, companies will not just hire more domestic agents and move on. They will redesign their operating models. 

That means more investment in: 

• U.S.-based and flexible domestic talent 

• More deliberate use of nearshore and offshore teams 

• Smarter routing and segmentation 

• AI tools that handle routine interactions and support human agents 

• More rigorous performance governance across all channels 

That redesign should already be underway. Regulation accelerates it. 

It also raises costs. And when costs rise, companies move faster to modernize. 

That operational shift is the focus of this KNRS Salt Lake City clip, where Molly discusses how caps on offshore support would force companies to rebalance work across domestic teams, offshore teams, and technology.

She expands on the same point in this WLW Radio Cincinnati clip, explaining that global delivery was never just about cost reduction. It was built to support scale, 24/7 availability, and more flexible service models that now combine onshore, nearshore, offshore, and AI.

This Will Accelerate AI, But Not in the Way Many People Think 

Higher labor costs and higher regulatory scrutiny push companies to look for efficiency. That is real. AI adoption will move faster because of it. 

But the winning model is not AI instead of people. 

The winning model is AI used where it performs well, with human expertise intentionally reserved for the moments that require judgment, empathy, nuance, and trust. 

That means: 

• AI for routine inquiries 

• Human agents for complex or emotionally charged interactions 

• Strong escalation design 

• Preserved context across channels
  Governance embedded from the start 

This is where many companies still get it wrong. They treat AI as a cost lever before they treat it as an operating discipline. 

That is exactly backwards. 

The companies that win in this next phase will be the ones that deploy AI responsibly, with clear ownership, measurable outcomes, and structured governance. Not as a side experiment in IT, but inside the business functions that own customer experience, compliance, quality, and performance. 

Molly addresses that distinction directly in this WLW Radio Cincinnati clip, where she explains that automation works well for simple tasks but often breaks down when issues become complex or emotional, which is why human support still has to be easy to reach.

Technology is Also Closing Some of the Gap 

There is another reality here that the market is not talking about enough: technology is already improving the quality of global customer conversations. 

Tools like accent neutralization, language translation, and AI-assisted guidance are helping reduce communication barriers and improve clarity between customers and support teams. Those advances matter because they address some of the very frustrations that have fueled this regulatory conversation in the first place. 

Innovation is not standing still. The customer experience model of five years ago is not the model being built now. 

This WLW Radio Cincinnati clip speaks directly to that point, with Molly highlighting how tools like accent neutralization, language translation, and better orchestration can improve the customer experience when they are built around the consumer.

What the Best Companies Will Do Next 

The companies best positioned for this shift are not the ones defending old models. They are the ones building flexible, resilient service architecture now. 

That means combining: 

• U.S.-based agents where complexity, trust, or regulation demand it 

• Global support where scale and coverage matter 

• AI, where speed and efficiency improve the experience 

• Governance everywhere 

This is the future of customer experience. Not domestic versus offshore. Not humans versus technology. 

It is intelligent orchestration of people, technology, and accountability. 

That is where the market is heading. The FCC proposal just makes the shift harder to ignore. 

Final Thought 

Customers care whether they were understood. They care whether their issue was resolved. And they care whether the experience felt clear, competent, and trustworthy. 

Companies that design their customer service systems around those outcomes will continue to succeed. Those that don’t will increasingly feel pressure from regulators, clients, and the market to rethink how their service models operate. 

In the end, customers are not focused on organizational structure or labor models. They are focused on whether the system behind the interaction actually helped solve their problem.