FCC Asked to Clarify Regulatory Status of “Whitelist” VoIP Services; Waffle Seeks Equal Treatment

The Federal Communications Commission is again considering an important question involving Internet-based voice services that connect to the public switched telephone network (“PSTN”) but deliberately restrict calling to a limited universe of approved telephone numbers.

On August 21, 2026, Tin Can Untechnologies, Inc. (“Tin Can”) supplemented its pending Petition for Declaratory Ruling and renewed its request that the FCC determine that its parent-controlled, “whitelist”-based voice service is non-interconnected VoIP, notwithstanding its limited ability to originate and receive PSTN calls. Tin Can also asks the FCC to confirm that its service is not subject to the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (“CALEA”).

The FCC placed Tin Can’s supplement on Public Notice on August 24. Comments were due August 31, and reply comments are due September 8, 2026.

On August 31, Just Waffle Inc. (“Waffle”) filed comments asking the FCC to consider the broader implications of Tin Can’s request and to ensure that any regulatory treatment afforded Tin Can is applied consistently to Waffle and other similarly situated providers.

Full disclosure: The CommLaw Group serves as regulatory counsel to Waffle and prepared and filed both Waffle’s pending petition for regulatory relief and its comments in the Tin Can proceeding.

The dispute turns largely on the FCC’s definition of “interconnected VoIP,” which includes a requirement that the service permit users “generally” to receive calls originating on the PSTN and terminate calls to the PSTN.

Tin Can argues that its service does not satisfy that requirement because it does not provide unrestricted telephone calling. Instead, a parent or account holder determines which PSTN telephone numbers a child may call or receive calls from. Communications with numbers outside the approved list are blocked, and the child cannot override those restrictions.

Tin Can therefore argues that the ability to communicate with a small, specifically authorized subset of PSTN numbers is not the ability to “generally” originate or receive PSTN calls contemplated by the FCC’s interconnected VoIP rules.

That distinction could be significant. If the FCC agrees, it would reinforce the principle that the mere presence of some PSTN connectivity does not automatically transform an IP-based communications product into interconnected VoIP. The scope, architecture, functionality and intended use of that connectivity could instead become important to the regulatory analysis.

Tin Can originally sought a declaratory ruling in 2025. In April 2026, the FCC concluded that the record lacked sufficient technical information to determine whether Tin Can’s whitelist service qualified as interconnected VoIP.

Instead, the FCC granted Tin Can a temporary waiver from several potentially applicable requirements while expressly declining to decide whether the service constitutes interconnected VoIP, telecommunications or common carriage.

Tin Can’s August supplement seeks to fill that factual gap. Among other things, Tin Can explains that whitelist restrictions are enforced at the server level, the device has no direct signaling or media path to the PSTN, and PSTN origination and termination are performed through a third-party provider.

Tin Can argues that these characteristics distinguish its service from conventional telephone service.

Waffle’s comments raise an additional issue: regulatory parity.

Waffle is preparing to launch WaffleKids, a purpose-built, screen-free, parent-controlled voice communications service designed principally for children approximately five to twelve years old. Rather than giving a child a conventional smartphone—with access to apps, social media, web browsing, entertainment feeds and unrestricted communications—WaffleKids is intended to provide a more limited first communications experience focused on conversation, family connection, personal safety and age-appropriate independence. Parents and guardians manage the child’s communications environment through the Waffle Parent Hub, where they can approve contacts, establish school and quiet hours, and configure other safety settings. Subject to required emergency and accessibility functionality, children cannot ordinarily dial arbitrary telephone numbers, and unknown or unapproved callers cannot ordinarily reach them.

The service includes Waffle Home, a Wi-Fi-enabled device intended to provide a modern, screen-free version of the traditional family telephone, and Waffle Go, a portable device operating over managed mobile data and Wi-Fi for use at school, neighborhood activities, visits with friends, travel and other situations where a child may need to reach a parent without carrying a smartphone. Waffle Go also incorporates parent-facing location and safe-zone functionality. Waffle does not operate its own telecommunications network; instead, it relies on established third-party providers for numbering, PSTN origination and termination, and related network functions. In that respect, WaffleKids is designed to supplement rather than replace a household’s primary communications service, while deliberately limiting PSTN access to parent-authorized contacts and emergency calling.

Waffle has separately filed a petition seeking comparable regulatory relief, but that petition has not yet been placed on Public Notice or assigned to an active docket.

Waffle therefore asked the FCC to take notice of its petition and the similarities between the two services and to ensure that any regulatory principle established for Tin Can is applied consistently to other providers offering materially comparable services.

In practical terms, Waffle has placed a “me too” issue squarely before the Commission. If Tin Can’s architecture is sufficiently restricted to fall outside the interconnected VoIP framework, the FCC will need a principled basis for treating materially similar services differently.

Although Tin Can and Waffle both involve communications products designed for children, the underlying regulatory issue is broader.

A favorable ruling for Tin Can could strengthen the argument that limited PSTN connectivity is not necessarily “general” PSTN connectivity. That principle could potentially affect other specialized communications applications that permit calling only to designated destinations, users or classes of contacts.

This may be relevant to certain enterprise, safety, monitoring, hospitality, education, healthcare and controlled-access communications platforms.

The larger point is that product architecture—not simply the existence of a PSTN gateway somewhere in the service chain—may determine regulatory classification.

That does not mean a provider classified as non-interconnected VoIP is necessarily unregulated. Non-interconnected VoIP providers may remain subject to FCC registration, Form 499 reporting, TRS Fund contributions and other requirements, depending on the service and business model.

The real question is which regulatory framework applies and which participant in the service-delivery chain bears each obligation.

The proceeding presents both opportunity and risk for Waffle. A favorable ruling finding Tin Can’s whitelist service to be non-interconnected VoIP would strengthen Waffle’s pending request for comparable treatment, particularly because Waffle has now established a record highlighting the similarities between the two offerings.

Conversely, if the FCC concludes that restricted PSTN access still constitutes interconnected VoIP, Waffle and similarly situated providers could face the same result absent meaningful technical or functional distinctions. Regulatory parity therefore cuts both ways.

The FCC could find Tin Can’s service to be non-interconnected VoIP, extend or modify its existing waiver without resolving classification, or conclude that restricted PSTN connectivity is sufficient to trigger interconnected VoIP status. It could also adopt a middle-ground approach, applying only selected public-safety, accessibility, robocall-mitigation or consumer-protection requirements.

Any favorable treatment for Tin Can would provide Waffle with additional support for equivalent relief under its pending petition.

For providers of nontraditional voice services, the key issue is not simply whether the service touches the PSTN, but how that connectivity works. Relevant factors include whether users can dial arbitrary numbers, whether unknown callers can reach them, who controls approved contacts, how restrictions are enforced, who provides numbering and PSTN connectivity, and whether the product substitutes for traditional telephone service.

Those design choices can materially affect regulatory classification and related obligations involving Form 499 reporting, USF/TRS, 911, robocall mitigation, STIR/SHAKEN, CALEA and other FCC requirements.

Reply comments on Tin Can’s supplemental filing are due September 8, 2026. Waffle’s separate petition remains pending but has not yet been placed on Public Notice.

The broader issue now before the FCC is increasingly important for software-based communications services: where does restricted PSTN connectivity end and “interconnected VoIP” begin?

The CommLaw Group will continue monitoring the Tin Can proceeding, Waffle’s petition and the FCC’s evolving treatment of restricted-access voice services. If you have any questions about the proceeding or related issues and their implications for your company, please contact Jonathan Marashlian at jsm@commlawgroup.com.