[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 9, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1799-1822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00159]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 20
[PS Docket No. 11-153; PS Docket No. 10-255; FCC 12-149]
Next Generation 911; Text-to-911; Next Generation 911
Applications
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend its
rules by requiring all wireless carriers and providers of
``interconnected'' text messaging applications to support the ability
of consumers to send text messages to 911 in all areas throughout the
nation where 911 Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) are also
prepared to receive the texts. In addition, to inform consumers and
prevent confusion, the Commission proposes to require all wireless
carriers and interconnected text messaging providers to send automated
``bounce back'' error messages to consumers attempting to text 911 when
the service is not available.
DATES: Comment Date for Section III.A: January 29, 2013.
Reply Comment Date for Section III.A: February 8, 2013.
Comment Date for Other Sections: March 11, 2013.
Reply Comment Date for Other Sections: April 9, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments to Federal Communications Commission, 445
12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron Garza, Attorney Advisor, (202)
418-1175. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction
Act information collection requirements contained in this document,
contact Judith Boley-Herman, (202) 418-0214, or send an email to
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in PS Docket No. 11-153, PS
Docket No. 10-255, FCC 12-149, released on December 13, 2012. The full
text of this document is available for public inspection during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, or online at http://www.fcc.gov/document/text-911-further-notice-proposed-rulemaking.
I. Introduction
1. Wireless consumers are increasingly using text messaging as a
means of everyday communication on a variety of platforms. The legacy
911 system, however, does not support text messaging as a means of
reaching emergency responders, leading to potential consumer confusion
and even to possible danger. As consumer use of carrier-based and third
party-provided texting applications expands and evolves, the 911 system
must also evolve to enable wireless consumers to reach 911 in those
emergency situations where a voice call is not feasible or appropriate.
2. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we propose rules
that will enable Americans to send text messages to 911 (text-to-911)
and that will educate and inform consumers regarding the future
availability and appropriate use of text-to-911. Specifically, we
propose to require all wireless carriers and providers of
``interconnected'' text messaging applications to support the ability
of consumers to send text messages to 911 in all areas throughout the
nation where 911 Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) are also
prepared to receive the texts. In addition, to inform consumers and
prevent confusion, we propose to require all wireless carriers and
interconnected text messaging providers to send automated ``bounce
back'' error messages to consumers attempting to text 911 when the
service is not available.
3. Our proposals build on the recently filed voluntary commitment
by the four largest wireless carriers--in an agreement with the
National Emergency Number Association (NENA), and the Association of
Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO) (Carrier-NENA-APCO
Agreement)--to make text-to-911 available to their customers by May 15,
2014, and to provide automatic bounce back messages across their
networks by June 30, 2013. The baseline requirements we propose in this
Further Notice are modeled on the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement, and we
seek comment on whether all carriers, including regional, small and
rural carriers, and all ``interconnected text'' providers can achieve
these milestones in the same or similar timeframes. To allow for the
possibility of implementing our bounce back proposal by June 30, 2013,
we are seeking comment on this portion of the Further Notice on an
accelerated basis. Moreover, in light of the importance of these
issues, we intend to resolve promptly the questions we raise in the
remaining portion of the Further Notice in 2013.
4. Our proposal to add text capability to the 911 system will
vastly enhance the system's accessibility for over 40 million Americans
with hearing or speech disabilities. It will also provide a vital and
lifesaving alternative to the public in situations where 911 voice
service is unavailable or placing a voice call could endanger the
caller. Indeed, as recent history has shown, text messaging is often
the most reliable means of communications during disasters where voice
calls cannot be completed due to capacity constraints. Finally,
implementing text-to-911 represents a crucial next step in the ongoing
transition of the legacy 911 system to a Next Generation 911 (NG911)
system that will support not only text but will also enable consumers
to send photos, videos, and data to PSAPs, enhancing the information
available to first responders for assessing and responding to
emergencies.
5. Our proposed approach to text-to-911 is also based on the
presumption that consumers in emergency situations should be able to
communicate using the text applications they are most familiar with
from everyday use. Currently, the most commonly used texting technology
is Short Message Service (SMS), which is available, familiar, and
widely used by virtually all wireless consumers. In the Carrier-NENA-
APCO Agreement, the four major carriers have indicated that they intend
to use SMS-based text for their initial text-to-911 deployments, and we
expect other initial deployments to be similarly SMS-based.
6. At the same time, we do not propose to limit our focus to SMS-
based text. As a result of the rapid proliferation of smartphones and
other
[[Page 1800]]
advanced mobile devices, some consumers are beginning to move away from
SMS to other IP-based text applications, including downloadable
software applications provided by parties other than the underlying
carrier. To the extent that consumers gravitate to such applications as
their primary means of communicating by text, they may reasonably come
to expect these applications to also support text-to-911, as consumer
familiarity is vital in emergency situations where seconds matter.
Therefore, in this Further Notice, we seek to ensure that consumers
ultimately have access to the same text-to-911 capabilities on the full
array of texting applications that they use for ubiquitous
communication--regardless of provider or platform. We also propose that
service providers who offer SMS-based text-to-911 should have the
flexibility to migrate their customers to other text-to-911
applications.
7. While our proposal is designed to accelerate the nationwide
availability of text-to-911, we recognize that deployment will not be
uniform, e.g., during the transition period, text-to-911 may be
available in certain geographic areas while it is not available in
others, or may be supported by certain carriers but not by others. This
creates the risk of consumer confusion about the availability of text-
to-911 as the transition proceeds--indeed, there is evidence that many
consumers erroneously believe that they can already reach 911 by text,
and that some have attempted to do so. Rapid implementation of the
bounce back notification mechanism that we propose in this Further
Notice is therefore critical to informing consumers and lessening
potential confusion about text-to-911 availability. In addition, we
intend to begin work immediately with PSAPs, carriers, service
providers, disability organizations, consumer groups, and others to
educate and inform consumers regarding the transition, local
availability, and appropriate use of text-to-911.
8. Finally, we emphasize that even as adding text capability makes
the 911 system more accessible and effective in enhancing public
safety, text-to-911 is and will remain a complement to, rather than a
substitute for, voice 911 service. The voice 911 system that has been
maintained and improved over decades remains the preferred means of
seeking help in an emergency in most instances. Moreover, voice 911
service will continue to be central and essential to the 911 system
even as we add text, photo, data, and video capabilities in the course
of migrating to NG911. Therefore, even as we take this first major step
in the transition to NG911, we continue to encourage all consumers
seeking emergency help to access 911 by voice whenever possible.
II. General Background
9. In September 2011, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (Notice) (76 FR 63257, October 12, 2011), which sought
comment on a number of issues related to the deployment of NG911,
including potential near-term methods for delivering text-to-911;
whether and how to prioritize 911 in major emergencies; how to
facilitate the long-term deployment of text-to-911; the Commission's
role in deploying text-to-911 and other NG911 applications; consumer
education and disclosure mechanisms; and the relationship between this
proceeding and the implementation of the Twenty-First Century
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA).
A. Text-to-911 Deployments and Trials
10. While some commenters initially expressed concerns about
implementing near-term text-to-911, both wireless carriers and public
safety entities have more recently taken significant steps towards the
near-term deployment of text-to-911, including SMS-based solutions. In
May 2012, Verizon Wireless announced plans to deploy text-to-911
capability throughout its nationwide network in 2013. On December 10,
2012, Verizon Wireless commenced its rollout of text-to-911 service in
York County, Virginia. In June 2012, AT&T also announced the goal of
launching text-to-911 nationwide in 2013. In addition, the Alliance for
Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS), an organization
consisting of a large number of wireless and wireline carriers as well
as equipment vendors, has formed a committee to ``create an ATIS
standard(s) for SMS-to-9-1-1 that incorporates requirements,
architecture, message flows, and product details.'' ATIS has targeted
completion of these standards in the first quarter of 2013. Most
recently, as noted above and described in further detail below, the
four major wireless carriers, Sprint Nextel, AT&T, T-Mobile, and
Verizon, have entered into a voluntary agreement with NENA and APCO
whereby the major carriers will provide text-to-911 service by May 15,
2014, to PSAPs who request the service.
11. Some of these same wireless carriers have already initiated
text-to-911 trials in partnership with several PSAPs to assess the
technical feasibility of text-to-911 and its impact on PSAP operations.
Four trials are currently under way--three of which have yielded
positive results. First, as just announced, AT&T is ``in the process of
launching a standards-based trial service for text-to-911 in the state
of Tennessee * * *.'' Additionally, in June 2009, Black Hawk County,
Iowa partnered with Intrado (a provider of 911 technology solutions)
and i wireless (a T-Mobile affiliate that offers regional wireless
communications service), to provide text-to-911 service within the
county. According to Black Hawk County, there have been no delayed or
dropped text messages in the trial, nor has there been a ``significant
increase in incident volume.'' Indeed, callers have benefitted from the
technology in several situations. This includes women who have been at
risk of domestic abuse who have been able to text for help undetected
by their assailant; children reporting instances of domestic abuse; and
anonymous reports of imminent sales of controlled substances. Black
Hawk County has expanded the trial and now receives text messages from
individuals throughout the state, which it then relays to the
appropriate PSAP. According to Black Hawk County, the trial
demonstrates that text-to-911 service ``is reliable and * * * saves
lives.''
12. In August 2011, the City of Durham, North Carolina (Durham)
initiated an SMS-to-911 trial in partnership with Verizon Wireless and
Intrado. According to Durham, the technology has worked reliably.
Durham's trial suggests that callers will continue to rely on voice
calls to 911 and that concerns about text messages overwhelming PSAPs
may be unfounded. Durham views the technology as a ``valuable asset''
and the North Carolina Director of the Division of Services for the
Deaf and the Hard of Hearing stated that ``the significance of the
program cannot be overstated.'' More recently, the trial was extended
``to accommodate Durham's additional outreach to individuals with
disabilities.''
13. In April 2012, the State of Vermont (Vermont) initiated a text-
to-911 trial allowing any Verizon Wireless subscriber to send emergency
text messages to the Williston, Vermont PSAP, provided that the text
message is transmitted via a cell tower located within the physical
boundaries of Vermont. The Executive Director of the Vermont E911 Board
stated that implementing the trial ``wasn't * * * difficult at all''
and that so far, the trial has proceeded ``very smoothly.'' Vermont
believes that fears over the volume of emergency text messages are
[[Page 1801]]
``overblown'' and ``remain[s] convinced that those who can make a voice
call will make a voice call as that is the most efficient way to
communicate in an emergency.''
14. Vermont further reports that as of August 2012, it had received
only two legitimate emergency text messages, but in both cases
emergency services were able to intervene successfully. In one case, a
life was saved when emergency personnel were able to thwart an
attempted suicide. In the other case, a domestic abuse victim was able
to contact police, who then arrived on the scene and made an arrest.
While Vermont recognizes that some parties would prefer to wait for a
more advanced text-to-911 solution, Vermont maintains that the
``individual whose life we saved and the domestic assault victim would
likely disagree that it is too soon to have this technology
available.'' Vermont also indicates it has experienced some text
``spoofing,'' but notes that ``there is nothing about this new
technology that is any more likely to result in `spoof' contacts than
what we already deal with on the voice side of the system.''
Additionally, Vermont did not experience any problems with text slang.
15. On October 30, 2012, Vermont submitted an ex parte filing
indicating that it is maintaining the text-to-911 system past the end
of its trial and is ``currently working on enabling a second Public
Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for redundancy purposes.'' Vermont states
that it ``can report no negative operational impacts on our system as
the result of the Verizon trial,'' but that it needs the Commission's
assistance in ``encouraging all of the carriers to do the right thing
and enable text-to-9-1-1 now.'' Vermont concludes by stating that
``[w]e understand that there are some concerns both in the PSAP and
industry communities about the timing of SMS text-to-9-1-1, but so long
as the most common method of texting on today's devices remains SMS, we
feel it is important to move ahead and not wait for the promises that
other texting solutions might provide.'' On December 3, 2012, Vermont
announced that it would further expand its text-to-911 trial to include
Sprint Nextel customers, in collaboration with the Vermont Enhanced 911
Board, Sprint Wireless, and Intrado.
B. Carriers' Voluntary Commitments
16. On December 6, 2012, APCO, NENA, Sprint Nextel, AT&T, T-Mobile,
and Verizon, entered into a voluntary agreement whereby each of the
four major carriers will provide text-to-911 service by May 15, 2014,
to PSAPs who request such a service. Under the terms of the Carrier-
NENA-APCO Agreement, once a signatory carrier begins to offer text-to-
911 service, ``valid PSAP requests for Text-to-911 service will be
implemented within a reasonable amount of time of receiving such a
request, not to exceed six months.'' A request will be considered
``valid'' if the ``requesting PSAP represents that it is technically
ready to receive 911 text messages in the format requested,'' and ``the
appropriate local or State 911 service governing authority has
specifically authorized the PSAP to accept and, by extension, the
signatory service provider to provide, text-to-911 service (and such
authorization is not subject to dispute).'' Additionally, no later than
July 1, 2013, the four major providers will ``voluntarily provide
quarterly progress reports to the FCC, NENA, and APCO summarizing the
status of the deployment of a national Text-to-911 service
capability.''
17. Under the terms of the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement, the major
carriers have also agreed to implement a bounce-back message capability
by June 30, 2013. The bounce back message will ``alert subscribers
attempting to text an emergency message to instead dial 911 when text-
to-911 is unavailable in that area.''
18. The signatories also agreed on additional measures to implement
text-to-911 voluntarily. Specifically, the signatories agree that
``PSAPs will select the format for how messages are to be delivered,''
and that ``incremental costs for delivery of text messages * * * will
be the responsibility of the PSAP, as determined by individual
analysis.'' Additionally, the signatory service providers agree to
implement a 911 short code and agreed to implement text-to-911
``independent of their ability to recover * * * associated costs from
state or local governments.'' The signatory providers also agree to
``work with APCO, NENA, and the FCC to establish an outreach effort to
set and manage consumer expectations regarding the availability/
limitations of the Text-to-911 service (including when roaming) and the
benefits of using voice calls to 911 whenever possible, and support
APCO and NENA's effort to educate PSAPs on text-to-911 generally.''
19. Finally, the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement limits the proposed
voluntary text-to-911 solution ``to the capabilities of the existing
SMS service offered by a participating wireless service provider on the
home wireless network to which a wireless subscriber originates an SMS
message.'' Thus, the carriers state that under the terms of their
voluntary commitment to deploy text-to-911 capability by May 15, 2014,
``SMS-to-911 will not be available to wireless subscribers roaming
outside of their home wireless network,'' and ``[e]ach implementation
of SMS-to-911 will be unique to the capabilities of each signatory
service provider or its Gateway Service Provider.''
III. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
20. In this Further Notice, we seek comment on issues related to
text-to-911 in light of the evolved record, and bifurcate the comment
cycles in order to deal most promptly with the consumer notification
issue that has the potential to alleviate near-term consumer confusion
as to the availability of text-to-911 both during the course of the
voluntary roll outs that several carriers have proposed and during the
pendency of the Commission's proceeding. Accordingly, comments with
respect to Section III.A will be due 20 days from publication in the
Federal Register, and reply comments on Section III.A will be due 10
days thereafter. Comments and reply comments should address only the
issues posed in this section in order to provide the Commission with a
focused record on this question. Comments and reply comment on the
remaining portion of the Further Notice will be due 60 days and 90 days
from publication in the Federal Register, respectively. We also seek
comment on Section III.C (Legal Authority) as relevant to each section
in accordance with the comment timeframe for that section.
A. Automated Error Messages for Failed Text-to-911 Attempts and
Consumer Expectations and Education
1. Automated Error Message Proposal
21. Background. In the Notice, the Commission noted the likelihood
that as text-to-911 is implemented, there will be instances where
despite efforts to educate consumers, some individuals will attempt to
send text messages to 911 in locations where text-to-911 is not
supported. The Commission observed that this ``could put consumers at
risk if they were unaware that an emergency text did not go through or
were uninformed about alternative means of reaching the PSAP.'' To
mitigate this risk, the Commission proposed that in situations where a
consumer attempts to text 911 in a location where text-to-911 is not
available, the consumer should receive an automatic error message or
similar disclosure that includes
[[Page 1802]]
information on how to contact the PSAP.
22. Public safety commenters generally support such an automatic
notification requirement. APCO argues that ``[i]n situations where a
consumer attempts to text 9-1-1 in an area that does not support this
technology, a standardized auto message should be immediately returned
indicating how to contact the PSAP and/or that a voice call is
required. The Commission is urged to work with APCO, NENA and NASNA to
develop best practices and model responses.'' The State of California
similarly maintains that ``the Commission [should] require any service
provider that provides texting capability to its customers to provide
an immediate, automatic response (preferably standard nationwide
message) to any text-to-911 stating that texting to 9-1-1 is not
available and advising the customer to make a voice call to 9-1-1 in an
emergency.''
23. In their comments in response to the Notice, commercial mobile
radio service (CMRS) providers acknowledge the importance of providing
notification of non-delivery to consumers, although some commenters
question whether the Commission should adopt a notification
requirement. Verizon notes that it already provides an automated
message when a wireless customer attempts to send a text message to 911
in a location where text-to-911 is not available. Verizon states that
its voluntary practice obviates the need for regulation, but notes that
``[s]hould the Commission nevertheless find a requirement is necessary,
language like Verizon's would be sufficient and appropriate.'' Sprint
argues that before making any decision on this issue, the Commission
should first refer the matter to standards organizations ``to review
the technical aspects associated with delivering an error message and
to develop a consistent error response message.'' Finally, textPlus, a
software-based text application provider, notes that it already ``sends
a bounce back message to users alerting the user that the 911 address
is not recognized.''
24. Most recently, however, the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement states
that ``[b]efore the deployment of Text-to-911, the signatory service
providers will implement a bounce-back (auto-reply) message to alert
subscribers attempting to text an emergency message to instead dial 9-
1-1 when Text-to-9-1-1 is unavailable * * *'' The Agreement further
states that these providers, the four major wireless carriers which
include Verizon and Sprint, ``will implement the bounce-back * * *
message by June 30, 2013.''
25. Discussion. We propose that CMRS providers and other providers
of text messaging services should be required to automatically notify
consumers attempting to text-to-911 in areas where text-to-911 is not
supported or in other instances where the text cannot be transmitted to
the PSAP. In this respect, there appears to be a clear benefit to
persons in emergency situations being able to know immediately if a
text message has been delivered to the proper authorities. This
automatic feedback may be life-saving, allowing a person in need of
assistance to immediately seek out an alternative. Providing this type
of error message may also be particularly critical during the
transition to NG911, as the record to date suggests there are likely to
be numerous instances where consumers attempt to send text messages to
PSAPs in areas where text-to-911 is not yet available.
26. We disagree with the assertion that there is no need for a
bounce-back requirement because certain wireless carriers already
voluntarily provide automatic error messages when customers attempt to
text-to-911 in areas where it is not supported. Rather, we believe that
all CMRS providers and other prospective text-to-911 service providers
should implement this safeguard so that consumers have the assurance
that they will receive automatic notification regardless of which
provider they choose. While consumer education (as discussed below) may
help to mitigate this risk, the possibility remains that without such a
requirement, a consumer without knowledge of where text-to-911 is
supported could attempt to send a text message to 911 and mistakenly
believe that the text has been successfully transmitted to the PSAP.
27. Moreover, in view of the four carriers' commitment in the
Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement to implement a bounce-back message by the
end of June 2013, a proactive approach for requiring automatic error
messages appears to be feasible at a reasonable cost, especially in
comparison to the public safety benefits that an automatic error
message can provide consumers. The Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement states
that the four major wireless carriers ``will meet [the] commitments [in
the Agreement] independent of the [carriers] ability to recover these
associated costs from state or local governments.'' We believe that
this representation indicates that the costs for implementing a bounce-
back message are manageable, regardless of whether such costs are
recoverable under current state or local cost recovery programs.
However, we seek comment on this view, particularly in regard to the
impact that the costs to meet the bounce-back requirement might have on
small and rural CMRS providers compared to the public safety benefits
for their subscribers.
28. We seek comment on the appropriate timeframe for CMRS providers
to implement a bounce back messaging capability. Whether or not CMRS
providers have developed text-to-911 capability, the record to date
appears to demonstrate that it is technically feasible for them to
provide an automated ``bounce-back'' text message in such circumstances
instructing the sender to make a voice 911 call, and that many carriers
already provide this message voluntarily. We recognize that CMRS
providers other than the four major carriers may need to address
certain technical and operational issues in order to meet our proposed
notification requirement. Nevertheless, we believe that a solution
should be implemented as quickly as possible to avoid the risk of
consumer confusion. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether it is
feasible for all CMRS providers to provide their customers with an
automatic notification by the June 30, 2013 date specified in the
Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement. We seek comment on this timeframe, and any
significant technical issues that would bear on the achievability of an
automatic error message within that time frame by small, regional, or
rural CMRS providers.
29. We also propose to require prospective providers of
interconnected text service to develop an automated error message
capability. In order to reduce potential consumer confusion and enhance
the ability of consumers to communicate by text in emergencies using
the applications they are most familiar with from everyday use, we
believe that the ``bounce-back'' requirement proposed for CMRS
providers above should also apply, to the extent feasible, to all
providers of software applications that enable a consumer to send text
messages to text-capable U.S. mobile telephone numbers and receive text
messages from the same when a user of the application attempts to send
an emergency text in an area where text-to-911 is not supported or the
provider is otherwise unable to transmit the text to the PSAP.
30. We clarify that we do not propose to extend text-to-911
obligations to IP-based messaging applications that support
communication with a defined set of users of compatible applications
but do not support general communication with text-capable
[[Page 1803]]
telephone numbers. We believe it is less likely that consumers will
expect such applications to support emergency communications.
Nevertheless, we encourage providers of such messaging applications to
inform their users that these applications do not support communication
to 911. We seek comment on this approach. Are there other ``flavors''
of third-party text messaging applications that should not be included?
Why?
31. We seek comment on the feasibility and cost of third-party
providers to implement such an automatic notification and whether they
must address any unique technical issues not faced by CMRS providers in
executing this requirement. We also seek comment on whether it is
feasible timeframe for third-party providers to implement the automatic
notification requirement by June 30, 2013, or whether we should adopt a
longer timetable.
32. We clarify that with respect to both CMRS providers and
interconnected text providers, our proposed requirement for automatic
notification to consumers would only apply to situations where the
provider (or the provider's text-to-911 vendor) has direct control over
the transmission of the text message and is unable to transmit the text
message to the PSAP serving the texting party's location, whether due
to network congestion, the inability of the PSAP to accept such
messages, or otherwise. Thus, for example, a CMRS provider would not be
required to provide automatic notification where the consumer uses a
text application provided by a third party that the carrier does not
control. Similarly, notification would not be required where the
provider is able to transmit the text to the PSAP, but a failure in the
PSAP network results in the text not being delivered to a 911 operator.
We seek comment on our proposal. We also clarify that we do not propose
to require all text-to-911 providers to use the exact same wording for
their automatic error messages to consumers. Rather, we propose that
providers would be deemed to have met our requirement so long as the
error message includes information on how to contact the PSAP. For
example, an automated message that advises the consumer to place a
voice call to 911 would meet the proposed requirement. We would,
however, encourage carriers to work with public safety organizations
and consumer organizations, including disability organizations, on a
common error message text to simplify consumer education. We seek
comment on this approach.
2. Consumer Expectations and Education
33. Background. The Notice sought comment on how to ensure that
consumers are informed about the availability and non-availability of
text-to-911 in specific areas. Specifically, the Notice sought comment
on the expected costs and benefits of various approaches to consumer
education and disclosure mechanisms, whether contractual or cost
considerations would deter consumers from texting or sending photos or
video to 911, and if so, whether providers or the Commission should
develop practices to remedy that situation. It also sought comment on
what types of educational programs could be created to reduce and/or
prevent consumer confusion as text-to-911 is deployed in the short
term, what the appropriate role is for the Commission and for other
government and private sector entities in any public education effort,
and whether other resources could be developed to help individuals
learn about where text-to-911 services are and are not available.
34. Public safety commenters generally agree that there is a
significant need for a nationwide effort to educate the public and
prevent consumer confusion while text-to-911 is being rolled out. For
example, the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG)
conducted a recent survey which noted that approximately one-third of
their population believe they can text 9-1-1 today. APCO argues that
``NG9-1-1 and the capabilities for data and multimedia will require a
focused and funded public education plan. Consumers must be made aware
of the limitations of 9-1-1 location accuracy and they must be
cognizant of the role that they need to play in `managing their
emergency.' '' APCO urges the public and private sector to ``unite to
provide a national campaign targeted at public education of NG 9-1-1 as
it becomes available,'' and offers to help ``craft and disseminate an
agreed upon curriculum.'' NASNA supports focusing educational efforts
on ``discrete groups that would receive substantial and meaningful
benefits'' from near-term deployment of text-to-911, ``such as the deaf
and hard of hearing.'' NASNA suggests these focused educational efforts
``could provide a model when texting-to-9-1-1 is deployed on a
permanent basis.'' NENA ``encourages the Commission'' to implement a
campaign to ``provid[e] states, regions, and localities with template
materials such as canned video, audio, and print materials'' that
``could provide enormous economies of scale * * * and help local 9-1-1
systems and centers to effectively educate the public about the roll-
out of new system capabilities.'' NENA also contends that ``it is
imperative that any text-to-9-1-1 solution that relies on a digit
string or short code incorporate the digits `9-1-1' '' because
``[d]oing so will help to minimize consumer confusion and reduce public
education costs.''
35. Industry commenters also stress the importance of consumer
education and the need for both public and private sector participation
in education efforts. CTIA stresses that ``consumer education requires
that federal and state entities, as well as Public Safety agencies and
consumer representatives, participate in the consumer education
process, and that the responsibility not be left solely to the wireless
industry.'' CTIA also supports the concept presented in the Notice of
developing a consumer-focused map or Web site that would provide
information on the text-capability of specific PSAPs, but notes that
``the cost of developing and updating such resources is an issue that
should be considered in developing a map or similar consumer education
campaign.''
36. Discussion. We agree with commenters that educating the public
is critical to the successful roll-out of text-to-911 and preventing
consumer confusion. Adding text capability to the 911 system is not
likely to occur uniformly: during the transition period, the
availability of text-to-911 will vary by area, and the areas of
availability will change over time as the transition progresses. The
Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement recognized this and the signatory providers
agreed to ``work with APCO, NENA, and the FCC to develop an outreach
effort to set and manage consumer expectations regarding the
availability/limitations of the Text-to-911 service (including when
roaming) and the benefits of using voice calls to 911 whenever
possible, and support APCO and NENA's effort to educate PSAPs on Text-
to-911 generally.'' Therefore, as we initiate the transition, a
concerted effort will be needed to provide the public with accurate and
up-to-date information regarding where text-to-911 is--and is not--
available.
37. Aside from educating the public about the availability or
unavailability of text-to-911, education is also imperative to inform
the public about the capabilities and limitations of text-to-911 where
it is available, and the circumstances under which texting 911 is or is
not preferable to making a 911 voice call. The public needs to be aware
that text may not provide all of the
[[Page 1804]]
features and functionalities associated with voice 911 service, such as
automatic location. Similarly, the public needs to be aware that, while
sending an emergency text may be preferred in instances where the
sender is unable to communicate by voice (e.g., due to a speech or
hearing disability, or in a hostage or abuse situation where voice
calling could be dangerous to the caller), in most other instances,
placing a voice call to 911 will continue to be the most effective
means of communicating with emergency responders, and therefore will
remain the strongly preferable option even where text is available.
38. Given the clear need for consumer education, we direct the
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau and the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau to implement a comprehensive consumer
education program concerning text-to-911, and to coordinate their
efforts with state and local 911 authorities, other federal and state
agencies, public safety organizations, industry, disability
organizations, and consumer groups, consistent with those voluntary
measures taken under the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement. To assist in the
development of this program, we seek comment on what educational tools
and resources exist or need to be developed to combat consumer
confusion as text-to-911 is deployed. To what degree can current 911
educational programs be adapted to help consumers understand the
availability, capability, and appropriate use of text-to-911? How do we
ensure that education and outreach efforts on text-to-911 are fully
accessible to people with disabilities? Are there lessons that we can
draw from educational efforts that were conducted during the deployment
of basic 911 or E911 service? Have other countries developed text-to-
911 education programs?
39. We also seek comment on whether CMRS and interconnected text
providers should provide educational information to their subscribers
about the availability and use of text-to-911. The signatory providers
in the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement agreed to work with APCO, NENA and
the Commission to develop an outreach effort to ``set and manage
consumer expectations'' regarding text-to-911. Should carriers also
provide information regarding the text-to-911 capabilities of specific
wireless devices that operate on their networks?
40. Would it be feasible to provide consumers with the ability to
test text-to-911 functionality in their devices? Allowing customers to
send simulated or test 911 messages could have benefits by enabling
customers to verify the availability of text-to-911 and familiarize
themselves with its use. However, any test mechanism would need to be
configured to avoid burdening PSAPs with unnecessary text messages,
e.g., by having the carrier or 911 text services provider reply to test
messages with an automated response. We seek comment on technical and
cost issues associated with developing such a test capability.
41. Who should bear the primary responsibility for educating
consumers on the limits of text-to-911? The Commission? CMRS and
interconnected text providers? Public safety organizations? Should the
Commission establish a joint effort in conjunction with CMRS and
interconnected text providers and public safety to implement an
education effort? To what extent should consumer groups, including
organizations representing the interests of people with disabilities,
be included in such efforts? Should the educational effort be federal,
regional, state, or local-level? What safeguards and measures should be
taken to ensure that education and outreach efforts on text-to-911 and
its limitations are fully accessible to people with disabilities? Can
the ability to send test text messages to a PSAP facilitate consumer
education? Could the database described in Bandwidth.com's comments be
used to automatically generate up-to-date consumer-facing maps of where
text-to-911 is available?
B. Comprehensive Text-to-911 Proposals
1. Further Background
42. The Commission has previously highlighted the popularity and
ubiquity of text messaging, the increasing public expectation that
consumers should be able to text to 911 during an emergency, and the
importance of text to 911 for people with disabilities. American
consumers send billions of SMS text messages per day and more than two-
thirds of mobile phone users have used text messaging. Moreover, many
of these consumers are acquiring advanced mobile devices (e.g., 3G and
4G devices) that enable them to send text messages using ``over-the-
top'' software applications that they install on their phones and other
mobile devices. Additionally, text messaging will likely play an
integral role in providing future 911 services for persons with
communications disabilities. Hence, any discussion about the near-term
deployment of text-to-911 must consider both SMS and currently
available, as well as anticipated, software applications as potential
platforms.
43. The record in response to the Notice indicates that NG911 will
eventually be capable of supporting the full range of possible
multimedia-to-911 communications, including transmission of text,
photos, video, and data. However, due to the complexity and cost of
deploying NG911 infrastructure on a national scale, full deployment of
NG911 will not be uniform and will likely take years. At the same time,
the record indicates that it is technically feasible for CMRS providers
to implement text-to-911 using existing technologies prior to full
deployment of NG911, as evidenced by the successful trials and
demonstrations noted above, the University of Colorado and Intrado
technical studies, and the fact that the four largest nationwide
wireless carriers committed to deploy text-to-911 capability throughout
their networks by May 15, 2014. Thus, text-to-911 could be made
available to virtually all wireless customers in the near term and
delivered to both ``NG-capable'' and ``pre-NG'' PSAPs at a reasonable
cost to wireless carriers.
44. As discussed below, we believe that enabling consumers to send
a text message to 911 in the near term will substantially improve
accessibility to emergency services, particularly for people with
hearing and speech disabilities. While we recognize that text-to-911
based on pre-NG technologies does not provide the full functionality of
NG911-based text, and that it has certain limitations in comparison to
voice-based 911, we believe that these limitations are outweighed by
the substantial public safety benefits that near-term implementation of
text-to-911 would yield. In addition, implementing text-to-911 in the
near term will provide valuable real-world operational experience that
will help consumers, PSAPs and service providers plan for full NG911
deployment. Moreover, the availability of text-to-911 will provide
incentives for PSAPs to acquire Internet Protocol (IP) connectivity and
NG911-capable customer premise equipment (CPE), which are both critical
steps towards the full deployment of NG-911. We seek comment on these
observations.
45. We also believe that adopting a mandatory regulatory framework
and timetable for implementation of text-to-911 is necessary. We
recognize that substantial progress has been achieved through the
voluntary initiatives of the four major CMRS providers, 911 service
providers, and PSAPs described above. However, we are concerned that
continuing to rely solely on voluntary measures could result in the
four major
[[Page 1805]]
CMRS providers implementing text-to-911 while other service providers--
including regional, small, and rural CMRS providers and third party
interconnected text providers--do not, or could lead to non-uniform and
uncoordinated implementation, inconsistent technological approaches,
and widely varying implementation timelines to the detriment of
consumers. This in turn could lead to a longer transition period,
increased transition costs, and increased consumer confusion regarding
when and where text-to-911 will be supported, what functionality it
will provide, and when and how consumers should use it where it is
available. We seek comment on this analysis.
46. Public safety commenters made a number of ex parte submissions
in the record highlighting the importance of deploying text-to-911
services. NENA conducted a comprehensive study and reported that the
majority of its chapters would support a requirement for wireless
carriers to provide text-to-911 services to their customers. APCO
argued that ``deferring action on the basic [text-to-911] requirement
would only lead to uncertainty and delay serious consideration of
implementation issues and requirements.'' NCTCOG submitted an ex parte
noting that the public expects to be able text-to-911 and highlighted
that ``a recent market study * * * showed that approximately \1/3\ of
our population believe they can text 9-1-1 today.'' The Maine Public
Utilities Commission noted that ``increasingly [persons with
disabilities are] abandoning the use of TTYs for new technologies such
as text messaging that allow them more flexibility to communicate with
most others except 9-1-1.''
47. We believe that a mandatory regulatory framework that builds on
existing voluntary initiatives will mitigate these risks by providing a
common deadline for the implementation of text-to-911. Moreover, while
under our proposal PSAPs will still have the option to choose whether
to accept text messages, greater uniformity in availability will
enhance PSAP options and make it easier to justify investments in
upgrades. Uniformity will also promote coordinated and consistent
deployment by establishing a set of baseline requirements for all CMRS
providers and third-party interconnected text providers to meet.
Finally, it will provide greater certainty to consumers regarding text-
to-911 availability, functions, and usage. Given the these substantial
benefits, we believe that the public interest is served by requiring
CMRS providers and third-party interconnected text providers to supply
text-to-911 capabilities to their customers on all text-capable
devices. We seek comment on this analysis and on possible timelines and
technical options for implementation of these proposed requirements.
2. Public Safety Benefits of Text-to-911
48. The record indicates that text-to-911 can offer significant
public safety benefits, most notably: (1) Widespread consumer
availability and ease of use, (2) enhanced accessibility to 911 for
people with hearing and speech disabilities, and (3) an alternative
means of emergency communication for the general public when 911 voice
service is unavailable or when voice calling could endanger the caller.
We note that text-to-911 service may also permit ``text-takers'' to
open multiple texts and prioritize the most life-threatening situations
first, rather than waiting to address calls based simply on the order
in which they arrived.
a. Availability and Ease of Use
49. The effectiveness of the legacy voice 911 system derives in
large part from its ease of use by consumers, and their familiarity and
comfort with voice calling on everyday devices. It is much easier for
people faced with the stress of emergency situations to communicate
quickly and effectively when they are able to use the same technologies
that they use for everyday communications. This principle, which has
long applied to voice calling, is increasingly true for communication
by text as well. More than 2 trillion text messages are sent annually
and according to the Pew Center, more than 7 out of 10 cell phone users
send or receive text messages. Another report suggests that 91 percent
of smartphone owners actively use SMS. Thus, expanding existing text
technology to support 911 will provide the public with a familiar mode
of communication for emergency use.
b. Enhanced Accessibility for People With Disabilities
50. Currently, approximately 15 percent of the United States
population, or 34.5 million people, have hearing disabilities and
approximately 7.5 million people have difficulty using their voices.
Moreover, there is a strong relationship between age and reported
hearing loss. For example, 18 percent of American adults 45-64 years
old have a hearing loss, 30 percent of adults 65-74 years old have a
hearing loss, and 47 percent of adults 75 years old or older have a
hearing loss. By 2030, 20 percent of the population will be over 65
years old, substantially increasing the number of Americans who may
need alternatives to voice communications when accessing 911. Further,
an increasing number of soldiers are returning from overseas and are
experiencing traumatic brain injury, which can result in hearing or
speech disabilities.
51. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), enacted
in 1990 requires PSAPs to provide persons with hearing or speech
disabilities with direct access to 911 emergency services. Since 1991,
the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has implemented this provision by
requiring all public safety agencies to make their telephone emergency
services directly accessible to TTYs. In the Notice, however, the
Commission explained that people with hearing and speech disabilities
have increasingly migrated away from specialized legacy devices, such
as TTYs, and towards more widely available forms of text communications
because of the ease of access, availability, and practicability of
modern text-capable communications devices. While the migration to
widely available texting technologies has had the unique benefit of
bringing prior TTY users into the mainstream of our nation's
communications systems, this transition has also led some commenters to
suggest that it leaves people with hearing and speech disabilities
without an effective, reliable and direct means of accessing 911
services in the event of an emergency.
52. The EAAC noted that individuals who cannot hear or speak well
enough to communicate with 911 currently have no direct means of
accessing 911 when mobile other than TTYs. However, with the vast
majority of people with hearing and speech disabilities having
discarded their TTYs, these devices are no longer considered a viable
means of directly accessing 911 for this population. Nevertheless, the
EAAC found that many individuals who are deaf have service plans that
include SMS. One ``key finding'' of the EAAC is that ``individuals with
disabilities should be able to call 9-1-1 using the same means they use
for everyday telecommunication.''
53. At present, individuals with disabilities who have stopped
using TTYs often have no other option but to rely on telecommunications
relay services (TRS) to access 911 emergency services. Text-based relay
services generally require an emergency call to first go to a
communications assistant (CA), who places the call to the PSAP. The CA
then relays the conversation back and forth between the caller and
[[Page 1806]]
the PSAP, by voicing all text that is typed by the person with a
disability to the PSAP call taker and typing back responses to the
caller. As such, many have criticized TRS as providing only an indirect
means of conveying information that may result in delays and
translation errors during an emergency. For example, Consumer Groups
note that IP-Relay, one text form of TRS, has not been widely embraced
by the deaf and hard of hearing community for requesting emergency
services because of the relatively long length of time it takes to
reach a relay operator and then get to the correct PSAP, the fact that
the call will generally arrive on a non-emergency line, and the
possibility of mistakes by the CA in the relaying of the call.
54. The record in this proceeding and the EAAC Report make clear
that a significant number of people with hearing and speech
disabilities will benefit from the ability to directly send a text
message to 911 from any device that is text-capable. Advocates for and
individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing strongly support
implementation of a near-term text-to-911 solution and disfavor text
relay approaches due to the risk of delay and translation errors.
Moreover, enabling direct text messaging to 911 by people with hearing
and speech disabilities will allow this population to use mass market
communication devices that have increasingly evolving capabilities.
While disability advocates have previously been skeptical of SMS-to-911
because it does not support real-time text, they have given more recent
support to SMS as a viable near-term solution because of its
familiarity and ease of use for people with disabilities. Respondents
to the EAAC survey expressed a clear preference for calling a PSAP
using the same technology that they use on a daily basis. Moreover,
87.7 percent of respondents reported having used SMS text messaging and
46.1 percent reported having used SMS text messaging ``almost every
day.''
55. Consumer Groups similarly urge the Commission to require the
deployment of SMS-to-911 technologies in the near term as a rapid and
practical means of significantly enhancing accessibility to the 911
system for people who are deaf and hard of hearing. Consumer Groups
point out that because consumers have already embraced SMS technology,
and the vast majority of wireless providers and manufacturers support
SMS, this capability may be deployed rather quickly. Likewise, the
Wireless Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center (RERC) ``strongly
supports'' the incorporation of SMS for the initial deployment of an NG
911 system. Similarly, the RERC on Telecommunications Access notes that
it is imperative for the Commission to ensure that mobile text
communication is available in the near term to people who are deaf.
c. Alternative Means of Emergency Communication for the General Public
56. The ability to send text messages to 911 will also provide an
important alternative means of emergency communication to the benefit
of the general public. While the general public will not need to use
text-to-911 services as frequently as people with hearing and speech
disabilities, experience has shown that there are situations where
being able to send a text message to 911 as opposed to placing a voice
call could be vital to the caller's safety. For example, in the 2007
shooting incident at Virginia Tech, a number of students attempted
unsuccessfully to send SMS text messages to 911 so as not to be heard
and located by the shooter. Similarly, in the Black Hawk County, Iowa
text-to-911 trial, text has been used in domestic and child abuse
situations in which the victim feared that the suspect would overhear
the call to 911. Additionally, the Vermont trial further demonstrated
text-to-911's efficacy in cases involving suicide and domestic
violence.
57. Text-to-911 can also provide a lifeline when voice networks are
impaired or congested. In large-scale disasters, for example, circuit-
switched landline and mobile networks may become overloaded, making it
difficult to place a 911 voice call. Conversely, SMS and IP-based text
messages to 911 can still be transmitted because text consumes far less
bandwidth than voice and may use different spectrum resources and
traffic channels. As TCS notes, ``[i]n situations in which a high 9-1-1
call volume results in blocked calls to the PSAP or situations in which
the wireless infrastructure capacity is impacted such that placing
voice calls is difficult or impossible, SMS communications to a PSAP
may provide the only reasonable communications method to emergency
services.'' TCS further notes that according to data it had drawn from
its CMRS provider customers, attempts to text-to-911 are made regularly
and the number of attempts to text-to-911 during the recent Hurricane
Sandy spiked sharply. TCS also highlights that unlike phone calls that
are be handled on a ``first-in, first-addressed'' basis without any
ability to know which queued up calls are priorities, a single ``text-
taker'' could open more than one text and ``attempt to address the more
urgent and life-threatening emergencies with greater priority.'' In
addition, the University of Colorado finds that ``text users and call
takers compose and read messages offline and only use communication for
the moment that the message needs to be sent [which] saves valuable
network resources during network congestion.'' Thus, people in disaster
areas may still be able to send text messages to 911 even if they
cannot place a voice call.
3. Technical Feasibility, Timing and Cost of Text to 911
58. Balanced against the above-described benefits of text-to-911,
we believe that the record indicates that text-to-911 is technically
feasible and can be achieved in the near term at a reasonable cost to
PSAPs, CMRS providers, and providers of interconnected text. We
disagree with commenters who argue that the Commission should not act
until NG911 is fully deployed. As we note above, it will likely take a
number of years to deploy NG911 on a national scale. The record also
indicates that it is technically feasible for CMRS providers to
implement a text-to-911 solution using existing technologies prior to
the full deployment of NG911, and we believe the same should be true
for interconnected text providers. Thus, text-to-911 could be made
available to virtually all wireless customers in the near-term and
delivered to both ``NG-capable'' and ``pre-NG'' PSAPs at a reasonable
cost to wireless carriers. In this respect, we also believe that
investments made now by PSAPs and carriers to support text-to-911 can
be leveraged to support NG911 deployments, and accordingly constitute
building blocks towards an IP-based emergency network. For example,
while some PSAPs may choose to implement text-to-911 through existing
equipment, such as TTY terminals, other PSAPs may choose to upgrade
their equipment to receive text messages in a manner that will also
support additional data in an NG911 environment.
59. We disagree with MetroPCS's argument that any text-to-911
obligations should ``only be imposed on the largest nationwide carriers
because the costs of increased regulations are more easily borne by the
largest carriers.'' There is no evidence that the cost of implementing
a text-to-911 solution will be substantial enough to warrant limiting
the obligation to the largest carriers. In fact, the first text-to-911
trial in the nation was conducted in Black Hawk County, Iowa by a small
[[Page 1807]]
wireless carrier. Further, we believe that exempting certain wireless
carriers from a text-to-911 obligation solely on the basis of size
would create additional consumer confusion, because consumers would
still be unsure of whether their wireless carrier provides text-to-911
service or not. We seek comment on these views.
60. Based on these findings and consistent with the Carrier-NENA-
APCO Agreement, we propose that all CMRS providers and interconnected
text providers should be required to implement the capability to
support text-to-911 in their networks. Because SMS is the most common
texting technology in use today, and virtually all wireless consumers
already have access to it and are familiar with its use, we expect that
most CMRS providers will initially support SMS-based text-to-911. At
the same time, we recognize that CMRS providers may eventually seek to
migrate customers away from SMS to other text applications, such as IP-
based real-time text or Rich Communication Services (RCS). Therefore,
we do not propose to require CMRS providers to support SMS-based text-
to-911 so long as they provide their customers with at least one pre-
installed text-to-911 option per device model that works across the
provider's entire network coverage area. We propose to allow CMRS
providers to select any reliable method or methods (e.g., mobile-
switched, IP-based) for text routing and delivery. We seek comment on
this proposal.
a. Impact on PSAPs
61. As noted above, public safety commenters generally support the
implementation of text-to-911 in the near term as a first step in the
transition to NG911. NENA notes that SMS is ``the prevailing consumer
text mode in the United States,'' and that in addition to being the
most widely available platform, SMS ``is also the most interoperable,
working between nearly every device on every network in the United
States.'' NENA also notes that Verizon's text-to-911 announcement
indicates that ``SMS-to-911 capabilities can be technically feasible.''
NATOA, NACo, and NLC state that they support the use of SMS as ``an
interim solution for text-based communication to 911,'' since it is
``particularly beneficial to people with disabilities, including people
who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech impediments.''
62. Black Hawk County highlights that it has not encountered any
text-related problems during its trial and notes that ``SMS text-to-911
is reliable and available, as clearly demonstrated in our project.''
BRETSA and the Colorado 9-1-1 Task Force state that ``the key advantage
of text messaging to 9-1-1 will be in facilitating communications with
the PSAP by speech and/or hearing impaired individuals. Text messaging
is generally preferred by the speech and hearing impaired community
over TTY communications because it is more portable, ubiquitous, and
convenient.'' Vermont argues that fears over the volume of emergency
text messages are ``overblown'' and ``remain[s] convinced that those
who can make a voice call will make a voice call as that is the most
efficient way to communicate in an emergency.''
63. While public safety entities generally regard near-term text-
to-911 as feasible, some express concern about the potential cost of
implementation and the impact on PSAP resources if text-to-911 results
in a heavy influx of text messages. The State of California states that
``[s]hort-term implementation of text-to-911 will likely increase the
time and resources required for PSAPs to process information as
compared to handling voice calls.'' APCO states that ``[w]hile SMS may
be appropriate as a near-term solution for limited circumstances, it is
not a long-term solution for the general public.'' NASNA opposes
encouraging wide-spread deployment of short-term SMS-based solutions
``[u]ntil such time as text-delivery standards are developed, adopted
and compliance is assured.'' Finally, BRETSA and the Colorado 911 Task
Force argue that ``devoting funds to an interim solution for text
messaging may mean that less funds will be available in the future for
a more effective solution, once NG9-1-1 has been deployed and PSAP
systems updated to take advantage of NG9-1-1.''
64. Based on the record in this proceeding, the Carrier-NENA-APCO
Agreement, and the success of the various technology trials noted
above, we believe that the implementation of text-to-911 will not
impose an undue burden on PSAP operations. First, under our proposed
framework, PSAPs will retain the discretion to decide whether to accept
text messages. Thus, if a PSAP chooses not to accept text messages,
there would be no requirement for it to do so and therefore no cost to
the PSAP. We believe that PSAPs are able to best understand their local
technological and financial situation, and determine whether it is
technically and financially feasible or desirable to implement text-to-
911 in their service area. While we share BRETSA and the Colorado 911
Task Force's funding concerns, we believe that PSAPs will be in the
best position to understand their ongoing NG911 funding needs.
Additionally, as much of the architecture for text-to-911 service can
be leveraged for NG911, we do not expect that funding text-to-911 will
divert resources from funding future NG911 services. Second, as
discussed in greater below, for PSAPs that elect to accept text
messages, we propose several options for the receipt of text messages,
including options that will impose minimal costs on the PSAP. Third,
while we recognize that the technology trials noted above are limited
in scope, the trial results suggest that PSAPs are not likely to become
overwhelmed with text messages.
b. Impact on CMRS Providers and Interconnected Text Providers
65. In response to the Notice, CMRS commenters initially opposed a
near-term text-to-911 mandate and argued that the Commission should
instead focus its efforts on long-term NG911 solutions. These
commenters cited a variety of concerns with implementing text-to-911
prior to the full development of next-generation solutions, including
technical limitations, limited monetary resources, reliability and
security, issues with consumer education, and liability protection.
Notwithstanding some of these concerns, however, the four major
wireless carriers voluntarily committed to deploy text-to-911
capability throughout their nationwide networks by May 15, 2014.
66. Further, the record indicates that the cost for CMRS providers
to implement a text-to-911 solution will be minimal. Indeed, according
to cost estimates that were submitted into the record by Intrado and
Bandwidth.com, the total cost for all CMRS providers to implement this
solution will be approximately $4 million annually. Based on our review
of the record, the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement, the cost estimates
provided by vendors, and the success of the text-to-911 trials and
demonstrations, we believe that it is feasible for all CMRS providers
to cost-effectively implement a text-to-911 solution in the near term.
We seek comment on this view. We also seek comment below on the
appropriate timetable for implementing our proposal in order to address
the concerns raised by CMRS commenters. We also seek comment on the
cost for interconnected text providers to implement a text-to-911
solution. More specifically, what are the likely initial and ongoing
costs for interconnected text providers? For routing purposes, can
interconnected text providers use the same service providers as CMRS
providers? If so, would the cost be similar? Would a per-incident
service model be feasible for
[[Page 1808]]
smaller interconnected text providers? Are there any other potential
costs that the Commission should consider? To that end, we seek
quantitative information for our cost-benefit analysis.
4. Cost-Benefit Case Study
67. States and localities collect approximately $2 billion in 911
fees and taxes annually for the operation and support of the legacy
voice-based 911 system. Most states have reported to the Commission
that ``they used the fees or surcharges that they collected for 911/
E911 service solely to fund the provision of 911/E911 service.''
Dependent on the regulatory mechanism set forth in each statute, states
distribute funding either to the carriers directly, or to a designated
state or local entity which then reimburses carriers. As we have noted
previously, the highest vendor estimate submitted in this record
regarding the cost to carriers to implement nationwide text-to-911
capability is $4 million annually, a mere fraction of the cost of the
current voice 911 system.
68. Balanced against this low cost, the implementation of text-to-
911 will provide substantial benefits both for people with disabilities
and the general public in a variety of scenarios. While not all of the
benefits associated with these scenarios are quantifiable, we have
conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the potential impact of text-to-
911 in the area of cardiac emergencies--a category that represents less
than 10 percent of 911 calls but for which detailed statistical
information is available. Even when we limit our analysis of benefits
to this subset of total emergencies, we find that the potential
benefits of text-to-911 for just this one category of 911 calls
outweighs the costs of implementing text-to-911 for all carriers and
PSAPs. We seek comment on our case study analysis below.
69. Our analysis is based on a 2002 study of cardiac emergencies in
Pennsylvania that found adoption of E911 to be associated with
improvements in the health status of patients, particularly those with
cardiac conditions. That Cardiac Study shows that, when precise
location information is provided contemporaneously with a 911 call,
response time is notably shortened and correlated with an over 34
percent reduction in mortality rates from cardiac arrest within the
first 48 hours following the incident.
70. The life-saving benefits demonstrated in the Cardiac Study
provide a useful reference point for assessing the importance of timely
and effective 911 communication to response time and positive outcomes
for medical emergencies. We therefore have extrapolated from the
Cardiac Study to determine the likely number of cases in which text-to-
911 might extend similar benefits to people with hearing and speech
disabilities who cannot use voice to contact 911, but who would be able
to communicate location information if text were available.
71. Based on the Cardiac Study, we calculate that for the voice-
based 911 system as a whole, improved response time resulting from
delivery of precise location information saves approximately 4,142
lives annually nationwide. To determine the proportionate benefit for
people with disabilities that would result from availability of text-
to-911, we consider only the 0.7 percent of the population with the
most severe hearing and speech impairments (0.5 percent for extreme
hearing difficulty and 0.2 percent for extreme speech difficulty).
Assuming a proportional number of 911 calls in cardiac emergencies from
this population, and limiting our calculation to intentional wireless
calls in which the hearing- or speech-disabled person cannot rely on a
speaking person to make the 911 call, we calculate that text-to-911
would save approximately 7 lives annually in cardiac emergencies. Using
an accepted statistical value-of-life model developed by the U.S.
Department of Transportation, we estimate the value of each life saved
to be $6.2 million. This yields a total benefit of $43.4 million
annually for cardiac victims alone, or more than ten times the highest
estimated cost of the rules proposed herein.
72. We emphasize that the benefits calculated above for cardiac
emergencies represent only a subset of the benefits that will be
generated by text-to-911. The record reflects numerous other benefits
that are less quantifiable but that may be similarly or even more
substantial. Black Hawk County and Vermont have cited concrete examples
where text-to-911 enabled callers to reach 911, but could not make a
voice call for safety reasons. Similarly, the record includes
additional compelling evidence that text-to-9-1-1 may provide
significant benefits in disaster scenarios due to the relatively high
reliability of SMS messages and the relatively low amount of network
capacity required to deliver an SMS message. These benefits, though not
specifically quantifiable, provide compelling evidence that the
aggregate benefits of text-to-911 will significantly exceed the
specific benefits quantified here--and will be generated at no
additional cost.
5. Reliability of Text-to-911
73. In response to the Notice, several commenters raise concerns
about the reliability of text-to-911, and particularly SMS-based text.
4G Americas notes that ``it found no short-term solution that did not
exhibit limitations with respect to capability, performance, and
impacts to users, network operators and/or PSAPs.'' CTIA states that
``SMS was not designed to be used as an emergency service'' and urges
the Commission to focus on the deployment of ``advanced 9-1-1 emergency
communications services in emerging wireless technologies.'' Other
commenters similarly assert that certain technical aspects of SMS limit
its reliability for emergency communications. Among the factors cited
are that SMS (1) is one-way rather than session-based; (2) lacks
delivery or performance guarantees, and may not inform the sender when
a text is not timely delivered; (3) does not prioritize emergency
messages; (4) does not assure that multiple messages will arrive in the
sequence they were sent; (5) does not support 911 location technologies
that are used for 911 voice calls; and (6) lacks protections against
transmission of spurious or fraudulent 911 messages.
74. Technical Studies. In response to the Notice, two commenters
conducted technical studies which present evidence that SMS-to-911 is
as reliable as voice, and in some instances, may be even more reliable
than voice. In the first study, researchers at the University of
Colorado tracked several hundred SMS text messages and found that ``the
reliability of text messages and mobile phone voice calls, in terms of
data loss, are very similar.'' The University of Colorado study ``found
that all of the text messages sent were received by the cellular
network, resulting in a `data loss rate' of 0% and a reliability level
of 100%.'' In addition, the University of Colorado study noted that
``[o]ther researchers have tested the reliability of * * * SMS * * *
and found that the `data loss rate' over several thousand messages was
less than 1%, resulting in a reliability level of 99%. The statistical
implication is that large samples might experience a small percentage
of data loss, but overall the reliability for text messages is similar
to that of voice calls.'' 4G Americas criticizes the University of
Colorado's findings and notes that the ``study was executed in an
academic environment with a pre-determined technology and setting. The
study did not involve a large number of subscribers, and hence, no
real-world traffic conditions.''
[[Page 1809]]
75. The University of Colorado study also found that text messaging
is actually more reliable than voice communications when a weak signal
exists, ``such as when the caller is in the mountains, in the midst of
high rise buildings, inside a building, under a collapsed building
following an earthquake or explosion, or in a trunk of a car [or]
closet.'' The University of Colorado notes that ``[c]ommunication at
the edge of coverage can be sporadic, allowing only momentary windows
of communications coverage that are not long enough to support a voice
call but a short burst of a text message can get through. In addition,
some implementations of SMS automatically keep trying to send a text
message until a transmission window opens.''
76. Intrado conducted the second technical study, in which it sent
``tens of thousands of actual SMS messages [from] a simulated PSAP to a
mobile device and from a mobile device to the simulated PSAP.'' The
study found that ``by using techniques such as the 9-1-1 SMSC [short
message service center], SMS can be used to create a very reliable and
timely 9-1-1 communication infrastructure.'' According to Intrado,
``90% [of the text messages] were delivered within 3-4 seconds.''
77. Discussion. While 4G Americas, CTIA, Motorola, and several
other commenters provide anecdotes about the limited reliability of
SMS-to-911, the University of Colorado and Intrado conducted the only
two technical studies on this issue. Notably, both of these studies
found that the reliability of SMS-to-911 is comparable to voice, and in
some instances, even more reliable than voice. Further, we believe that
the success of the existing trials, the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement,
and the continued rollout of text-to-911 services throughout the nation
demonstrate that industry has already overcome many of the reliability
deficiencies that were originally cited in the comments. While SMS was
certainly not designed for emergency communications, we disagree with
T-Mobile's claim that ``SMS is fundamentally unsuited for emergency
communications.'' Indeed, a life was saved in Vermont as a direct
result of Verizon's SMS-to-911 trial. Additionally, we note that, for
callers who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, reaching 911 by voice may not
be possible at all, so that even a mechanism that is not perfectly
reliable can provide significant benefit. For callers who are not deaf,
text-to-911 provides an additional way to reach PSAPs, thus increasing
the overall probability of obtaining help. Finally, we believe that our
proposal for wireless carriers to provide a ``bounce-back'' capability
will further mitigate reliability concerns. Accordingly, given the
significant benefits of text-to-911 service, we do not believe that
reliability concerns should delay the deployment of text-to-911. We
seek comment on this analysis.
6. Carrier and Third Party Non-SMS-Based Text-to-911 Applications
78. As technology and consumer habits evolve, consumer expectations
also change and the need to meet those expectations in times of
emergency must also evolve. As more consumers use SMS-substitutes,
whether provided by the underlying carrier or by a third party, it is
important that we evaluate ways to alleviate consumer confusion and
promote regulatory parity. We note, however, that despite this
proliferation of SMS-substitutes, the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement is
limited to SMS services provided by the signatory providers.
79. Accordingly, as discussed below, we are seeking comment on a
variety of issues associated with non-SMS messaging applications,
including ``over-the-top'' texting applications provided by third-
parties. In this regard, our focus is on those applications that are
most like SMS and therefore most likely to be the subject of a consumer
expectation that they may reach 911, namely those two-way texting
applications that allow text messages to be sent to any U.S. phone
number, irrespective of the hardware utilized to send that message.
80. Background. In the Notice, the Commission sought comment on
non-SMS text-to-911 alternatives, including IP-based messaging, real-
time text, and downloadable software applications. While noting the
potential advantages of SMS as an interim solution, the Commission also
sought comment on how to encourage the development of non-SMS options
that could provide more flexibility and functionality to consumers.
81. Commenters generally support allowing carriers and service
providers to develop alternatives to SMS-based text. NENA notes that
smartphone-based text-to-911 applications could lower costs for both
consumers and PSAPs and that ``because 9-1-1 text applications would
run on smartphones or advanced devices, their call streams could, in
some instances, operate outside the normal 911 voice call path.'' The
University of Colorado observes that ``there are an increasing number
of smartphone applications and other SMS short cuts that provide for
pre-stored and automatically composed messages, such as contact
information for an epileptic having a seizure, or to include location
[GPS] coordinates.'' Bandwidth.com notes that applications can be
``specifically geared toward enhancing the ability of the deaf and hard
of hearing to access public safety via texting.'' LR Kimball states
that ``[s]oftware applications that can integrate into the legacy 911
system should be the first choice in the short term to allow for more
complete access. * * * [and] should be developed in a way that makes
use of services currently in use at PSAPs.'' AT&T urges the Commission
to avoid imposing text-to-911 regime that would force carriers to
continue supporting SMS-based text-to-911 after SMS has become
technologically obsolete or economically uncompetitive.
82. In the Notice, the Commission also observed that consumers are
acquiring more advanced mobile devices (e.g., 3G and 4G handsets) that
enable them to install ``over-the-top'' software applications. In the
Notice, we sought comment on whether text-to-911 requirements should
apply to both CMRS and non-CMRS providers alike. The Commission sought
comment on the feasibility of using general texting or 911-specific
software applications to send text messages to PSAPs. The Commission
noted that both providers and third parties, including vendors that
provide services and equipment to PSAPs, could develop such
applications.
83. In response to the Notice, CTIA and AT&T noted the
proliferation of ``over-the-top'' software applications and highlighted
the need for the Commission to implement technology neutral regulations
that apply equally to both carrier-provided and non-carrier-provided
texting solutions. CTIA stated that ``it is * * * unclear how a
national SMS-based interim solution would work in the context of over-
the-top applications or other non-carrier-provided SMS solutions'' and
emphasizes that ``the [FCC] must * * * consider the severed link
between the licensed CMRS service provider and the emergency calling
capabilities, such as location accuracy, of end-user devices and over-
the-top applications.'' AT&T notes that: (1) ``limiting the mandate of
[t]ext-to-911 services to SMS services provided by telecommunications
carriers would be short-sighted, and thus a great disservice to the
general public[;]'' (2) a ``mandate that is exclusive to the SMS
platform fails to account for the fact that such services are
experiencing both declining revenues and usage due to the
[[Page 1810]]
proliferation of free [`over-the-top'] texting applications[;]'' and
(3) ``[t]he FCC must adopt a technologically-neutral solution that
applies equally to carrier-provided SMS services and competitive
alternatives to avoid distorting the marketplace to the detriment of
one service provider.'' AT&T further explains that ``failing to include
[`over-the-top'] substitutes in the mandate may cause significant
customer confusion regarding the accessibility of emergency services
via text message'' and that ``applying this mandate on a technology
neutral basis ensures that the effectiveness of the mandate does not
depend on the dominance of any platform or on the market position of
any group of service providers.'' Additionally, AT&T notes that
``including [`over-the-top'] providers in the scope of a text-to-911
mandate would assist ongoing industry standards work by encouraging
[those] providers to participate in * * * developing a text-to-911
solution.''
84. On the other hand, several entities express concerns about the
Commission extending text-to-911 obligations to ``over-the-top''
software applications. Sprint notes that ``[m]any * * * over-the-top
messaging providers are relatively small and likely may not have the
financial resources to achieve PSAP integration.'' Sprint also asserts
that ``it would not be able to control * * * third-party commercial
offerings nor influence how wireless consumers utilize such
applications.'' Further, Sprint highlights the limitations associated
with ``over-the-top'' software solutions, including the ability to
``obtain location information associated with a particular call.''
Similarly, U.S. Cellular states that it prefers text-to-911 to ``be
considered in the context of native SMS,'' and that it does not favor
covering over-the-top text applications. U.S. Cellular also notes that
``on some devices, SMS messages up-convert to MMS, and delivery of
those converted messages to PSAP[s] would need to be further
explored.'' Motorola Mobility maintains that ``any regulatory
responsibility for over-the-top text-to-911 applications, including
collection of precise location information, must rest only on the
application developer.''
85. The VON Coalition argues that ``there is no public policy
justification for extending SMS-to-911 obligations to over-the-top IP
text applications'' and maintains that ``[t]here is no evidence that
customers using over-the-top applications expect that they can use
these applications to contact emergency services.'' The VON Coalition
contends that ``[i]t seems highly unlikely that a wireless user with
both an SMS functionality and an over-the-top messaging application
would in some instances choose to open an application, sign in and then
send an `SMS' to a PSAP rather than simply using the wireless phone's
SMS capability that (a) the customer likely uses on a near-daily basis,
and (b) is readily available to the user without opening any
application or providing sign-in information.'' The VON Coalition
highlights that ``over-the-top messaging applications, which are
dependent on the availability of broadband Internet access, are less
reliable than a wireless carrier's SMS text services that require no
broadband availability and, moreover, very little bandwidth vis-
[agrave]-vis voice or other data communications on a wireless carrier's
network.'' The VON Coalition also notes that ``there currently are no
location solutions for over-the-top applications--neither for routing a
message to the appropriate PSAP nor to provide sufficient location
information associated with the caller.'' The VON Coalition adds that
``[b]ecause an over-the-top message is provided over another provider's
network--whether a wireless carrier, wireline carrier or a Wi-Fi
hotspot--there is no real-time location information associated with the
over-the-top message.'' Accordingly, the VON Coalition ``recommend[s]
that over-the-top IP-based messaging and text services that rely on the
mobile operator's data network should be excluded from an interim
[text-to-911 requirement] as they are precisely the type of
communications capability for which NG911 is intended.''
86. More recently, the VON Coalition reiterates these points and
further argues that the lack of user location information is an
impediment to enabling routing of an emergency text to the appropriate
PSAP. Moreover, they argue that implementing an interim solution
directed at text-to-911 may impact the transition to NG911, or may
stifle innovation and alter business models. Should the Commission
pursue a 911 obligation for IP-based SMS providers, the VON Coalition
urges that any obligation be limited to ``two-way'' over-the-top SMS,
so that a texting customer is able to receive a bounce-back message
where a PSAP is unable to receive text-to-911 messages.
87. Similarly, Apple urges the Commission, in addition to
considering the jurisdictional and technical issues associated with
implementing a text-to-911 obligation for over-the-top text messaging
application providers, to limit its proposals to those applications
that (1) are installed on a device that determines the user's location
using a technology that meets the enhanced 911 requirements set forth
in Section 20.18(h) of the Commission's rules; and (2) independently
enables the user to send text-based messages to and receive text-based
messages from any valid North American Numbering Plan telephone number
via the short message service protocol.
88. Discussion. As smartphone technology and applications
proliferate, wireless consumers increasingly have the ability to send
and receive text messages using downloadable software applications.
These applications may be provided to the consumer by the underlying
wireless service provider or by third party software providers, and may
use one of a variety of text delivery methods. For example, some text
applications deliver text to mobile telephone numbers over the
carrier's existing mobile-switched SMS network, while other
applications deliver text over IP data networks, and some applications
support both delivery methods and can also deliver MMS content. Several
over-the-top applications hold themselves out as competitive
alternatives to CMRS-provided SMS services. In addition, some software
providers have developed 911-specific software applications for
smartphone users that are designed specifically to support
communication by text and other media with PSAPs that install and
operate the application. As the Wall Street Journal recently noted, the
volume of SMS text messages per month sent by consumers has recently
dropped 3 percent, with the most likely explanation of this ``major
shift in mobile communications'' attributable to migration of these
messages to over-the-top messaging platforms. Another study suggests
that over 45 percent of smartphone owners use an SMS alternative such
as over-the-top messaging apps in addition to or in lieu of traditional
SMS. And while other analysts predict that SMS will continue to grow
globally through 2016, they further predict a large scale drop-off in
SMS in favor of over-the-top applications thereafter.
89. This trend towards development and use of new third-party text
applications has significant implications for the implementation of
text-to-911. While SMS is currently the most widely available and
heavily used texting method in the U.S., and is likely to remain so for
some time, consumer access to and use of third-party text applications
is likely to increase over time. As this occurs, some consumers may
choose to use such applications as their primary means of communicating
by text, relying less on SMS or possibly bypassing SMS entirely. In
that
[[Page 1811]]
eventuality, consumers that become familiar with software applications
by using them for everyday non-emergency communications will be
increasingly likely to prefer them for emergency communications.
Moreover, consumers faced with the pressure of an emergency may attempt
to use the most familiar application available to contact 911 even if
they are not certain that it will work.
90. Given this emerging trend for technology and consumer behavior
patterns, we believe it is important to consider whether certain third
party-provided text applications and carrier-provided applications
should be subject to text-to-911 obligations, particularly those that
hold themselves out as substitutes for carrier-provided SMS services.
In choosing to use a particular text application from a variety of
available options, consumers may not even be aware of the identity of
the party providing the application or the nature of network technology
that the application uses to deliver the text. Thus, imposing text-to-
911 requirements based on the identity of the provider or the delivery
technology could lead to some applications supporting text-to-911 while
other applications that are functionally similar from the consumer
perspective do not support text-to-911. In this respect, it may be
important to consider consumer expectations both now and in the future
as a matter of public safety, as well as to consider means to promote
competitive neutrality to ensure that like services are treated
comparably, thereby avoiding arbitrage created by artificial regulatory
distinctions.
91. As discussed above, consumers now have access to a wide variety
of tools that allow the sending of text messages on almost any
computing and communication device. However, as the VON Coalition
notes, consumers may not have the expectation to send text messages to
911 from all possible text applications, and some of these may face
significant technical difficulties in delivering text messages to the
correct PSAP, possibly depending on the platform the application is
running on. Thus, we divide text applications into two broad
categories, namely (1) interconnected text applications that use IP-
based protocols to deliver text messages to a service provider, which
the service provider then delivers the text messages to destinations
identified by a telephone number, using either IP-based or SMS
protocols, and (2) non-interconnected applications that only support
communication with a defined set of users of compatible applications
but do not support general communication with text-capable telephone
numbers. We seek comment on applying text-to-911 obligations on the
former category, but not the latter.
92. In this respect, we seek comment on the characteristics of
interconnected text applications to which text-to-911 obligation should
apply, if adopted. As described above, Apple suggests a two-prong
approach to determine whether an interconnected text application would
fall within the Commission's proposed text-to-911 obligations. The VON
Coalition similarly suggests that over-the-top applications should be
``two way'' in order for a text-to-911 obligation to attach. Are either
of these definitions appropriate? Are they too limited? Do these
characteristics conform to consumer expectations? For example, if a
text messaging application only provides for ``outbound-only''
messaging to a U.S. telephone number, would a consumer still expect to
be able to reach 911? Are there other characteristics that we should
take into account?
93. We also propose to treat providers of such non-SMS text
applications similarly to CMRS providers with respect to the obligation
to provide text-to-911 capability to their users within a defined
timeframe. By enabling text communication with any text-capable mobile
number, these ``interconnected text'' applications provide effectively
the same functionality that SMS provides currently. Therefore, we
believe the same text-to-911 obligations should apply on a technology-
neutral and provider-neutral basis. We seek comment on this proposal
generally and on the issues discussed below.
94. We also seek comment on whether third-party interconnected text
software providers face technical issues or obstacles in the
implementation of text-to-911 that could affect the extent to which a
text-to-911 requirement may be implemented, or the timeframe for such
implementation. Commenters agree that flexibility in implementation is
important to reduce the burden of deploying text-to-911. This is likely
to be particularly important for interconnected text applications,
since they are often designed by smaller enterprises. Do third-party
software providers face difficulties assuring that their application
works reliably on all hardware platforms, operating systems, and
operation system versions supported by the application? Do these
applications have access, possibly after asking for user permission, to
cell tower and/or geo location information via platform application
programming interfaces? Can applications warn users that disabling
location functionality for an application may interfere with the
ability to send text-to-911 messages? Could operating system providers
facilitate the access to location information for emergency calling and
texting purposes? If the text application cannot obtain location
information, under what circumstances can the application deliver the
text message to a gateway and have the gateway service determine the
approximate location of the message sender? Can texting applications
determine the cellular telephone number of handsets to help locate the
mobile device?
95. To facilitate discussion, we posit three possible
implementation choices and invite comment on their respective
advantages and disadvantages, as well as descriptions of additional
options. The descriptions are meant to be illustrative, and are not
meant to limit how implementers achieve the goal of providing text-to-
911 to users of their applications.
96. The first implementation option leverages the SMS application
programming interface (API) offered by common smartphone operating
systems. The interconnected text application would use the API to
deliver any text message addressed to 911, while using the application-
specific mechanism for all other, non-emergency messages. It appears
that many applications already separate messages by destination, as
they often only deliver messages using Internet protocols for certain
countries or regions.
97. In the second option, text-to-911 messages are handled the same
as any other text message and delivered to the SMS gateway provider
chosen by the application vendor. The gateway provider then delivers
those messages to text-capable destinations. This gateway provider
handles text messages addressed to 911 and delivers them to the
location-appropriate PSAP, possibly with the assistance of a third
party 911 message routing service.
98. Finally, in the third option, text-to-911 messages are
delivered via Internet application layer protocols to PSAPs, without
being converted to SMS along the way, using NG911 protocol mechanisms.
The messages can be delivered to PSAPs either by the provider of the
text messaging application or a third-party service provider.
99. Are there alternative mechanisms that might be used? Which of
these methods provides advantages or disadvantages for the application
developer? For the PSAP? For the consumer? Which options are more
likely to transition seamlessly to NG911, or provide a foundation that
can be
[[Page 1812]]
leveraged by one or more of the parties in the NG911 delivery chain?
How do these options differ in terms of implementation complexity,
reliance on technologies not readily available, cost to the text
messaging provider or reliability?
100. Commenters have previously expressed concerns about the lack
of access by the third party provider to consumer location information
associated with a text-to-911 message, impacting both the ability to
deliver the text message to the appropriate PSAP and the ability to
locate the consumer seeking assistance. Which of the options described
above facilitate delivery of location information? Are there other
technical mechanisms or commercial arrangements that would facilitate
the ability of a third party text application to ascertain the location
from which the text originated? Can a requirement to provide text-to-
911 precede such an ability? Can privacy controls utilized by some
applications to limit access to location information interfere with the
ability to identify the origination of a text-to-911 message? Are there
other privacy concerns that need to be considered, or is it reasonable
to assume that a person sending a text to 911 implicitly waives such
privacy concerns? Can third party text messaging applications bypass
any privacy safeguards when 911 is the destination short code?
7. Timetable for Text-to-911 Implementation
101. We seek comment on whether all CMRS providers and
interconnected text providers should be required to implement the
capability to support text-to-911 throughout their networks by May 15,
2014. In light of the public safety benefits of making text-to-911
available to consumers regardless of carrier or service provider, and
the benefits to both PSAPs and consumers from coordinated
implementation, we believe it may be desirable for all CMRS providers,
including small and rural carriers, and all interconnected text
providers to implement text-to-911 capability in their networks on a
timetable comparable to the four largest wireless carriers. Setting a
single, uniform deadline for all providers would arguably facilitate
coordination among text-to-911 providers, vendors, and PSAPs, reduce
the likelihood of non-uniform deployment, and provide consumers with a
clear expectation of when text-to-911 will be supported regardless of
which carrier or service provider they use.
102. We seek comment on this approach. Would a uniform timetable
help minimize consumer confusion? Is such a uniform timeframe feasible,
or are there factors that could prevent small, rural, and regional CMRS
providers and third-party interconnected text providers from
implementing text-to-911 in the same timeframe as the four major CMRS
providers? For example, some parties have posited that the relatively
small size and lack of resources for certain applications developers
would limit their ability to comply with a text-to-911 requirement. Is
this accurate? Are there other factors we should consider?
103. The Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement also states that once a
``valid'' PSAP request is made for delivery of text messages, ``service
will be implemented within a reasonable amount of time of receiving
such request, not to exceed six months.'' Further, a request for
service will be ``considered valid if, at the time the request is made:
(a) the requesting PSAP represents that it is technically ready to
receive 9-1-1 text messages in the format requested; and (b) the
appropriate local or State 9-1-1 service governing authority has
specifically authorized the PSAP to accept and, by extension, the
signatory service provider to provide, text-to-911 service (and such
authorization is not subject to dispute).'' Are these reasonable
conditions? Is six months an appropriate timeframe? What steps does a
CMRS or interconnected text provider have to take to add a PSAP to its
list of text recipients and how much time are such steps likely to
take? Should the same timeframe apply for both CMRS providers and
interconnected text providers? Should this timeframe become shorter
over time as the process for responding to PSAP requests becomes more
established and routine?
8. 911 Short Code
104. Background. Short codes for mobile-switched text messaging are
administered by the Common Short Code Administration (CSCA) and are
typically five-digit or six-digit numbers. In the Notice, the
Commission sought comment on whether a national short code for text-to-
911 should be designated by the Commission, a standards-setting body,
or some other entity. The Commission also asked how the short code
should be designated or implemented.
105. Commenters in general agree that the Commission should
establish and reserve the digits `9-1-1' as a national short code for
text-to-911. Most notably, under the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement, the
four largest wireless carriers committed to ``implement a `9-1-1' short
code that can be used by customers to send text messages to 9-1-1.''
APCO notes that ``text-to-9-1-1 should involve the digits `9-1-1' and
not a different short code'' and that ``[a]ny short code other than 9-
1-1 will eventually need to be phased out as regions are able to accept
text solutions direct to the PSAPs via NG911.'' NENA urges that ``any
short code implemented must be uniform across carriers and geographic
or political boundaries.'' King County states that ``a national short
code, ideally using the digits 9-1-1, should be designated by Congress
or the [FCC], similar to the designation of 911 as the national
emergency number by Congress.'' AT&T argues that the Commission should
``establish and reserve a standardized SMS short code'' and that it
``makes sense to use some variation of the present abbreviated dialing
pattern 9-1-1 for this purpose.'' Intrado believes that ``an
appropriate text solution should use the digits 911.'' Motorola,
however, cautions that there may be technical issues associated with
using 911 as an SMS short code in some devices, and that ``end users
experiences in trying to use 911 as an SMS short code may be seriously
lacking.'' Nevertheless, Motorola notes that it ``has released well in
excess of 100 mobile devices and software combinations in the U.S.
market within the past three years, none of which has been tested for
support of 911 as a SMS short code.''
106. Discussion. The evolution of 911 as the national emergency
telephone number has resulted in the digits ``9-1-1'' being widely and
uniformly associated with emergency communication in the United States.
American consumers are familiar with dialing 911 to place an emergency
voice call, and children are routinely taught to dial 911 as the way to
summon help from police, fire, and ambulance service. This widespread
use and consumer recognition of 911 makes it logical and highly
desirable to implement 911 as a standard three-digit short code for
sending emergency text messages to PSAPs wherever and whenever
feasible.
107. Moreover, the general technical feasibility of using 911 as a
text short code appears to be established. In each of the text-to-911
trials that have occurred to date, subscribers of the participating
CMRS providers have been able to use 911 as the short code for text
messages to participating PSAPs. Moreover, under the Carrier-NENA-APCO
Agreement, the four largest wireless carriers committed to ``implement
a `9-1-1' short code that
[[Page 1813]]
can be used by customers to send text messages to 9-1-1.''
108. Given the apparent technical feasibility of a 911 short code
and the widespread consumer recognition of 911 as the standard
emergency number in the U.S., we do not believe that other CMRS
providers should encounter any substantial issues with using a 911
short code. We therefore propose that whenever technically feasible,
all CMRS providers should configure their networks and text-capable
cell phones to support 911 as the three-digit short code for emergency
text messages sent to PSAPs. We seek comment on this proposal. We also
seek comment on whether there are any text-capable cell phones being
sold in the United States that are incapable of using the digits 911 as
a short code. If so, what are those devices and how many of them are in
use? To what extent, if any, could such devices be modified or updated
by a consumer or wireless retail store to support a three-digit code?
In the event that certain devices cannot be so modified or updated,
should we designate an alternate short code (e.g., a five-digit code)
that such devices could use?
109. With respect to interconnected text applications, we recognize
that ``short codes'' per se may not be appropriate conceptually for
non-SMS texting. We therefore seek comment about whether there are any
technical obstacles or other issues associated with such applications
using the three-digit identifier 911. How can these issues, if any, be
addressed? Are they specific to particular applications, or to IP-text
messaging generally? Should interconnected text applications provide an
icon indicating the ability to reach text-to-911?
9. TTY Compatibility Requirement for Wireless Services and Handsets
110. The Commission first adopted a requirement for wireless
carriers to be capable of transmitting TTY calls to 911 services in
July 1996. Although the initial deadline set for implementation of this
requirement was October 1, 1997, efforts to find a technical solution
to support TTY (Baudot) technology over digital wireless systems ended
up taking years of research and testing. As a result, the Commission
granted multiple extensions of time for entities to comply with this
mandate, ultimately requiring compliance by June 30, 2002. At that
time, per the 1996 Order, wireless service providers were required to
upgrade their digital networks to be compatible with TTYs and handset
manufacturers were required to provide a means by which users could
select a TTY mode on their phone's menus. However, by the time these
changes were implemented, new digital technologies, more mobile and
less expensive, had caused most TTY users to migrate away from use of
these devices as their primary communication mode.
111. It is for this reason that the CVAA included a provision for
the EAAC to consider deadlines ``for the possible phase out of the use
of current-generation TTY technology to the extent that this technology
is replaced with more effective and efficient technologies and methods
to enable access to emergency services by individuals with
disabilities.'' ATIS points to this provision in recommending that the
Commission waive the TTY compatibility requirement for new wireless
handsets where such handsets support the ATIS INES Incubator
recommended solution. Specifically, ATIS argues that ``[w]hile PSAPs
and wireless networks should support TTY services for the foreseeable
future, the TTY requirement for wireless handsets may be a redundant
communication modality for future wireless handsets that support the
recommended ATIS INES Incubator solution.
112. As we noted earlier, the EAAC survey confirmed the declining
use of TTYs by people with disabilities as well as the need for new
forms of accessible communications to reach 911 services--including
text and video--by persons who have hearing or speech disabilities. The
decline in TTY usage is also reflected in the steep reduction in the
number of minutes of TTY-based TRS over the last several years. At the
same time, an estimated 100,000 users make approximately 20,000
emergency calls annually using TTY. In other words, while it is true
that TTY use is declining, TTY still provides an invaluable, real-time
911 service for its users. Additionally, no similar robust products
exist for mobile and IP-networks, where the expected lifetime of a
product is about two years as opposed to TTY's ten year expected
lifetime. Finally, users of TTY may not wish to switch to a new
communication mechanism with which they are not familiar.
113. Therefore, we seek further comment on whether the Commission
should sunset the TTY requirement for new handsets, and if so, what
criteria should be adopted before such action is taken. If the
Commission does sunset the TTY requirement for new wireless handsets,
should it do so only contingent upon a wireless texting capability? The
EAAC recommended that the Commission lift the TTY requirement only for
those handsets that have ``at a minimum real time text or, in an LTE
environment, IMS Multimedia Telephony that includes real-time text.''
In addition, the EAAC's 2012 Subcommittee on TTY Transition concluded
that ``[c]onsistent implementation of a well-defined `TTY replacement'
with higher functionality real-time text, simultaneous voice and better
mobility can fill an important need in accessible communication for
user to user calls, relayed calls and 9-1-1 calls.'' We seek comment on
these EAAC recommendations concerning the removal of the TTY
requirement. Should the ubiquitous use of SMS, alone or with other
forms of text capability, be a factor in determining whether to lift
the TTY requirement? Or, does the real-time nature of TTY communication
make it fundamentally different from SMS, such that SMS is not a valid
replacement for TTY-capable handsets?
10. Routing and Location Accuracy
114. In the Notice, the Commission sought comment on how to ensure
that text messages to 911 include accurate location information for
routing to the appropriate PSAP and for determination of the sender's
location by the PSAP. The record developed in response to the Notice
indicates that it is technically feasible to route text messages
originated on CMRS mobile switched networks to the appropriate PSAP
based on the cell sector from which the text originated. Therefore, we
propose to require CMRS providers (and their associated text-to-911
vendors) to use cell sector location to route 911 text messages
originated on their networks to the appropriate PSAP. We also seek
comment on any technical or informational challenges for third party
interconnected text providers with respect to determining caller
location and providing the appropriate routing. We do not propose at
this time to require provision of E911 Phase II location information in
conjunction with 911 text messages, although we encourage its provision
where technically feasible. We discuss these proposals in greater
detail below.
a. Routing of Text Messages to the Appropriate PSAP
115. Background. While the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement does not
speak specifically to routing issues, the signatory providers agreed to
provide text-to-911 on an interim ``best-efforts'' service subject to a
valid PSAP request. However, the provision of text-to-911 under the
Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement is limited to ``the capabilities
[[Page 1814]]
of the existing SMS service offered by a participating wireless service
provider on the home wireless network to which a wireless subscriber
originates an SMS message.'' Many commenters, including public safety
entities, argue that any text-to-911 solution must be capable of
routing text messages to the appropriate PSAP based on the sender's
location. APCO states that ``any solution must provide PSAP call
routing capability that is as good as or better than what is being
deployed today.'' BRETSA and the Colorado 9-1-1 Task Force agree that
``[t]he location of the caller must be available for the purposes of
routing the call to the correct PSAP.''
116. Focusing on SMS-to-911, some CMRS commenters contend that
there are technical difficulties in routing SMS messages to the correct
PSAP. The Blooston Rural Carriers claim that ``current SMS standards do
not support automated routing to the PSAP or automated location
information.'' Sprint Nextel states that ``location information is not
included with SMS text messages and would not be available for PSAP
routing.'' 4G Americas argues that ``SMS * * * provides no location
information--not even a cell tower--so the originating network may not
accurately route the message to the correct PSAP. Because the lack of
location and session information, false messages can be easily spoofed
* * * without the PSAP detecting the spoof.''
117. However, commenting vendors counter that even if SMS was not
initially designed to support automatic routing to PSAPs, it is
technologically feasible to add the capability to route SMS text
messages to a specific PSAP based on the sender's location. According
to Intrado, SMS messages can be routed to the appropriate PSAP by
adding a Text Positioning Center (TPC) to the existing wireless
network. Intrado states that the TPC will ``function like a [Mobile
Position Center] associated with wireless voice calls'' and that
``[u]pon a mobile device's initial text-to-911, the TPC will determine
the appropriate PSAP to which to route the text request for
assistance.'' Intrado also notes that the ``routing determination will
be based upon the location of the cell sector to which the mobile
device is connected.'' TCS similarly states that SMS messages can be
routed to the appropriate PSAP ``[b]y combining existing location
technologies with existing SMS protocol capabilities.'' The VON
Coalition also notes routing challenges for third-party over-the-top
application providers, which may not have direct access to caller
location.
118. Discussion. Verizon and TCS have indicated that they will use
coarse location as the basis for PSAP routing determination in their
deployment of text-to-911. Moreover, according to the Tennessee
Emergency Communications Board (TECB), ``[t]he TECB would not have
agreed to host the pilot [with AT&T] had it not included the capability
for location information to travel with the text. The Tennessee pilot
will include a texting solution that includes rough location
information.'' The coarse or rough location information as referred to
by Verizon and TECB is the equivalent to the location of the cell
sector from which the wireless 911 call is made--or generally E911
Phase I information under the Commission's E911 rules. Given the
apparent technical feasibility of cell sector location and its actual
use in text-to-911 trials to date, we propose that CMRS providers be
required to route text messages automatically to the appropriate PSAP
based on the cell sector to which the mobile device is connected. We
also propose to define the ``appropriate'' PSAP presumptively for text-
to-911 routing purposes to be the same PSAP that would receive 911
voice calls from the same cell sector. However, we recognize that in
some instances, state or local 911 authorities may wish to have text
messages routed to a different PSAP from the one that receives 911
voice calls from the same location (e.g., to have all 911 texts within
a state or region routed to a single central PSAP rather than to
individual local PSAPs). Therefore, we propose to allow designation of
an alternative PSAP for routing purposes based on notification by the
responsible state or local 911 authority. We seek comment on these
proposals. We also seek comment on whether there are any technical
obstacles or cost factors that could make it more difficult for some
CMRS providers, such as small or rural carriers, to support automated
routing of text messages to the appropriate PSAP.
119. We also seek comment on specific technical or informational
challenges that third-party over-the-top messaging applications
providers may face with respect to assessing caller location and the
associated PSAP. Apple, for example, suggests that text-to-911
obligations should only attach for third-party text messaging
applications where the applications is installed on a phone that meets
the Commission's location accuracy requirements. Will this be
sufficient to enable such applications to accurately route a 911 call
to the appropriate PSAP? Are there other agreements or protocols that
would be necessary between the third-party application provider and the
underlying carrier to ensure appropriate routing? What would these
entail?
120. Several commenters noted that spoofing could compromise the
accuracy of location-based routing of SMS text messages to PSAPs. We
note, however, that the proposed systems use systems not under the
control of the caller to query for cell tower location. SMS messaging
uses the same mechanism as calls to provide the originating number to
the network, and thus, there is no unique attribute of text messaging
that leaves it open to spoofing. We also note that the potential for
spoofing already exists for VoIP calls to 911. As Vermont indicates
with regard to its text-to-911 trial, ``there is nothing about this new
technology that is any more likely to result in `spoof' contacts than
what we already deal with on the voice side of the system.''
Accordingly, we seek comment on whether the potential for spoofing text
messages is any greater than the potential for spoofing VoIP calls. Are
there any actions that the Commission could take to minimize the risk
of text-based spoofing?
b. 911 Location Accuracy Requirements
121. Background. In the Notice, the Commission noted that some
parties had expressed concerns about the inability of SMS to provide
the sender's precise location. The Commission sought comment on ways to
overcome this limitation. Specifically, the Notice asked whether it is
technologically feasible for the recipient of an emergency SMS text
message to query for the texting party's location using the phone
number provided The Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement does not specifically
address location accuracy issues. However, the Carrier-NENA-APCO
Agreement does limit the provision of text-to-911 to ``the capabilities
of the existing SMS service offered by a participating wireless service
provider on the home wireless network to which a wireless subscriber
originates an SMS message.''
122. Commenters indicate that, while it is feasible to use cell
sector location to route emergency texts to the appropriate PSAP, it
may be more difficult for CMRS providers to provide more precise
location information in connection with text messages. Neustar notes
that ``some wireless operators use network based location determination
mechanisms that depend on the handset being in a voice call to receive
enough measurement data to determine the location of the caller
accurately. Such networks could not be expected to respond with high
resolution location information for texters. This will be true
[[Page 1815]]
for any SMS to 911 solution.'' On the other hand, TCS indicates that
its system would use ``the same location technologies and strategies
used today for 9-1-1 voice calls to both route the text message to the
appropriate PSAP, and for delivering a more precise location of the
sender to PSAP personnel.'' TCS notes, however, that ``the carrier's 9-
1-1 location platform may not be able to provide location outside of a
9-1-1 voice call'' and that ``coarse [location] may be the only
available location for initial service launch.'' The VON Coalition
expresses similar concerns with respect to providers of ``over-the-
top'' text messaging applications in terms of their inability to access
user location information.
123. Discussion. The record in this proceeding indicates that
providing precise location information in connection with text messages
is technically feasible but could involve significant changes and
upgrades to existing SMS-based text networks. We are therefore
concerned that it could initially be overly burdensome to require CMRS
providers to comply with the Commission's Phase II E911 location
accuracy rules when transmitting text messages to 911. While we
recognize the importance of providing precise location information to
PSAPs, we believe that the benefits of enabling consumers, particularly
consumers with hearing and speech disabilities, to send SMS-based or
non-SMS-based text messages to 911 outweigh the disadvantages of being
unable to provide precise location information. Accordingly, we propose
that the Commission's Phase II E911 location accuracy requirements not
apply to the initial implementation of text-to-911. Nevertheless, we
encourage the voluntary development of automatic location solutions for
text-to-911 that provide at least the same capability as Phase II
location information for voice calls to 911, even if the location
solution does not use the same underlying location infrastructure. For
example, messaging applications could transmit location information
that is available on handsets using the data channel. Further,
applications that use IP-based message delivery may also be able to
include location information obtained via a mobile device API along
with the text message. We also seek comment on whether operating system
vendors or CMRS providers can facilitate the delivery of more precise
location for interconnected text providers. Are there any other factors
that the Commission should consider in regard to location delivery for
interconnected text providers?
c. Roaming
124. Background. Roaming enables wireless consumers to use mobile
devices outside the geographical coverage area provided by their home
network operator. In the Notice, the Commission asked whether it is
technically feasible to determine the originating location of an
emergency text message in all situations or whether it is feasible only
in situations where the customer is not roaming. As noted above, the
Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement does not provide text-to-911 capability to
wireless subscribers roaming outside of a subscriber's home wireless
network. Because sending and receiving texts while roaming involves two
networks, the consumer's home network and the visited roaming network,
roaming may create issues for text-to-911 because of the greater
technical complexity of routing the message to the correct PSAP based
on the consumer's location. In the non-emergency context, when a
wireless consumer sends an SMS message while roaming on a visited
network, the visited network passes the text message via designated
signaling links to the user's home network, which in turn sends the
text message to its final destination.
125. Several commenters address text-to-911 in the context of
roaming customers. In considering vendor proposals for text-to-911
solutions, NENA contends that applicable location requirements must be
met regardless of whether a consumer initiates or continues a text-to-
911 string through the consumer's home network or a roaming partner.
Similarly, APCO argues that when a device roams to a visited network,
911 text messages must be capable of remaining connected with not only
the PSAP, but also the specific call taker. T-Mobile voices a number of
concerns about roaming, stating that ``SMS-to-911 does not work when
roaming.'' T-Mobile further notes that ``SMS for a T-Mobile customer
roaming on another carrier's network remains supported by T-Mobile's
network and messaging infrastructure, rather than by the carrier
providing roaming. However, T-Mobile will not have location information
when its subscriber is roaming, and thus can neither determine whether
a roaming subscriber is in an area that supports text-to-911 nor route
the 911 text to the appropriate PSAP.'' U.S. Cellular stresses ``the
need for the FNPRM to include a discussion regarding the need for
requirements to address customers sending texts to 911 while roaming
outside of their carrier's network and for the resulting need to
address interoperability across carrier networks.'' Finally, Sprint
Nextel urges the Commission to refer technical considerations like
roaming to technical working groups and standards-setting bodies for
further discussion.
126. Discussion. We agree with NENA and APCO that it is critical
for consumers who are roaming to have the ability to text-to-911 during
an emergency, and we further note that current voluntary measures do
not provide for text-to-911 service while a subscriber is roaming.
Accordingly, we seek comment on whether both the home and visited
network operators must cooperate to support the delivery of the text to
the appropriate PSAP serving the sender's location when a consumer
sends a text message to 911 while roaming. We also seek comment on T-
Mobile's assertion that its network is unable to collect location
information on a roaming subscriber and is thus, technically limited
from providing text-to-911 for roaming subscribers. Could the visited
network intercept text-to-911 messages and determine the mobile device
location? What technical and economic obstacles need to be addressed in
order to provide text-to-911 service to consumers? How can these
obstacles be overcome? We also seek comment on whether the same
approach should apply to international roamers while they are located
in the United States.
11. PSAP Options for Receiving Text-to-911
127. There appears to be general agreement that the NG911
architecture offers an IP standards-based interface protocol that
supports the delivery of text messages, regardless of the technology
used by the mobile device. While some PSAPs are currently NG911-
capable, or soon will be, many other PSAPs will not be NG911-capable
for an extended period of time, limiting their options for handling
text messages in the interim. Thus, in order to implement text-to-911,
particularly on a nationwide basis, the Commission must take the
disparate capabilities of PSAPs into account. Accordingly, we propose a
set of near-term options that would enable all PSAPs to accept text
messages transmitted by CMRS or interconnected text providers,
regardless of whether the PSAPs are NG911-capable. This proposed
approach provides non-NG911-capable PSAPs with the flexibility to
handle text messages in the near term without requiring PSAPs to fund
significant upfront investments or
[[Page 1816]]
upgrades. We seek comment on each option and the proposal as a whole.
a. NG911-Capable PSAPs
128. We propose that text-to-911 service providers deliver text
messages to NG911-capable PSAPs using a standardized NG911 protocol,
such as the NENA i3 protocol. This will ensure a consistent format for
delivery of text messages to all NG911-capable PSAPs. We seek comment
on this proposal. Should the current NENA i3 protocol be the single
protocol used for delivery of all text messages to NG911-capable PSAPs?
How should we account for future releases of NENA i3 that may support
additional protocol interfaces?
b. Non-NG911-Capable PSAPs
129. For non-NG911-capable PSAPs, several technical options are
available that could be used for receipt of text messages. For its
part, the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement allows PSAPs to ``select the
format for how messages are to be delivered.'' We propose that non-
NG911-capable PSAPs be allowed to choose among several options, and to
designate a preferred option and one or more fallback options.
(i) Web Browser
130. Under this option, a PSAP would receive text messages via a
web browser installed in the PSAP (typically at one or more terminals
used by PSAP call-takers) and connected to a third-party service
provider. Verizon Wireless and TCS have stated that with respect to
Verizon's roll-out of text-to-911, they will offer PSAPs the ability to
receive text messages using the web browser approach. TCS states that
it has ``demonstrated a D-IP SMS client application that runs in a web
browser and gives a PSAP call-taker who has connectivity to the IP-
messaging network the ability to receive, view, and respond to the SMS
9-1-1 call.'' This approach will require the PSAP to have Internet
connectivity, but not full NG911 capability.
131. We seek comment on the web browser approach. Because many
PSAPs already have Internet connectivity even if they are not NG911-
capable, we believe that this approach would offer PSAPs a cost-
effective alternative for receiving text messages without having to
upgrade to NG911. We seek comment on what costs, other than Internet
access, a PSAP would have to incur when implementing a web browser
solution. For example, T-Mobile contends that TCS' web browser
application would require PSAPs to upgrade their CPE. Is this accurate,
and if so, what would the nature and cost of the required upgrade?
132. We also seek comment on how the web browser option should be
implemented in a multi-party environment where multiple web browser
options and applications may be available to both PSAPs and text-to-911
service providers. For example, it is possible that individual text-to-
911 service providers could offer different web browser applications to
the same PSAP, requiring the PSAP to either support all of the offered
applications or to request that the providers use a common application.
Alternatively, neighboring PSAPs could select different web browser
applications from one another, requiring a text-to-911 service provider
serving both PSAPs to support multiple applications or to request that
the PSAPs choose a common application.
133. As a practical matter, we expect that many of these issues can
be resolved through development by vendors of standards-based
interoperable web applications that enable CMRS providers,
interconnected text providers, and PSAPs to choose single-source
solutions rather than having to support multiple solutions.
Nevertheless, we seek comment on how such issues should be resolved
where CMRS providers, interconnected text providers, and PSAPs cannot
agree on a common web browser solution. Specifically, if the PSAP
chooses to receive text messages via web-based delivery, under what
circumstances should CMRS or interconnected text providers be obligated
to accommodate the PSAP's choice of web browser application? If the
PSAP uses a service provider (``text service provider'') to render text
messages to a web browser, as appears likely based on the service
trials, a problem would arise only if two CMRS or third-party text
providers use different service providers on their end to route text-
to-911 messages. In that scenario, we proposed to allow the PSAP to
designate its text service provider as the recipient of text messages
under two conditions. First, the PSAP text service provider must accept
text messages using industry-standard protocols, such as the NENA i3
standard. Second, the PSAP text service provider must not charge the
CMRS or interconnected text provider a fee for delivering such
messages. We seek comment on this proposal.
(ii) Text-to-Voice Gateway Centers
134. Under this option, a PSAP would receive text messages via a
gateway center where emergency-trained telecommunicators would
translate between text and voice. The gateway center would operate in a
manner similar to a telematics call center of the kind that telematics
providers such as OnStar use to handle emergency calls from their
subscribers and transmit such calls to 911. Telematics providers use
cell-site location to determine the caller's location, match the
location to the associated PSAP, and then use VoIP-based routing to
connect with the PSAP over its 911 trunks. Intrado has proposed a
similar solution for delivery of text messages through a gateway.
135. Some commenters express concerns about implementing a gateway
approach. T-Mobile notes that ``a national SMS relay center does not
exist today, and would have to be created and funded, which also cannot
be accomplished rapidly.'' Sprint submits that Intrado's proposal
``would require the installation of extensive infrastructure to adapt
wireless networks to the solution. Whether this proposal could
ultimately be successful nationwide as an interim text-to-911 solution
cannot be gauged, since testing has been very limited to date.''
136. We seek comment on the feasibility of establishing one or more
gateway centers for translation and transmission of text messages to
PSAPs. What are the potential costs of implementing this approach, and
how would such costs be allocated? Are CMRS providers or vendors
offering text-to-911 services likely to develop and offer a gateway
option to non-NG911-capable PSAPs? Are non-NG911-capable PSAPs likely
to choose this option over the web browser or TTY-based delivery
options if it is available?
137. We also seek comment on how best to ensure that text-to-voice
translation offered as part of the gateway option does not lead to
harmful delays in communication between the sender and the PSAP. We
anticipate that with proper certification and training,
telecommunicators will be able to handle these responsibilities
efficiently and professionally with a minimum of delay. We also
anticipate that as an increasing number of PSAPs become capable of
accepting IP-based text, the number of 911 text messages that will
require text-to-voice translation will decrease, though text-to-voice
or text-to-TTY (see below) may continue to be necessary until all PSAPs
have been upgraded.
(iii) Text-to-TTY Translation
138. Under this option, text messages would be converted into TTY
calls that the PSAP would receive over its existing TTY facilities.
Since all PSAPs already have TTY capability, this is potentially
[[Page 1817]]
a very low-cost solution that can be deployed relatively quickly.
Moreover, this solution supports direct communication between the
sender and the PSAP.
139. A number of commenters express support for this option.
Neustar contends that using TTY to transmit SMS-originated text
messages is a viable interim solution that could ``bridge the gap''
before and during the transition to NG911. Neustar notes that ``almost
all mobile phones are SMS capable but cannot do TTY and almost all
PSAPs [are] TTY capable but cannot handle SMS.'' Neustar further
asserts that this option could be implemented at minimal cost because
``carriers would only need to make small investments in providing cell
ID query mechanisms where they are not already deployed for itinerate
use, and PSAPs should be able to handle text-to-911 using their
existing TTY equipment.'' Verizon Wireless and TCS have stated that
they intend to permit PSAPs that lack Internet connectivity to receive
text messages using this approach.
140. On the other hand, some commenters state that TTY is an
outdated technology that could be susceptible to errors in an automated
text-to-TTY translation process. T-Mobile states that TTYs ``are not
sized for general public use'' and ``present their own technical
problems.'' T-Mobile also contends that investment in TTYs would be a
dead end investment, that TTYs are asynchronous and use Baudot tones,
and that the half-duplex nature of TTYs can lead to messages being
garbled if the texting party and PSAP call taker send messages over the
top of one another. INdigital submits that ``using the TTY protocol
with a 1% total character error rate * * * imposes a technical
requirement that is nearly impossible to meet.'' T-Mobile asserts that
``many PSAPs have a limited number of TTY-equipped answering stations
[and that] the capital investment required to handle the much larger
volume of messages that would result from a general public SMS-to-911
system could be substantial for cash-strapped PSAPs.'' APCO adds that
PSAPs ``us[ing] standalone TTY devices * * * will face additional
challenges if the volume of calls to these legacy devices increase[s]
dramatically.''
141. We seek comment on the feasibility and potential costs and
benefits of making the text-to-TTY approach available as a text
delivery option for CMRS providers, interconnected text providers, and
PSAPs. Given the age and technical limitations of the PSAPs' existing
TTY equipment, are PSAPs capable of handling a volume of text messages
transmitted over TTY from the general public that could be much larger
than the low current volume of TTY 911 traffic? Could the technical
problems associated with TTYs result in translation errors? Are there
measures that could be taken to improve the capacity and reliability of
TTY equipment to handle text-to-911? Are larger PSAPs likely to make
use of TTYs to receive text-to-911 messages, compared to the other
options discussed earlier? Do most PSAPs have stand-alone TTY devices
or are these more likely to be built into the call taker equipment and
would thus be able to handle a larger text volume?
(iv) State/Regional Approach
142. Under this option, a state or regional 911 authority could
designate a NG911-capable PSAP to receive and aggregate 911 text
messages over a large region served by multiple non-NG911-capable
PSAPs, such as a county, a multi-county region, or an entire state. The
NG911-capable PSAP would exchange text messages with the caller and
then communicate by voice with the non-text-capable PSAP that serves
the caller's location. This approach is being applied in the Black Hawk
County, Iowa text-to-911 trial, where the Black Hawk County PSAP
accepts text messages from any i-Wireless user located in the state,
thus acting as a gateway for other PSAPs in the state.
143. We seek comment on this approach. In general, allowing 911
authorities to aggregate handling of text messages through a single
PSAP on a statewide or regional basis could accelerate the availability
of text-to-911 and lead to cost savings in its implementation. This
approach would also minimize the operational and technological impact
of text-to-911 for non-text-capable PSAPs. However, relaying text
messages from the designated PSAP to other PSAPs in the state or region
could lead to delay in responding to emergency text as compared to
emergency voice calls. We seek comment on what measures, if any, could
reduce the risk of such delay.
c. Notification of PSAP Acceptance and Delivery Method
144. In order for CMRS and interconnected text providers to deliver
and PSAPs to receive emergency texts under the framework proposed in
this Further Notice, a mechanism will be needed for each PSAP to notify
providers (or their text-to-911 vendors) that it is prepared to accept
text messages and indicating the delivery option it has chosen. In the
Notice, the Commission sought comment on the possibility of developing
a centralized routing database or databases that would identify which
PSAPs are accepting text-to-911 messages and the routing a delivery
method selected by each PSAP. The Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement does not
specify a specific notification procedure; however, it defines a
``valid request'' for text-to-911 service as one in which ``the
requesting PSAP represents that it is technically ready to receive 911
text messages in the format requested,'' and ``the appropriate local or
State 911 service governing authority has specifically authorized the
PSAP to accept and, by extension, the signatory service provider to
provide, text-to-911 service (and such authorization is not subject to
dispute).''
145. In its comments, Bandwidth.com proposes a gateway architecture
that includes a database of all PSAPs with their preferences for
handling text messages. This approach would arguably have efficiency
advantages because it would enable PSAPs to provide notification
regarding text delivery only once to all parties, rather than having to
inform every wireless carrier or systems service provider individually.
It would also enable providers of text-to-911 routing services to
coordinate their databases for the routing of text messages. We seek
comment on the feasibility and cost of implementing a gateway
architecture or database mechanism. If such coordination is desirable,
how can it be encouraged or facilitated? What entity should operate the
database? How should PSAPs declare their preferences? Can the registry
of preferences be implemented as an extension of the Commission's PSAP
database? Should there be a default preference to ensure that PSAPs
that do not declare their text delivery option by a certain date are
then assumed to prefer text-to-TTY delivery, since that option should
be available without further PSAP action? What constitutes a valid
notification? The Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement requires an appropriate
local or State 911 service governing authority to specifically
authorize a PSAP to accept text-to-911. Should this be a requirement
for a valid notification?
146. We seek comment on the feasibility and cost of implementing
Bandwidth.com's proposal or a similar gateway architecture or database
mechanism. This approach would arguably have efficiency advantages
because it would enable PSAPs to provide notification regarding text
delivery only once to all parties, rather than having to inform every
CMRS provider or systems service provider
[[Page 1818]]
individually. It would also enable providers of text-to-911 routing
services to coordinate their databases for routing text messages, via
the ECRF. If such coordination is desirable, how can it be encouraged
or facilitated? How should PSAPs declare their preferences? Should
there be a default preference to ensure that PSAPs that do not declare
their text delivery option by a certain date are assumed to prefer
text-to-TTY delivery, since that option should be available without
further PSAP action? Who should operate such a database? Can this
registry of preferences be implemented as an extension of the
Commission PSAP database?
12. Cost Recovery and Funding
147. While we seek to structure our proposals to keep text-to-911
costs as low as possible for both text-to-911 service providers and
PSAPs, we seek comment on whether there are additional actions that the
Commission could take to enable text-to-911 service providers and PSAPs
to recover their costs. We note that under the Carrier-NENA-APCO
Agreement, signatory providers agreed to provide text-to-911
``independent of their ability to recover these associated costs from
state or local governments.'' At the same time, the Carrier-NENA-APCO
Agreement requires that ``incremental costs for delivery of text
messages (e.g. additional trunk groups to the PSAP's premises required
to support TTY delivery) will be the responsibility of the PSAP, as
determined by individual analysis.''
a. Text Messaging Providers
148. Background. In response to the Notice, a number of CMRS
commenters express concerns over funding text-to-911. CTIA states that
``[a]ppropriate funding is a significant uncertainty given the
considerable resources that would be needed to deploy text-to-911
capabilities on a nationwide basis.'' RCA notes that ``[c]oncern for
adequate funding of future 911 systems is widespread and the increasing
burden on wireless and IP-based providers to maintain the 911 system
moving forward is troubling.''
149. Vendors contend that existing 911 cost allocation mechanisms
can be used to recover the cost to implement near-term text-to-911 for
both CMRS providers and PSAPs. Intrado asserts that the cost of every
``functional element'' of a text-to-911 solution ``can be allocated to
wireless carrier networks and PSAPs consistent with how they are
assigned today under the Commission's King County demarcation ruling.''
Intrado submits that, depending on which ``functional elements'' PSAPs
choose to implement at each stage of text-to-911, ``the cost
allocations can be changed if funding considerations dictate.''
150. Some commenters suggest that existing funding mechanisms, such
as TRS and the Universal Service Fund (USF) could be applied to recover
costs of text-to-911 implementation. Intrado contends that ``the FCC
can and should determine that SMS is eligible for TRS funding to the
same extent that IP-Relay is eligible for TRS funding.'' Bandwidth.com
submits that ``a default destination for text messages that do not have
location info must be determined'' and contends that ``[t]he TRS/VRS
and IP Relay service providers provide an excellent option for this
function given their existing role in facilitating communications
between deaf or hard-of-hearing callers and PSAP personnel.'' NASNA
also urges the Commission to consider ``[u]se of the Universal Service
Fund to assist States and regions with the costs of NG911.''
151. Discussion. We believe that existing cost recovery mechanisms
are sufficient to support implementation of text-to-911 under the
framework presented in this Further Notice. Generally, CMRS providers
recover their 911 implementation costs from their subscriber base.
Since CMRS providers already support SMS and other texting applications
in their networks, and have the ability to recover costs of those
applications from their customers, it appears that the primary
additional cost for CMRS providers to implement text-to-911 will be to
establish and support the specific routing and relay functions needed
to transmit emergency text messages to PSAPs. Additionally, under the
Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement, the major carriers have agreed to provide
this service independent of cost recovery from state or local
governments. The record indicates that the incremental cost would be in
the range of $4 million annually.
152. We also note that an additional source of funding to reimburse
wireless carriers for their 911 service implementation costs can be
found in certain cost recovery programs that have been established
through state legislation. Most states have reported to the Commission
that ``they used the fees or surcharges that they collected for 911/
E911 service solely to fund the provision of 911/E911 service.''
Dependent on the regulatory mechanism set forth in each statute, states
distribute funding either to the carriers directly, or to a designated
state or local entity which then reimburses carriers. For example,
Alabama provides that ``20% of the service charges collected are
retained by the [States' Wireless 9-1-1] board * * * to reimburse
wireless service providers for Phase I and II expenses.'' In
comparison, Nebraska provides that from its 911 fund ``payments are
also made directly to wireless carriers for costs incurred for the
provision of enhanced wireless 911 services.'' Though the means and
extent to which carriers receive state-prescribed reimbursement for 911
implementation costs vary from state to state, we find that such cost
recovery programs are an available and significant source of funding
that can facilitate the roll-out of text-to-911 capability. Moreover,
some states have started to apply their 911 funding to initiate
deployment of full NG911 capabilities.
153. Additionally, many states allow qualifications for cost to
include NG911-capable components for which CMRS providers might recover
their outlays. For example, Verizon and Verizon Wireless note that
``[m]any state and local governments have * * * begun reconfiguring
their funding mechanisms to facilitate NG911 deployment. We find that
such actions could provide CMRS providers with additional funding
flexibility to develop routing and gateway functions. We seek comment
on this view and request that commenters update the Commission on any
such efforts that are underway.
154. We also seek comment on whether USF funding could play a role
in cost recovery, particularly for low-cost text to-911 options such as
the TTY-based approach. Could using these funding mechanisms expedite
text-to-911 implementation? What modifications, if any, would the
Commission have to make to these funding programs to achieve those
objectives? In commenting on these approaches, commenters should
consider the Commission's recent amendment of its universal service
rules to specify that the functionalities of eligible voice telephony
services include, among other things, access to 911 and E911 emergency
services to the extent the local government in an eligible carrier's
service area has implemented 911 or E911 systems. The Commission noted
that Eligible Telecommunications Carriers (ETCs) ``will be required to
comply with NG911 rules upon implementation by state and local
governments.''
155. Finally, we seek comment on current or potential approaches
that would enable third party interconnected text providers to receive
cost recovery for obligations they may have to provide services and
offerings to implement text-to-911 capabilities. In view of the
[[Page 1819]]
funding mechanisms in several states for CMRS providers to receive cost
recovery, we seek comment on whether such state level mechanisms might
currently apply to enable interconnected text providers to receive cost
recovery in complying with text-to-911 obligations proposed in this
Further Notice. We also seek comment on whether states or other
jurisdictions provide or plan to provide cost recovery mechanisms that
could apply to interconnected text providers. We note that under our
proposed framework, the infrastructure used by interconnected text
providers would be similar to the infrastructure used by CMRS providers
for the delivery of text messages to a PSAP. We seek comment on whether
this would facilitate extending existing cost recovery mechanisms on
CMRS providers to interconnected text providers.
b. PSAPs
156. Background. A number of public safety commenters express
concerns about funding, noting that many PSAPs are subject to state and
local regulatory mandates that may affect their ability to fund the
implementation of text-to-911 service. APCO asserts that ``[m]any PSAPs
are mandated to answer 90% of their incoming 9-1-1 calls in 10 seconds
or less to qualify for receipt of wireless surcharge and other 9-1-1
funds.'' APCO further contends that ``[i]t is unlikely that these * * *
mandates will be modified to accommodate the additional time that
interim solution based text calls may have on the PSAP's ability to
meet these standards.'' APCO argues that, consequently, ``implementing
SMS text-to-9-1-1 may jeopardize some PSAPs eligibility for surcharge
funds.'' NATOA concurs, stating that ``localities could lose vital 911
fees and other funding in the event they fail to meet performance
mandates due to the increased time necessary to handle text-based
calls.'' Other commenters, however, assert that recent trials have not
substantiated the alleged increase in call-taking time due to the
characteristics of SMS text.
157. Wireless carrier commenters also question whether PSAPs have
the necessary funding to support the transition to text-to-911. The
Blooston Rural Carriers argue that ``at this point in time and for the
foreseeable future, PSAPs are simply not equipped (and will not be
equipped) to process SMS text-to-911 transmissions, and the costs
associated with the PSAP upgrades needed to achieve this capability are
apt to be great.'' Verizon and Verizon Wireless assert that ``many
PSAPs will need to secure funding sources, all will need time to
upgrade their own networks and facilities and train personnel, and all
will need to educate consumers on where NG911 is available. * * *.''
Verizon and Verizon Wireless further submit that ``the Commission
should avoid mandates for short-term solutions that would force NG911
to compete with SMS-based solutions for PSAP and service provider
resources.'' 4G Americas cites the ``[s]carce funding for PSAP NG911
upgrades [a]s a major concern'' and argues that ``[it] would do little
good to mandate carrier near-term deployment of technologies that would
require massive investments by PSAPs or require a complete overhaul of
existing emergency communications systems.''
158. In view of perceived funding difficulties, both public safety
commenters and CMRS providers advocate a regional or state-level
approach to lower costs and generate economies of scale in implementing
near-term text-to-911 as well as facilitating a transition to NG911.
CTIA contends that ``[a] statewide approach to NG911 deployment will
encourage wireless service providers and PSAPs to coordinate their
efforts to deploy requested services in a reasonable and efficient
manner and mitigate public confusion regarding the capabilities
available to a local PSAP.'' Verizon and Verizon Wireless submit that
``[a] statewide approach provides a bright-line mechanism that is
consistent with funding mechanisms, which are generally governed at the
state level * * *.'' Verizon and Verizon Wireless refer to a ``current
trend in state governments toward greater PSAP consolidation and
statewide coordination of NG911 efforts.'' King County notes that ``it
may not be feasible to fund the upgrades necessary for NG911 at the
state's 64 PSAPs'' and that ``[t]he State E911 Office and the NG911
Subcommittee have developed a plan for the centralization of equipment
at various hubs throughout the state that will serve multiple PSAPs in
order to reduce equipment upgrade costs.'' Verizon and Verizon Wireless
remark that ``[i]t is not necessary that every jurisdiction within a
state be NG911 capable prior to a service provider's initiation of
service within the state.'' RCA adds that ``the current economic
climate and need for financial restraint make consolidation of PSAPs an
essential part of the transition to NG911'' and that ``[c]onsolidation
is one of the most important preliminary steps on the path to
widespread NG911 deployment.''
159. Further, NENA contends that ``[i]t will prove most efficient
if requests for text service originate from these larger units,
reducing costs for both the public and the providers called upon to
provide service.'' NENA cautions, however, ``that 9-1-1 remains * * *
[a local service] that, in many states, is provided by small local
agencies below the county level with little or no higher level
coordination or oversight.'' ``[T]o maintain the autonomy to which 9-1-
1 system operators have become accustomed,'' NENA suggests that the
Commission ``refrain from mandating a regional or state-wide approach
to system readiness showings, and instead make such aggregated showings
optional, at the election of the states.''
160. Discussion. PSAPs generally pay for their 911 costs from state
and local revenues generated by monthly 911 fees that CMRS providers
collect from their subscribers. Wireless carriers argue that cost
recovery regulations in many jurisdictions are inadequate to meet PSAP
funding needs for text-to-911. Verizon and Verizon Wireless note that
``[s]ome jurisdictions impose significant restrictions on use of 911-
related fees or taxes by limiting the use of such monies for
traditional local exchange and commercial mobile radio services, or
imposing explicit restrictions on the types of equipment and services
that may be purchased.'' Verizon and Verizon Wireless add that
``[s]tate and local jurisdictions that face funding constraints may, if
given a choice between a costly SMS-based solution versus a more robust
IP-enabled NG911 technology, opt for the former.'' Although ``a
particular jurisdiction [could] fund both direct SMS and NG911
solutions, such an outcome could result in even higher fees imposed on
consumers with marginal additional public safety benefit.''
161. As discussed above, we propose several options that consider
the disparities in PSAPs' current technical capabilities and that
enable non-NG911-capable PSAPs to handle texts without significant cost
or upgrades. For instance, both the Web delivery and the TTY-
translation options is a low cost alternative because PSAPs already
have TTY capability. While this option employs an IP-gateway to
facilitate routing functions compared to the traditional relay function
of TTY/TDD, we believe that, in view of the relatively low cost to
PSAPs to implement TTY-translation-based text-to-911, existing funding
mechanisms can serve to defray the costs. Similarly, PSAPs that choose
the gateway center option can limit costs by using already-trained CAs
to translate between text and voice.
162. Moreover, contrary to Verizon and Verizon Wireless' assertion
that
[[Page 1820]]
funding for interim text-to-911 solutions would adversely affect the
resources available to support a transition to full NG911 capabilities,
we believe that the low cost options discussed above constitute a
reasonable and cost efficient alternative to resolving possible
limitations in funding at the state or local level. Additionally, we
note that under the current Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement, PSAPs would be
responsible for their incremental costs for delivery of text messages.
We seek comment on this view.
163. Based on our proposal to offer PSAPs an array of text-to-911
delivery options, including options that entail very limited cost, we
believe that existing funding mechanisms constitute a sufficient
resource to implement text-to-911 within our proposed time frame. We
seek comment on this approach. We also seek comment on whether these
funding mechanisms could be applied to other IP-based component
upgrades. If not, what modifications need to occur? Are there actions
the Commission could take to encourage or facilitate those
modifications at the state or regional level? We invite comment on
approaches that the Commission could pursue to encourage the states or
regional entities to address such changes in funding to incentivize
deploying the necessary text-to-911 upgrades within the proposed
timeframe.
13. Liability Protection
164. Background. In general, liability protection for provision of
911 service is governed by state law and has traditionally been applied
only to LECs. However, Congress has expanded the scope of state
liability protection by requiring states to provide parity in the
degree of protection provided to traditional and non-traditional 911
providers, and more recently, to providers of NG911 service. In 2008,
Congress enacted the New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act
(Net 911 Act), which provides that a ``wireless carrier, IP-enabled
voice service provider, or other emergency communications provider * *
* shall have'' the same liability protection as a local exchange
carrier under federal and state law. In February 2012, Congress further
extended state liability protection to providers of NG911 service in
the Next Generation 9-1-1 Advancement Act of 2012. The Next Generation
911 Advancement Act provides that ``a provider or user of Next
Generation 9-1-1 services * * * shall have immunity and protection from
liability under Federal and State law [to the extent provided under
section 4 of the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of
1999],'' with respect to ``the release of subscriber information
related to emergency calls or emergency services,'' ``the use or
provision of 9-1-1 services, E9-1-1 services, or Next Generation 9-1-1
services,'' and ``other matters related to 9-1-1 services, E9-1-1
services, or Next Generation 9-1-1 services.''
165. In the Notice, which was released prior to the Next Generation
911 Advancement Act, the Commission asked whether the liability
provisions in the NET 911 Act embrace the full range of technologies
and service providers that will be involved in the provisioning of
NG911 services. The Notice also asked whether the Commission has the
authority to extend liability protection to entities involved in the
provisioning of NG911 services or whether Congressional action is
necessary.
166. In response to the Notice, numerous commenters argue that
liability protection is essential as part of any extension of 911
requirements to include text. Commenters also assert that the lack of
express liability protection for NG911 has hampered the deployment of
NG911 networks. Commenters also argue that federal law requiring parity
in state law protection does not adequately protect 911 and NG911
service providers because the scope of underlying liability protection
is dictated by state law and varies from state to state. AT&T, for
example, argues that ``liability protection presently provided under
the NET 911 Act is insufficient because it is tied to the protection
afforded under various state laws and, often, a local exchange
carrier's tariff.'' Motorola argues that ``[n]ational consistency in
liability protection will be essential to encouraging investment and
promoting a smooth NG911 transition.''
167. Discussion. We recognize that adequate liability protection is
needed for PSAPs, CMRS providers, third party interconnected service
providers, and vendors to proceed with implementation of text-to-911 as
contemplated in this Further Notice. The recent passage of the Next
Generation 911 Advancement Act has significantly expanded the scope of
liability protection and potentially resolved some of the issues raised
by commenters by making clear that states must provide the same level
of protection for NG911 as for traditional 911 and E911. We also note
that under the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement, the four major wireless
carriers have committed to deploy text-to-911 capability throughout
their nationwide networks without any precondition requiring additional
liability protection other than the protection that is provided by
current state and Federal law. Nevertheless, we seek comment on whether
there are additional steps the Commission could take--consistent with
our regulatory authority--to provide additional liability protection to
text-to-911 service providers. We also seek comment on whether the
combined parity protection afforded by the NET 911 Act and the Next
Generation 911 Advancement Act extends to all providers of text-to-911
service, regardless of whether such service is provided using pre-NG911
or NG911 mechanisms. We seek comment on whether providers of text-to-
911 service have sufficient liability protection under current law to
provide text-to-911 services to their customers, or whether additional
protection may still be needed or desirable.
C. Legal Authority
168. We seek comment on the Commission's authority to apply the
automated error message and more comprehensive text-to-911 rules
proposed herein to both CMRS providers and other entities that offer
interconnected text messaging services (including third-party providers
of ``over-the- top'' text messaging applications). In doing so, we
incorporate herein the portions of our 2011 Notice regarding the
Commission's authority to adopt text-to-911 rules. We note that, in
response to our 2011 Notice, numerous parties addressed the
Commission's authority to adopt text-to-911 rules under the CVAA, Title
III, and our ancillary authority. Since then, we have modified our
proposals and taken into account recent developments regarding the
deployment of text-to-911 offerings, including the recent Carrier-NENA-
APCO Agreement.
169. We now ask parties to refresh the record on the legal
authority issues and to address their comments to the particular rules
being proposed herein. Specifically, we ask commenters to address the
Commission's authority under the CVAA to apply the proposed rules to
this circumstance, and in particular to other entities that offer
interconnected text messaging service. In this regard, we seek comment
on how the Commission's ``authority to promulgate regulations to
implement the recommendations proposed by'' EAAC applies to this
circumstance. Would the Commission's decision to adopt the proposed
text-to-911 rules implement EAAC recommendation P4.1, titled ``Interim
Text Access,'' or recommendation T1.2, titled ``Interim Mobile Text
Solution''? Are there other
[[Page 1821]]
EAAC recommendations relevant to our authority under Section 615c(g)?
We also invite comment on how the Commission's authority to promulgate
``any other regulations, technical standards, protocols, and procedures
as are necessary to achieve reliable, interoperable communication that
ensures access by individuals with disabilities to an Internet
protocol-enabled emergency network, where achievable and technically
feasible'' applies to these proposals, and in particular to other
entities that offer interconnected text messaging service.
170. In addition to the CVAA, we ask commenters to address the
Commission's authority under Title III, including our authority under
Sections 301, 303, 307, 309, and 316, to adopt the rules proposed
herein. We note that, when analyzing our legal authority in the 2011
Notice, we stated our ``belie[f] that we have well-established legal
authority under * * * Title III provisions to take the regulatory and
non-regulatory measures described [t]herein that would apply to users
of spectrum.'' Since then, the D.C. Circuit provided additional
guidance regarding the scope of our Title III authority in Cellco
Partnership v. FCC. We now seek additional comment on our Title III
authority in light of this decision.
171. Among other points, we seek comment on whether Title III
grants the Commission authority to apply the proposed rules to third-
party interconnected text providers and, if so, which specific
provisions of Title III apply to them. Does the Commission's Title III
authority over those entities depend on how they offer their service?
For example, does the FCC's Title III authority over them turn on
whether the entity holds a Commission's license or other authorization,
and, if so, whether such authorization is integral to that entity's
interconnected texting service? Do any third-party interconnected text
messaging providers hold any such authorizations? We also ask
commenters to address the Commission's authority to impose regulations
on CMRS providers that indirectly affect third-party providers. For
example, does the Commission have authority to require CMRS providers
to take steps to prevent the use of certain third-party applications
that do not support text-to-911? If so, would such steps be consistent
with the Commission's open platform requirements for the 700 MHz C
Block and other agency precedent?
172. We also ask commenters to address the Commission's ability to
rely on its ancillary authority to adopt the rules proposed herein. The
Commission may act pursuant to its ancillary authority when ``(1) the
Commission's general jurisdictional grant under Title I [of the
Communications Act] covers the regulated subject and (2) the
regulations are reasonably ancillary to the Commission's effective
performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities.'' We ask
commenters to discuss both prongs of this test. Would the Commission's
decision to adopt the proposed rules be ancillary to certain Title III
provisions, the CVAA, or other statutory provisions? Is application of
the proposed rules to all providers of interconnected text-messaging
services necessary to avoid consumer confusion or achieve the public
safety benefits associated with applying such rules to CMRS providers?
We seek comment on these questions.
IV. Procedural Matters
A. Ex Parte Presentations
173. The proceedings initiated by this Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceedings in
accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex
parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must: (1) list
all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at
which the ex parte presentation was made; and (2) summarize all data
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments,
memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may
provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior
comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page
and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in
lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b).
In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations,
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf).
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the
Commission's ex parte rules.
B. Comment Filing Procedures
174. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and
reply comments in response to this Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
Paper Filers: Parties that choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
C. Accessible Formats
175. To request materials in accessible formats for people with
disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to
[[Page 1822]]
[email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at
202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
D. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
176. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5
U.S.C. sec. 604, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document.
The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B. Written public comments are
requested in the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with
the same filing deadlines as comments filed in response to this Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as set forth on the first page of this
document, and have a separate and distinct heading designating them as
responses to the IRFA.
E. Paperwork Reduction Analysis
177. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contains proposed
new information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general
public and OMB to comment on the information collection requirements
contained in this document, as required by PRA. In addition, pursuant
to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we seek specific
comment on how we might ``further reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
V. Ordering Clauses
178. It is further ordered, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 10,
201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309,
309(j)(3), 316, 316(a), 332, 615a, 615a-1, 615b, 615c(a), 615c(c),
615c(g), and 615(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.
sec. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302,
303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309, 309(j)(3), 316, 316(a), 332,
615a, 615a-1, 615b, 615c, 615c(c), 615c(g), and 615(c)(1) that this
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.
179. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20
Communications common carriers.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 20 as follows:
PART 20--COMMERCIAL MOBILE SERVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 20 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 214,
222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309,
309(j)(3), 316, 316(a), 332, 615a, 615a-1, 615b, 615c, 615c(c),
615c(g), and 615(c)(1).
0
2. Section 20.18 is amended by adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:
Sec. 20.18 911 Service.
* * * * *
(n) Text-messaging for 911. CMRS providers subject to this section
and third party interconnected text providers as defined in paragraph
(n)(6) of this section shall comply with the following requirements:
(1) CMRS providers subject to this section shall provide an
automated error text message that notifies consumers attempting to send
text messages to 911 in areas where text-to-911 is unavailable or in
other instances where the carrier is unable to transmit the text to the
PSAP serving the texting party's location for reasons including, but
not limited to, network congestion, the inability of the PSAP to accept
such messages, or otherwise. The requirements of this paragraph only
apply when the CMRS provider (or the CMRS provider's text-to-911
vendor) has direct control over the transmission of the text message.
The automatic notification must include information on how to contact
the PSAP. CMRS providers shall meet the requirements of this paragraph
no later than June 30, 2013.
(2) No later than May 15, 2014, CMRS providers shall offer their
subscribers the capability to send 911 text messages to the appropriate
PSAP from any text-capable wireless handset.
(i) CMRS providers must provide their subscribers with at least one
pre-installed text-to-911 option per mobile device model under a CMRS
provider's direct control. The pre-installed text-to-911 option must be
capable of operating over the provider's entire network coverage area.
Where a consumer has obtained the device from an unaffiliated third
party and uses the device on a CMRS provider's network, CMRS providers
must offer a text-to-911 application that the consumer can load on to
the device.
(ii) To meet the requirement of paragraph (n)(2) of this section,
CMRS providers may select any reliable method or methods for text
routing and delivery. For example, CMRS providers may use Short Message
Service (SMS), mobile-switched, or Internet Protocol (IP)-based methods
for text routing and delivery.
(3) 911 is the designated short code for text messages sent to
PSAPs.
(4) CMRS providers must route all 911 text messages to the
appropriate PSAP, based on the cell sector to which the mobile device
is connected. In complying with this requirement, CMRS providers must
route text messages to the same PSAP to which they currently route 911
calls, unless the responsible local or state entity designates a
different PSAP to receive 911 text messages and informs the carrier of
that change.
(5) Roaming. When a consumer is roaming, both the home and visiting
network operators must cooperate to support the delivery of the text to
the appropriate PSAP serving the sender's location.
(6) Third party interconnected text providers. (i) All third-party
interconnected text application providers that offer the capability for
consumers to send to and receive text messages from text-capable mobile
telephone numbers shall send an automated error text message when a
user of the application attempts to send an emergency text in an area
where text-to-911 is not supported or the provider is otherwise unable
to transmit the text to the PSAP for reasons including, but not limited
to, network congestion, the inability of the PSAP to accept such
messages, or otherwise. The automatic error notification must include
information on how to contact the PSAP. Third party interconnected text
providers subject to this paragraph shall meet the above requirements
no later than June 30, 2013.
(ii) No later than May 15, 2014, all third party interconnected
text providers that provide the capability for consumers to send to and
receive text messages from text-capable mobile telephone numbers must
offer the capability described in paragraph (n)(2) of this section
during time periods when the mobile device is connected to a CMRS
network.
[FR Doc. 2013-00159 Filed 1-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P