Banks warned of a potential crisis due to blocked calls to clients.

— To ensure that this mass call goes through, the bank forces telecom operators to enter into an agreement not only with its own operator but also with the subscriber's service provider. In the telecom operator worldview, it turns out that each bank must enter into an agreement with every existing telecom operator to forward so-called mass calls, which the operator deems mass, to its subscribers, and then the banks are required to pay for all of this. The legal scheme is as follows: even if you, as a telecom operator, classify a call as mass, your only action is to request the caller's consent that the recipient of the call is willing to receive mass calls. That's the legal norm. But the operators say, since we need to understand which calls are mass and which are not, let's pay for them. But what could the payment possibly be? It's only to ensure that a particular call isn't classified as mass, that is, isn't blocked and isn't formalized by consent. It seems like a rather strange quasi-service. Neither legislators nor the government want to define the concept of "mass call," giving telecom operators complete discretion. Everything is outside the legal framework; it's the operators' own imagination. The law says nothing about banks being obligated to apply the definition provided by telecom operators, that this consent shouldn't be subject to the general regime of Law No. 152, or that it should be subject to a fee—this is also nowhere to be found. The law makes no mention of a fee or a contractual basis. The second issue with labeling has a very interesting twist. As you know, the service was previously called "Label" and was offered by telecom operators on a commercial basis to calling organizations. This was the practice used by some fairly large banks, but the law turned this commercial service into a mandatory element of the call, and in this case, the law stipulated no fee. So, we pay for the call itself, for the labeling of that call, and for ensuring that it isn't classified as a mass call. In other words, the same service is effectively being charged three times. We tried to reach an agreement with the operators, understanding that they bear certain costs to implement these regulations. However, the distribution of costs seems rather odd. In its explanatory materials for the government decree, the Ministry of Digital Development stated that operators' costs amount to 2 billion rubles per year, while banks alone account for around 11 billion rubles, and the system costs 20 billion. So, excuse me, where is the cost coverage here? Therefore, we were forced to appeal to the government and the Central Bank to ensure a centralized decision on state control over pricing for these two quasi-services.

— How long ago did you apply?

— The letter was sent yesterday. The standard response is a month.