[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 12, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63257-63276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26258]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 1

[PS Docket No. 11-153; PS Docket No. 10-255; FCC 11-134]


Facilitating the Deployment of Text-to-911 and Other Next 
Generation 911 Applications; Framework for Next Generation 911 
Deployment

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks to accelerate the 
development and deployment of Next Generation 911 (NG911) technology 
that will enable the public to send emergency communications to 911 
Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) via text, photos, videos, and 
data and enhance the information available to PSAPs and first 
responders for assessing and responding to emergencies. This Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on a variety of issues related to the 
short-term and long-term transition to NG911.

DATES: Submit comments on or before December 12, 2011. Submit reply 
comments on or before January 10, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 11-153 
and/or PS Docket No. 10-255, by any of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow instructions for submitting comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Donovan, Attorney Advisor, 
(202) 418-2413. 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 e-
mail to [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in PS Docket No. 11-153, PS Docket No. 
10-255, FCC 11-134, released on September 22, 2011. 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://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/services/911-services/.

I. Introduction and Executive Summary

    1. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek to accelerate the 
development and deployment of Next

[[Page 63258]]

Generation 911 (NG911) technology that will enable the public to send 
emergency communications to 911 Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) 
via text, photos, videos, and data and enhance the information 
available to PSAPs and first responders for assessing and responding to 
emergencies. Sending text messages, photos, and video clips has become 
commonplace for users of mobile devices on 21st century broadband 
networks, yet our legacy circuit-switched 911 system does not support 
these forms of communication. While continuing to ensure reliable 
voice-based 911 service will always be essential as we migrate to 
NG911, adding these non-voice capabilities to our 911 system will 
significantly improve emergency response, save lives, and reduce 
property damage. Incorporating text and other media into the 911 system 
will make it more accessible to the public, both for people with 
disabilities and for people in situations where placing a voice call to 
911 could be difficult or dangerous.
    2. In addition, these 21st century communications technologies will 
provide PSAPs with better information that can be synthesized with 
existing databases to enable emergency responders to assess and respond 
to emergencies more quickly and effectively. Not only will PSAPs be 
able to receive text messages, photos, and video clips from the public, 
but also NG911 can provide them with the tools they need to quickly 
process and analyze the incoming information. In addition, PSAPs and 
emergency responders will be able to combine information received from 
the public with other information sources (e.g., video feeds from 
traffic or security cameras, automated alarms or sensors in a 
neighborhood, building, or vehicle) to develop a detailed and data-rich 
assessment of the emergency in real time. This in turn will enable 
public safety officials to decide on the appropriate response more 
quickly, saving precious minutes and seconds that can be critical in 
many emergencies.
    3. In this NPRM, we provide a procedural history, together with 
technical background, regarding three broad classes of text-capable 
communications, namely Short Message Service (SMS), IP-based messaging, 
and Real-Time Text (RTT), comparing their characteristics, strengths, 
and limitations in supporting emergency communications. This 
description relies largely on current industry standards, early 
prototypes, and the record in this proceeding.
    4. We then examine potential short-term methods for sending text 
messages to 911. We do so because of the widespread availability and 
increasing use of text in communications systems and because many of 
the emerging IP-based mechanisms for delivering text also have the 
capability, with relatively minor technical adjustment, to support 
delivery of photos, videos, and other data as well. We seek comment on 
what role the Commission should play to facilitate--and, if necessary, 
accelerate--the implementation of text-to-911 capabilities by providers 
in the short term. We explore the full range of options for the FCC, 
including both non-regulatory and regulatory approaches, and seek to 
adopt the least burdensome approach that would achieve the desired 
result. We also recognize that we must carefully assess the costs and 
benefits of different regulatory options to determine the Commission's 
proper role.
    5. We seek to strengthen the record to determine whether to 
encourage development of interim text-to-911 solutions and, if so, how 
to maximize their effectiveness and utility to the public and to PSAPs, 
while minimizing cost and the potential for negative PSAP operational 
impacts or consumer confusion. Specifically, we explore the potential 
for using SMS as an interim solution for text-based communication to 
911, given the near-universal availability and consumer familiarity 
with SMS. The responses to our December 2010 Notice of Inquiry in this 
proceeding identify a number of possible limitations when using SMS for 
emergency communications, but some commenters also contended that these 
limitations could be surmounted by appropriate engineering approaches. 
We also examine other short-term options that would rely on software 
applications capable of delivering text over the existing IP-based 
infrastructure. We examine the potential costs and benefits of both 
SMS-based and software-based interim approaches as compared to 
developing more comprehensive text-to-911 solutions over the longer 
term that will provide more reliable real-time communication and can 
also support delivery of photos and video.
    6. Next, we seek comment on whether 911 traffic should be 
prioritized to ensure that people in need of assistance have reliable 
access to emergency services, especially during times of serious 
emergencies such as large-scale natural and manmade disasters. The 
August 23, 2011 East Coast earthquake and Hurricane Irene have been 
recent reminders that concentrated demands on the capacity of 
commercial communications networks during and immediately after 
emergencies can hinder the ability of consumers to make voice calls, 
which in turn can jeopardize their ability to contact 911. We seek 
comment on how best to address this concern in both legacy networks and 
the emerging broadband networks that will support NG911, including 
options for prioritizing 911 traffic.
    7. We then turn to long-term implementation of NG911, with 
particular focus on IP-based alternatives for delivering text, photos, 
videos, and other data to 911 that would leverage the increasing 
percentage of mobile devices that have the ability to access the 
Internet. We seek comment on the potential for developing downloadable 
smartphone applications that both consumers and IP-capable PSAPs could 
acquire to support capabilities for an early roll-out of text and 
mulitimedia functionality. We note that such applications could also 
provide early access to key NG911 capabilities for mobile callers, 
especially those with hearing and speech disabilities.
    8. We also seek comment on the path towards integration and 
standardization of IP-based text-to-911 as commercial providers migrate 
to all-IP networks and as 911 authorities deploy Emergency Services IP 
networks (ESInets) that will enable PSAPs to receive the full range of 
IP-based traffic, including voice, text, photos, video, and data. In 
this all-IP environment, text-to-911 is one of several non-voice 
services that will be supported by ``native'' IP communications end-to-
end solutions, such as the Internet Multimedia Subsystem (IMS). 
However, providers may have varying timetables for developing the 
capacity to deliver IMS communications to PSAPs. PSAP deployment of 
ESINets is also likely to be non-uniform. We seek comment on the 
necessary steps for providers and PSAPs to support integrated IMS-based 
communications and the time that this process is likely to take.
    9. With over 6,800 PSAPs in the United States, spanning a wide 
range of sizes and resources, individual PSAPs are likely to have 
highly varying timetables for developing the technical and operational 
capability to handle incoming texts in the short term, as well as texts 
and other media in the longer-term implementation of NG911. While there 
are significant public safety benefits to enabling the public to send 
texts and other media to 911 in areas where PSAPs are capable of 
receiving and processing them, we seek to avoid imposing unnecessary 
costs on providers to implement NG911 in areas where PSAPs have not yet 
achieved

[[Page 63259]]

such capability. For this reason, we seek comment on whether PSAPs 
should demonstrate a threshold level of technical NG911 capability as a 
precondition to any obligation by providers to deliver text or other 
media to PSAPs and whether such demonstration should be at the state or 
regional level. We also seek comment on potential state or local 
regulatory barriers to NG911 deployment and whether states should 
demonstrate that they have adopted legal or regulatory measures to 
eliminate such barriers to facilitate NG911 deployment.
    10. Given that text-to-911 and other NG911 capabilities will likely 
not be simultaneously deployed nationwide, consumers may be uncertain 
where non-voice communication with 911 is available. Even where text-
to-911 or other NG911 applications are available, the specific 
capabilities and operational characteristics of these applications may 
vary. We therefore seek comment on how to best educate consumers about 
the availability and limitations of text-to-911 and other NG911 
solutions, particularly during the transition from legacy 911 to full 
implementation of NG911, without imposing an undue burden on providers.
    11. As noted above, adding text and other media capabilities to our 
911 system promises to bring significant benefits for people with 
disabilities. In this regard, we seek comment on the relationship 
between this proceeding and our ongoing implementation of the Twenty-
First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, 
which, among other things, sets goals for achieving equal access to 
emergency services for people with disabilities ``as a part of the 
migration to a national Internet protocol-enabled emergency network.'' 
We believe that the transition to NG911 and the implementation of the 
CVAA can be achieved through development of common text-to-911 and 
multimedia-to-911 solutions that serve both objectives. In this NPRM, 
therefore, we seek comment on the potential for coordinating the two 
proceedings to promote broader and more rapid NG911 deployment.
    12. Throughout this NPRM, we seek comment to further strengthen our 
record on these important aspects of the evolution towards NG911 
systems and capabilities. In particular, we seek detailed data that 
quantifies the benefits that text-to-911 and other NG911 applications 
will bring to the public and to emergency responders, while also 
quantifying the costs to providers, PSAPs, and consumers. We emphasize 
the importance of comments being detailed, specific, and supported by 
data where appropriate. We intend to confer particular weight on 
arguments and estimates that are supported by data or are otherwise 
well documented.

II. Background

    13. In this section, we review the procedural history leading up to 
this NPRM. We also provide technical background information classifying 
the likely technical options for text-to-911, and we recap the record 
on those options that the Commission received in response to the Notice 
of Inquiry.

A. Procedural History

    14. In December 2010, as recommended in the National Broadband 
Plan, the Commission released a Notice of Inquiry on NG911 (FCC 10-200, 
released Dec. 21, 2010), which initiated a comprehensive proceeding to 
address how NG911 can enable the public to obtain emergency assistance 
by means of advanced communications technologies beyond traditional 
voice-centric devices. The Notice of Inquiry sought comment on a number 
of issues related to the deployment of NG911 networks, including: (1) 
NG911 capabilities and applications; (2) NG911 network architecture; 
and (3) the proper roles of the FCC, other federal agencies, and state, 
tribal, and local governments.
    15. In the last several years, there have been other important 
efforts to address the need for a transition to an NG911 network. In 
the New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008, Congress 
tasked the National E9-1-1 Implementation Coordination Office (ICO) 
with developing ``a national plan for migrating to a national [Internet 
Protocol] IP-enabled emergency network capable of receiving and 
responding to all citizen-activated emergency communications and 
improving information sharing among all emergency response entities.'' 
The Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration (NTIA) and the Department of 
Transportation's (DOT's) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) jointly manage ICO and released its migration plan in September 
2009.
    16. In March 2010, the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) 
released a handbook to serve as a guide for public safety personnel and 
government officials responsible for ensuring that federal, state, and 
local 911 laws and regulations effectively enable the implementation of 
NG911 systems. Specifically, the NENA Handbook provides an overview of 
key policy, regulatory, and legislative issues that need to be 
considered to enable the transition to NG911. The NENA Handbook states 
that ``it is critical that state regulatory bodies and the FCC take 
timely and carefully scrutinized action to analyze and update existing 
9-1-1, PSTN, and IP rules and regulations to ensure they optimize 9-1-1 
governing authority choices for E9-1-1 and NG9-1-1 and foster 
competition by establishing a competitively neutral marketplace.''
    17. 3GPP has also published a report on the use of Non-Voice 
Emergency Services (NOVES) that provides a general description of 
perceived needs. In addition, ATIS has created its own Interim Non-
voice Emergency Services (INES) Incubator. The ATIS INES Incubator 
``provides the industry with a `fast-track' process for resolving 
technical and operating issues'' and serves as ``an alternative 
approach toward solutions development.''
    18. On October 8, 2010, the President signed the CVAA into law. As 
directed by the CVAA, the Chairman established the Emergency Access 
Advisory Committee (EAAC) for the purpose of achieving equal access to 
emergency services by individuals with disabilities as part of our 
nation's migration to NG911. The EAAC is composed of state and local 
government representatives responsible for emergency management and 
emergency responder representatives, national organizations 
representing people with disabilities and senior citizens, 
communications equipment manufacturers, service providers, and subject 
matter experts. The CVAA directed the EAAC to conduct a national survey 
of people with disabilities and then to make recommendations on the 
most effective and efficient technologies and methods to enable NG911 
access. The EAAC conducted its survey from March 16, 2011, to April 25, 
2011, and received over 3,000 completed responses. On July 21, 2011, 
the EAAC submitted the report on the completed survey to the 
Commission. The EAAC will make its recommendations to the Commission in 
December 2011, which the Commission is then empowered to implement by 
regulation.
    19. In addition, other federal agencies have initiated efforts to 
address access to 911 in an Internet-enabled environment for people 
with disabilities. On March 17, 2010, the United States Access Board 
proposed draft guidelines for real-time text functionality for adoption 
by federal agencies as part of its efforts to update guidelines on 
section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. In a separate

[[Page 63260]]

proceeding, the Department of Justice is currently reviewing comments 
received in response to an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(ANPRM) on NG911 access to emergency services by people with 
disabilities. Current DOJ regulations under the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA) require direct and equal access to telephone 
emergency services for people with disabilities who use TTYs. In its 
ANPRM, DOJ notes that many individuals with disabilities are now 
relying on IP-based and digital wireless devices instead of TTYs as 
their primary mode of telecommunications ``and that 9-1-1 call-taking 
centers are shifting from existing traditional telephone emergency 
services to new IP-enabled NG 9-1-1 services.'' The ANPRM addresses two 
objectives: (1) To identify and remove accessibility barriers for 
people with disabilities and who attempt to use personal digital or 
telecommunications devices to directly interact with PSAPs in voice, 
sign language, or text; and (2) to enhance the ability of PSAPs to 
incorporate essential accessibility elements into their IP-based system 
in a coordinated and effective manner. Finally, in compliance with the 
NET 911 Act, the ICO's national plan for migrating to an IP-enabled 
emergency network explored various solutions for providing enhanced 911 
access to people with disabilities.
    20. In March 2011, the Communications Security, Reliability, and 
Interoperability Council's (CSRIC's) Working Group 4B (CSRIC 4B) 
released a report entitled ``Transition to Next Generation 9-1-1.'' 
CSRIC is a Federal Advisory Committee that was tasked with providing 
guidance and expertise on the nation's communications infrastructure 
and public safety communications. Notably, the CSRIC 4B Report 
highlighted that ``the FCC must establish clear rules for accomplishing 
the transition to NG9-1-1'' and that ``[i]f SMS has a role as an 
interim non-voice service used to contact a PSAP, how it is deployed * 
* * will need to be resolved by the FCC.''
    21. On August 30, 2011, the Transportation Safety Advancement Group 
(TSAG) released a report summarizing information that experts in law 
enforcement, fire-rescue, emergency medical services (EMS), and 
transportation operations would like to receive as end users of NG911 
systems. The report provides insight into the cultural, organizational, 
and operational environments of these organizations.

B. Technical Background

    22. In the Notice of Inquiry, we distinguished between use of 
``primary'' and ``secondary'' media types to communicate with PSAPs. In 
brief, primary media types are those that are used to initiate a call 
or communications session with the PSAP, while secondary media types 
are those that are used to provide additional information to the PSAP 
after the call or session has been established. In the current E911 
system, voice and TTY-based text are the only primary media that are 
widely available, and secondary media, such as photos and video, are 
not available.
    23. In addition, while we focus in this NPRM on enabling consumers 
to deliver text and other non-voice media to PSAPs, we note that the 
adoption of NG911 technology will also provide PSAPs with new tools to 
process and analyze this information. In the Notice of Inquiry, we 
cited the potential for NG911 to accommodate a full range of 
specialized devices and functionalities that would enable PSAPs to 
combine multiple streams of information in real time to fashion 
responses to particular emergency scenarios. Examples of such devices 
and functionalities include environmental sensors capable of detecting 
chemicals, highway cameras, security cameras, alarms, gunshot sensors, 
personal medical devices, and telematics in vehicles or on consumer 
devices. For example, in a traffic accident, NG911 would not only 
enable the PSAP to receive the 911 call for help from the caller 
seeking assistance, but also would enable it to correlate the call with 
911 calls from others at or near the scene and combine the information 
with video from nearby traffic cameras to assess the impact on traffic 
and identify the first responders that could reach the scene the 
fastest. In addition, if any vehicles in the accident had automatic 
collision notification systems, the PSAP would receive additional 
information regarding the severity of the crash that could help 
determine the likely medical needs of accident victims and the 
appropriate emergency medical response. Similarly, in a 911 call 
scenario reporting a crime such as a robbery or assault, NG911 would 
enable the caller to send important visual information such as a photo 
of the suspect or a vehicle involved in the crime, and would enable 
first responders to correlate this information with other sources, such 
as nearby security cameras, gunshot sensors, or alarm systems, and to 
quickly access relevant databases that could help identify the suspect 
or the suspect's vehicle.
    24. In this NPRM, we primarily focus on developing text-based 
mechanisms that would serve as new primary media types for contacting a 
PSAP, supplementing voice calling capability and also supplementing or 
replacing TTY-based text. We consider photos and video as secondary 
media that may be used to augment a voice or text call. We recognize 
that this to some degree oversimplifies the potential media 
combinations that NG911 will ultimately support, ranging from single-
medium communications (i.e., voice-only or text-only) to multi-media 
``calls'' that may encompass combinations of interactive and stored 
media, including interactive voice, message-based and real-time text, 
photos, and both stored (previously recorded) and live video. However, 
for purposes of this NPRM, we focus on text as a primary media type and 
photos and video as secondary media types because in early NG911 
deployments, primary communication between a caller and a PSAP is most 
likely to be voice-only or text-only and the availability of secondary 
media may differ based on caller device capabilities, PSAP and ESInet 
capabilities, and PSAP operational choices.
    25. Based on the comments we received in response to the Notice of 
Inquiry, we can distinguish between a number of technical options for 
providing text-based and, in some cases, visual information (photos, 
video) to the PSAP. We briefly summarize these approaches below. We 
note that these options are not exclusive (i.e., a mobile device may 
support more than one option, either as an interim measure, or over the 
longer term). For purposes of this NPRM, we use the term ``caller'' to 
refer to the originator of the 911 communication, whether based on a 
traditional voice call, TTY call, or text message. We also discuss (1) 
mechanisms for providing caller location, both for routing and 
dispatch; (2) the ability of a caller to know whether his or her text 
message has been received by the PSAP; and (3) the possibility of 
establishing a session that permits the caller to conduct a 
conversation with the call taker.
    26. TTY. With a TTY, a person with a hearing or speech disability 
can use a special text telephone to directly contact the PSAP, where 
the call taker uses a similar device to receive and transmit text. TTYs 
have a keyboard and allow people to type their telephone conversations. 
This two-way typing communication can occur with the person with the 
disability and the PSAP

[[Page 63261]]

call taker reading each other's responses on a small LED or backlit LCD 
screen. The disabilities community considers TTY an antiquated 
technology with technical and functional limitations, including its 
slow speed and half duplex mode; the inability of TTY tones to travel 
well using IP audio compression, transmission, and packet loss repair 
techniques without introducing text errors; and its Baudot text 
encoding standard used in the United States that does not include all 
of the characters used in modern text communication. Consequently, it 
is difficult for users to communicate URLs or email addresses, for 
example.
    27. Text-to-Voice TTY-based telecommunications relay service (TRS). 
A TRS system is a telephone service that allows persons with hearing or 
speech disabilities, or who are deaf-blind, to place and receive 
telephone calls. With traditional TRS, a person with a communications 
disability uses a TTY to make a call through a communications assistant 
(CA), who is located at a relay center. To make a relay call, a TTY 
user calls a TRS relay center and types the number of the person he or 
she wishes to call, including 911. The CA then makes the call to the 
receiving party and relays the call back and forth between the parties 
by speaking what a text user types and typing what a voice telephone 
user speaks.
    28. SMS-based. In SMS-based systems, the caller uses a mobile phone 
to send a short text message to the destination, which is typically 
either another mobile phone or an Internet-connected receiver. SMS 
messages are usually limited to 160 characters, although many modern 
handsets support concatenated messages that exceed this limit. Almost 
all existing mobile phones support SMS, except that non-service 
initialized (NSI) devices currently do not permit a caller to send an 
SMS message. SMS messages do not contain any information about the 
caller's location and do not identify the cell tower that received the 
SMS message from the caller's handset. SMS messages are delivered 
through an SMS gateway that relays the messages when capacity is 
available. Thus, SMS messages could in some circumstances be delayed, 
or even occasionally lost, when there is network congestion. Senders of 
SMS messages also may not receive confirmation that their message was 
delivered. More importantly, the sender may not receive an error 
message if the message was not delivered. SMS also does not support 
two-way real-time conversation, although SMS messages have identifiers 
that can allow users to exchange messages in a conversation-like 
manner.
    29. IP-based messaging. There are at least three IP-based messaging 
mechanisms. However, not all of the IP-based messaging mechanisms are 
based on Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), which can be offered as 
part of the Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem (IMS). We provide a 
brief description of the three IP-based messaging mechanisms below.
     SIP-based pager-mode. In this mode, the mobile or 
stationary device uses SIP MESSAGE method to send text or Multipurpose 
Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) attachments, including photos, to a SIP 
user agent. Due to the messaging method employed, this method is often 
referred to as pager-mode, in contrast to session mode, which uses 
Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP). Pager-mode requires an end-to-
end IP connection between the originator and the PSAP, and either the 
originator or the SIP proxy may insert caller location using the SIP 
Geolocation header field. SIP responses allow the originator to 
determine whether the message has been delivered to the recipient. The 
SIP Call-ID may be used to maintain a conversation.
     Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP). MSRP establishes a 
session between the message sender and the receiver that allows the 
exchange of a series of related instant messages. Typically, MSRP 
sessions are set up via SIP, similar to an audio or video session. As 
with SIP pager-mode, MSRP exchanges complete instant messages; however, 
MSRP imposes less of a burden on the signaling infrastructure.
     Other IP-based message-based protocols. We note that there 
are other proprietary and standards-based Internet text messaging 
protocols, such as Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). 
However, it appears unlikely that a PSAP would be able to support all 
Internet text messaging protocols; thus, we believe that proprietary 
protocols are likely to be converted to one of the options above or to 
XMPP.
    30. Real-Time Text (RTT). In RTT, individually-typed characters or 
groups of characters are transmitted as separate media packets, using 
the same basic protocol as audio and video sessions. This means that 
with RTT, unlike SMS or IP-based messaging, the recipient sees each 
character or word in the message almost immediately after the sender 
types it. RTT sessions can be established along with audio and video 
sessions and typically use SIP for session signaling.
    31. The table below compares some of the core technical 
characteristics of the options discussed above.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Real-time text
                                          TTY              SMS-based      IP-based messaging         (RTT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delivery to PSAP................  Voiceband modem...  SIP MESSAGE.......  SIP MESSAGE or      RTP payload.
                                                                           MSRP.
Text............................  Only upper case     160 characters of   Any amount of text  Any amount of
                                   letters, numbers,   plain text (some                        text.
                                   limited             may allow longer
                                   punctuation.        text).
Photos, videos in same message?   No................  No................  Yes...............  No.
Real-time audio and video in      No................  No................  Yes...............  Yes.
 same session?
Real-time text..................  Yes...............  No................  No................  Yes.
Full-duplex conversation (both    No................  Limited...........  Yes...............  Yes.
 sides can send messages at the
 same time).
Location information............  Yes, like voice     Maybe (cell tower;  Yes...............  Yes, via SIP
                                   call.               may require                             signaling.
                                                       cellular system
                                                       changes).
End-to-end message reliability    No................  No (may provide     Yes...............  Loss detection and
 and delivery confirmation.                            some confirmation                       redundancy.
                                                       for delivery to
                                                       SMSC).
Message delay...................  Minimal...........  Variable--seconds   Almost always <     Almost always <
                                                       to minutes.         500 ms.             100 ms.

[[Page 63262]]

 
Authentication and message        None..............  Limited (relies on  Messages can be     SRTP.
 integrity.                                            caller ID).         cryptographically
                                                                           signed.
Conversation (session)..........  Like voice call...  Only based on       Yes...............  Yes.
                                                       caller ID.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. We seek comment on whether our description of texting methods 
and their capabilities in the above discussion is accurate and 
complete. Are there additional technical options that are likely to be 
available in the next few years? Are there additional key 
characteristics that the Commission should consider in evaluating these 
alternative technologies?

III. Discussion

    33. Based on our analysis of information submitted in response to 
the Notice of Inquiry, we find that additional information is needed on 
the following issues related to text-to-911 and multimedia NG911 
applications, and we therefore seek comment on these issues. First, 
what role, if any, should the Commission play in facilitating the 
short-term deployment of text-to-911 using existing infrastructure? 
Second, what role, if any, should the Commission play in facilitating 
the long-term deployment of non-voice emergency messaging services, 
including IP-based messaging and RTT, as well as multimedia 
applications that support delivery of voice, text, photos, video, and 
other data? Third, as the transition to NG911 occurs, what efforts are 
needed to educate the public and minimize consumer confusion, and what 
role, if any, should the Commission play in such efforts? Underlying 
all three of these issues is the question of whether the benefits of 
any potential Commission action to consumers and to public safety will 
substantially outweigh the associated costs. While acknowledging the 
potential difficulty of quantifying benefits and burdens, we need to 
determine whether those benefits outweigh the costs that enabling text-
to-911 and other NG911 services impose on providers and PSAPs. Fourth, 
we seek comment on how best to coordinate this proceeding with our 
implementation of the CVAA and the recommendations of the EAAC. Fifth 
and finally, we consider the Commission's legal authority to take the 
regulatory and non-regulatory actions discussed in this Notice based on 
the record that develops on the issues described herein.

A. Facilitating the Short-Term Deployment of Text-to-911

    34. In the Notice of Inquiry, the Commission highlighted the 
popularity and ubiquity of text messaging and the increasing likelihood 
that consumers will expect to be able to text to 911 during an 
emergency. Indeed, consumers send billions of SMS messages per day and 
more than two-thirds of mobile phone users have used text messaging. At 
the same time, many consumers are acquiring more advanced mobile 
devices (e.g., 3G and 4G handsets) that enable them to send texts using 
``over the top'' software applications that they install on their 
phones and computers. Hence, any discussion about possible short-term 
deployment of text-to-911 must consider the feasibility of both SMS and 
currently available software applications (or software applications 
that could be developed relatively quickly) as interim platforms for 
text-to-911 until providers deploy more advanced NG911 technologies 
based on SIP and RTT. In deciding what role, if any, the Commission 
should play in such an interim deployment, we seek to maximize the 
benefits to consumers while also considering the burden on providers. 
We therefore seek comment on the expected benefits of facilitating 
NG911 deployment, the results of any ongoing trials and standards 
activities involving SMS and software applications, and the relative 
merits of using various approaches to achieve those benefits. When 
evaluating submitted comments, we intend to place more weight on the 
estimated impacts that are supported by hard data or are otherwise 
well-documented.
1. Expected Benefits of Text-to-911 Availability
    35. Although quantifying the benefits of short-term deployment of 
text-to-911 may be difficult, we need to determine whether such a 
deployment will significantly benefit consumers and public safety. On 
this issue, responses to the Notice of Inquiry were divided. Several 
commenters argue that PSAPs and service providers should support SMS-
based text-to-911 on an interim basis. Conversely, a number of 
commenters highlight the disadvantages of using SMS for emergency 
communications and argue that supporting SMS as an interim approach 
would undermine and divert resources from efforts to develop more 
comprehensive long-term solutions. These commenters urge the Commission 
to support standards-setting bodies that are working to develop a 
uniform approach for the delivery of NOVES. No comments were received 
on application-based approaches to text-to-911. Accordingly, we seek 
further comment on the benefits of using SMS and software applications 
for emergency communications, particularly with respect to improving 
911 accessibility for people with disabilities, meeting consumer 
expectations, providing PSAPS with valuable additional information that 
they can in turn share with first responders on the ground, and 
increasing reliability and resiliency of 911 networks.
    36. Accessibility of 911. The ability to text to 911 in the short 
term could substantially improve accessibility to 911 services for 
people with disabilities. In recent years, 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 text-capable communications devices. This migration 
is most apparent in the declining use of telecommunications relay 
service (TRS) over the PSTN, where the average monthly usage for TTY-
voice based relay service dropped 87% between 2000 and 2010. Moreover, 
as noted in the NOI, the ICO Plan found that ``[t]he biggest gap 
between the technologies used for daily communication and those that 
can access 9-1-1 services is that for the deaf and people with hearing 
or speech impairments.'' In the EAAC's survey, in which respondents 
were primarily drawn from people with disabilities, 48.1% of 
respondents stated that they would prefer to use text messaging to 
contact 911.
    37. Developing text-to-911 capability in the short term could also 
provide benefits by making 911 accessible to consumers in the so-called 
``silent call'' scenario (i.e., in situations where the caller needs to 
contact the PSAP silently or surreptitiously because placing a voice 
call could put the caller in danger). Commonly cited examples of

[[Page 63263]]

the silent call scenario include burglaries, home invasions, 
kidnappings, and hostage situations where a crime is in progress and 
the caller does not want to attract the perpetrator's attention.
    38. Toward that end, we seek more information on the benefits and 
associated costs of facilitating short-term text-to-911 solutions that 
can quickly improve the accessibility of the 911 system. To what extent 
can such short-term solutions assist individuals with hearing or speech 
disabilities? How frequently do people in emergencies encounter a 
silent call scenario where inability to send a text message to 911 
could compromise the caller's safety? Can SMS provide significant 
accessibility benefits in these situations even if it does not offer 
real-time connectivity or enable the caller to send photos or videos, 
unlike some longer-term solutions under development? How, if at all, 
will receipt of texts allow PSAPs to better communicate information 
about an emergency situation to first responders on the ground? What, 
if any, costs will PSAPs incur to implement short-term text-to-911 
solutions? Are there capacity limits on PSAPs' ability to accept texts 
to 911? With respect to interim text-to-911 solutions based on software 
applications, these may only be available on some mobile devices and 
may require additional steps by the user, both to install the 
application and to send the 911 text message. Is this a worthwhile 
trade-off to allow for earlier access to such capabilities than might 
otherwise be available if we were to wait for device replacement and 
fully-integrated NG911 services?
    39. Consumer expectations. Another potential benefit of 
implementing text-to-911 in the short term is that it could help meet 
rapidly changing consumer expectations regarding the desired 
capabilities of the 911 system. According to the Pew Center, more than 
7 out of 10 cell phone users send or receive text messages. With the 
increased use of text messaging, consumers could expect that their use 
of SMS extends to 911. We seek comment on whether promoting or 
requiring short-term text-to-911 solutions accurately reflects current 
and evolving consumer expectations and the needs of PSAPs and first 
responders. Does the rapid growth in the popularity of SMS messaging 
generate consumer expectations that SMS will support 911 texting? We 
seek information regarding how many people have attempted to text to 
911 during emergencies but failed. Have there been instances where the 
ability to send a text message to 911 could have made a significant 
difference in the ability of first responders to assist the caller or 
the speed of the response? We also seek information that quantifies the 
impact that incorrect consumer expectations about the ability to text 
to 911 may have on the health and safety of the public.
    40. Improved information for PSAPs. As we have noted above, in 
addition to improving communications between consumers and PSAPs, NG911 
has the potential to enhance the ability of PSAPs and first responders 
to assess and respond to emergencies in real-time based on the texts, 
photos, and videos that consumers send to them, combined with 
information gathered and correlated from other sources. In this regard, 
what benefits, if any, could the short-term deployment of text-to-911 
(which would not include the capability to transmit photos or video) 
provide PSAPs and first responders? For example, could texts to 911 
provide additional information to assess the nature and severity of an 
emergency, help apprehend criminal suspects, speed emergency response, 
reduce the need to dispatch multiple types of emergency response (e.g., 
sending police, fire, and emergency medical personnel to a scene 
because the nature of the emergency is undetermined), or make it easier 
to screen potentially fraudulent or malicious calls? How do such 
benefits compare to the cost of short-term deployment of text-to-911? 
Would short-term implementation of text-to-911 increase the volume of 
911 traffic or the time and resources required for PSAPs to process 
information as compared to handling voice calls? If so, are PSAPs 
equipped to handle such increases? If not, what do PSAPs need to do to 
prepare and what resources do they require?
    41. Improved reliability and resiliency. In large-scale disasters, 
circuit-switched landline and mobile networks may become overloaded, 
making it more difficult to place a 911 voice call. As landline and 
mobile networks migrate from circuit-switched to IP-based packet-
switched technology, the risk of overload or congestion may dissipate, 
but in the interim, enabling SMS and IP-based text messages to 911 
could be beneficial because text consumes far less bandwidth than voice 
and may use different spectrum resources or traffic channels. Thus, 
people in disaster areas may still be able to send text messages to 911 
even if they cannot place a voice call. Similarly, with improved 
technology, PSAPs may be able to filter text messages by incident, so 
that they spend less time with voice callers who report the same 
incident. We seek comment on the prospective impact of text messaging 
on PSAP operations and emergency response during large-scale disasters, 
with particular emphasis on experiences of overload-induced 911 
failures. For example, there have been news reports that cell phone 
service, including the ability to reach 911, was impaired immediately 
after the August 23, 2011 East Coast earthquake, while SMS and email 
did not experience service disruptions.
2. Ongoing Text-to-911 Trials
    42. To date, there have been only a small number of SMS-to-911 
trials in the United States, although a number of jurisdictions are 
reportedly considering trials or near-term implementations. In 2009, 
Intrado and i wireless, a T-Mobile affiliate, initiated an SMS-to-911 
trial in Black Hawk County, Iowa. In this trial, only Black Hawk County 
residents who subscribed to i wireless were able to make use of the 
text-to-911 service. Text messages sent in the trial did not carry 
location information, so users were prompted to enter their zip codes 
before the text message was forwarded to the PSAP. Despite the limited 
nature of the trial, county representatives have credited text-to-911 
with positive outcomes in several emergency situations. On the other 
hand, AT&T contends that publicity about the Black Hawk County trial 
resulted in confusion that ``spread throughout the country'' regarding 
where text-to-911 was available.
    43. In August 2010, the Marion County, Florida, Sheriff's Office 
developed an in-house text message to 911 system. Named ``ADD IT NOW,'' 
the program enables the Sheriff's Office Communications Center to 
receive urgent text messages on a dedicated screen that uses a yellow 
indicator light to signal incoming texts. The Sheriff's Office has 
advertised the availability of the number and has encouraged local 
citizens to add the number to their phone directories. The Sheriff's 
Office reports that the system cost $1,000 to develop and costs 
approximately $50 per month to maintain. The system does not convey 
location information.
    44. On August 3, 2011, the City of Durham, North Carolina, 
announced an SMS-to-911 trial in partnership with Intrado and Verizon 
Wireless. According to Durham, the trial is specifically designed for 
two types of emergency scenarios: emergency help requests from people 
with disabilities and from people not wanting someone to hear them make 
a 911 call. When receiving a text, the Durham PSAP will not be able to 
automatically determine

[[Page 63264]]

the caller's location. To ensure that consumers are aware of this 
limitation, the city is making efforts to educate the public that they 
must include location information when sending an SMS-to-911. Durham 
has scheduled the trial to conclude on January 31, 2012, and will 
restrict the trial to Verizon Wireless customers in areas served by the 
Durham PSAP.
    45. In June 2011, Cassidian Communications announced the successful 
completion of a ``simulation'' SMS-to-911 trial in Harris County, 
Texas, involving the Greater Harris County backup PSAP. According to 
Cassidian, ``[t]he testing during the trial utilized automatic location 
identification (ALI) capabilities allowing for the call takers to 
identify the location of the caller * * * Many operational 
implementation and procedure related elements remain to be discussed 
and ultimately implemented * * * It is anticipated that the technology 
will be available to the deaf and hard of hearing population in the GHC 
9-1-1 territory within a year [after June 20, 2011] and subsequently 
will be offered to the rest of the population.'' Unlike the Black Hawk 
County and Durham trials, this trial did not involve members of the 
public.
    46. Several European countries, including Estonia, Iceland, 
Luxembourg, Sweden, and the United Kingdom offer emergency SMS services 
or are planning to offer such services in the near future. In all of 
these countries, the SMS message does not automatically include 
location information, which the sender of the SMS message is expected 
to provide manually. The Swedish SMS system, however, is capable of 
determining cell-tower location. In all of these countries, the SMS 
service is primarily directed towards people with disabilities and 
requires users to register in advance of using the service. 
Additionally, after the SMS PSAP receives and processes a text message, 
it forwards the necessary information to the appropriate voice PSAP. We 
seek comment on the above-described text-to-911 trials and on text-to-
911 services offered in these countries. What are the advantages and 
disadvantages of the various approaches to text-to-911? What lessons 
could the United States draw from the international examples?
    47. Standards. We seek comment on any standards-development 
activities by industry or standards-setting bodies that may play a role 
in the short-term deployment of text-to-911 services based on SMS or 
software applications. We also seek comment on whether there are any 
additional text-to-911 trials or standards efforts that have been 
conducted thus far or that are contemplated in the near future. We 
request that commenters provide the Commission with any relevant data 
that has been gathered from these trials and standards-setting efforts, 
including the number of individuals who sent text messages to 911 
during the trials, whether PSAPs could locate those callers, and the 
effectiveness of texting as a means of communicating with PSAPs.
3. Approaches Based on SMS and Existing Infrastructure
    48. In the Notice of Inquiry, the Commission sought comment on a 
number of issues related to SMS-to-911. The Notice of Inquiry 
recognized that SMS is not a synchronous messaging service and 
therefore does not provide a means for the sender to know whether and 
when his or her message has reached its destination. It also noted that 
because each SMS message is independent of its predecessors and 
successors, messages within the same logical conversation may not be 
routed to the same destination or in the proper sequence. Further, the 
Notice of Inquiry referenced concerns about whether the recipient of an 
SMS message could reliably and accurately determine the sender's 
geographic location.
    49. Comments. Wireless providers and some industry standards bodies 
are generally opposed to adopting or requiring SMS-to-911 as an interim 
solution. Many wireless providers argue that SMS is unreliable and 
should not be used for emergency communications. AT&T contends that 
``SMS suffers from significant limitations that make it both dangerous 
and infeasible to rely on for emergency communications,'' because there 
is no guarantee of delivery for SMS messages and no acknowledgment 
provided to the sender. AT&T characterizes SMS as ``a best-effort, 
store-and-forward service [making] it unreliable and prone to 
unacceptable delays for purposes of emergency communications.'' T-
Mobile and Verizon similarly argue that SMS lacks important 
functionalities and reliability that are needed for a viable emergency 
communications service. Verizon argues that the interests of PSAPs, 
consumers, and service providers ``would be better served by focusing 
on incorporating RTT and more advanced messaging technologies into IP-
based platforms and into the wireless industry's deployment of 4G LTE 
technology.'' ATIS notes that current SMS standards do not support 
automated routing to the PSAP or automated location information, which 
are critical to emergency communications. Further, ATIS argues that 
because of ``the higher probability of SMS-to-911 message failure, 
liability protection for SMS-to-911 services must be far stronger than 
that currently provided for voice calls.''
    50. Public safety commenters express similar concerns about SMS-to-
911. NENA states that ``[t]oday, SMS lacks many of the characteristics 
needed to support quality emergency communications.'' NENA therefore 
``does not advocate the use of SMS as a means to access 9-1-1 
systems.'' APCO notes that ``there are a number of Quality of Service 
concerns with the use of SMS to 911.'' Wichita-Wilbarger states that 
``SMS messaging is distinctly unsuitable for communications with 
emergency services [because] SMS messaging does not allow for real-time 
communication [which] raises the possibility of miscommunication with 
the PSAP.''
    51. However, some 911 technology and software providers support the 
use of SMS as an interim solution for emergency communications and 
contend that there are ways to overcome some of its technical 
limitations. TCS states that ``based on existing public expectations 
both from current SMS users and members of specialized communities, it 
is generally accepted that the introduction of SMS to 911 is 
inevitable.'' TCS also notes that ``SMS to 9-1-1 communication can be 
controlled so that a Dispatcher receives information that is timely, 
dependable, and adequate enough to make a professional dispatch 
decision.'' Moreover, TCS states that it has ``demonstrated in its 
laboratory and in limited field experiments that SMS emergency service 
can be provided reliably and in the near term.'' TSAG maintains that 
``under certain emergency settings, SMS messaging represents an 
important (at times only) alternative to voice communications [and] 
public expectations suggest NG911 systems be configured to accept and 
manage SMS based emergency communications, notwithstanding the 
technical and operational `challenges'.'' Intrado maintains that ``SMS 
is a viable, reliable, interim solution for situations in which those 
who are in emergencies are not in a position to place a voice call to 
9-1-1.'' The ATIS INES Incubator is considering several interim 
solutions for text-to-911 and divides these solutions into two groups, 
``consumer to PSAP'' and ``consumer to relay services to PSAP.'' Among 
the ``consumer to PSAP'' solutions that the ATIS INES Incubator is 
considering are: emergency voice call then SMS, emergency voice then 
web chat, instant messaging, RTT direct to PSAP, RTT converted to TTY,

[[Page 63265]]

TTY emulation, video ASL, and SMS direct to PSAP. Among the ``consumer 
to relay services to PSAP'' solutions that the ATIS INES Incubator is 
considering are: IP relay service, video relay service, national SMS 
relay, national RTT relay, and home PSAP relay.
    52. L.R. Kimball (Kimball) ``supports the development of a SMS to 
911 solution'' and believes that many of the limitations cited by other 
parties can be resolved by ``[s]electing a different point of 
interconnection between the SMS system and 911.'' According to Kimball, 
such limitations are the ``consequence of the selected point-of-
interconnection (POI) between the SMS system and 911, namely, at the 
store-and-forward service,'' however, selecting a different POI ``may 
permit many of these problems to be resolved and, if implemented 
properly, should not seriously or significantly impact the operation of 
the existing SMS system.'' Specifically, Kimball argues that ``a store-
and-forward function need not exist between the SMS originator and [a] 
PSAP, provided a suitable POI can be found ahead of the store-and-
forward function.'' Further, according to Kimball, specific elements of 
the telephone industry standard Signaling System 7 (SS7) network can 
provide ``an effective and convenient POI for interconnecting SMS 
systems with a new 911-specific SMS service'' and many mobile telephone 
switches allow for the design of ``several possible mechanisms that can 
be used to separate SMS to 911 messages from normal SMS processing.'' 
Consequently, Kimball contends that ``with SMS to 911 messages 
separated from the SMS system, it becomes possible to implement a 
dedicated SMS to 911 [Signaling Control Point (SCP)] [that] can address 
most, or even all, of the technical objections to a SMS to 911 service 
and can do so without impacting the SMS store-and-forward functions 
that are in widespread use today.'' An SMS to 911 SCP can perform 
functions such as ``gateway and protocol conversion functions from SS7 
to NG911, including signaling and media conversion''; ``assigning a 
`session identifier,' so that successive SMS messages (from the same 
phone) reach the same dispatcher via the NG911 network''; ``providing 
acknowledgement or negative delivery text messages back to the 
originator of the emergency text message''; and ``querying the wireless 
carrier's position determining system in an attempt to locate the 
originator's location.''
    53. Discussion. The record indicates that SMS-to-911 has a number 
of technical limitations that affect its ability to support reliable 
emergency communications. SMS is essentially a store-and-forward 
messaging service that is not designed to provide immediate or reliable 
message delivery; does not support two-way real-time communication; 
does not provide the sender's location information; and does not 
support the delivery of other media such as photos, video, and data. 
All of these factors appear to make SMS inappropriate as a long-term 
text-to-911 solution and warrant caution in encouraging it as a short-
term solution. At the same time, SMS-to-911 offers certain significant 
potential benefits as an interim solution. It can be deployed 
relatively quickly, consumers have already embraced the technology, and 
the vast majority of wireless providers and mobile devices support SMS. 
Moreover, the trials in other countries that we described above 
indicate that SMS can supplement voice-based 911 services. In addition, 
some commenters have suggested that it is possible to overcome or 
mitigate some of the technical limitations of SMS at a reasonable cost 
to providers, PSAPs, and consumers.
    54. Balancing these considerations, we believe that PSAPs, 
providers, and vendors should have the option to implement SMS-to-911 
as a short-term alternative. We seek comment on this view and on 
whether the benefits of leveraging SMS-to-911 on an interim basis 
outweigh the limitations of SMS. We also encourage SMS-to-911 trials by 
interested parties to develop improved information about the strengths 
and limitations of this approach, and we request that participants in 
ongoing and future trials (existing and future) submit their trial data 
and findings in this proceeding.
    55. We also seek comment on the feasibility of overcoming or 
mitigating SMS technical limitations at a reasonable cost to providers, 
PSAPs, and consumers. Specifically, we seek comment on Kimball's 
proposal regarding selecting a different point of interconnection 
between the SMS system and 911. How technically feasible is this 
solution, and on what percentage of mobile switching infrastructure 
could it work? Kimball notes that ``there is no business or regulatory 
driver to implement a SMS to 911 interconnection [and] implementation 
and maintenance would be an additional cost to providers and there is 
no process in place to recoup those expenditures.'' We seek comment on 
the costs of implementation of this proposal, including ongoing 
maintenance and operation costs. We also seek comment on any activities 
by standards-setting bodies that may play a role in the short-term 
deployment of SMS-based text-to-911 services. Intrado argues that any 
text-to-911 ``solution should use the digits 9-1-1.'' We seek comment 
on whether a national short code for SMS-to-911 should be designated by 
the Commission, a standards-setting body, or some other entity. If so, 
how should this short code be designated and implemented?
    56. Further, one limitation that most commenters recognized is the 
inability of SMS to provide accurate location information for routing 
or PSAP dispatch purposes. To overcome this limitation, would it be 
technologically feasible for the recipient of an emergency SMS, such as 
the ALI database provider, to query for the location using the phone 
number provided, assuming that it can identify the originating 
provider? Have such techniques been tested experimentally? If this is 
feasible, could such a query work for all SMS messages or would it only 
be available for certain classes of messages (e.g., only for messages 
sent while the user is not roaming or for domestic customers)? Are 
there other limitations? If there are such limitations, is there data 
to quantify the fraction of SMS messages or users likely to be 
affected, extrapolating from non-emergency use of SMS? What costs would 
be associated with such a solution? How much time would separately 
checking the ALI database to determine the location of an individual 
texting to 911 add to response time?
4. Approaches Based on Software Applications
    57. As noted above, many consumers are acquiring more advanced 
mobile devices (e.g., 3G and 4G handsets) that enable them to install 
applications on their phones, including applications to send text 
messages without using SMS or MMS, sometimes referred to as ``over the 
top.'' We seek comment on the feasibility of using general texting or 
911-specific applications to support a transitional non-voice NG911 
system that would allow consumers to send text and other non-voice 
media to PSAPs. Such a system would consist of two components: (1) One 
or more databases that describe where text-to-911 capabilities are 
available and how to reach the appropriate PSAP; and (2) one or more 
software applications for smartphone operating systems. Providers and 
third parties, including but not limited to systems vendors that 
currently provide services and equipment to PSAPs, could develop such 
applications. The application

[[Page 63266]]

would obtain location information, including cell tower identity, from 
smartphone operating systems and would rely on standard IP connectivity 
to deliver a message to the right destination based on a location 
database. The database would map approximate location data to a PSAP or 
ESInet IP address or indicate that text service is not available for 
that location.
    58. This system architecture has several potential benefits, 
including the fact that it could be rolled out in a relatively short 
period of time and that it would not require any major provider network 
or mobile handset upgrades. We seek comment on the costs and timeframe 
for deploying such a system. How would such a system be structured to 
reduce the time to deployment, minimize the effort required by 
providers, and maximize the operational reliability of the system? We 
also seek comment on whether it would be possible for this system to 
support other media besides text, including voice, video, images, and 
data. Could the system be made compliant to existing and emerging 
standards? Would PSAPs need to have access to broadband IP connectivity 
or should the system allow for translation of text messages (e.g., to 
TTY-based messaging)? Would PSAPs need to install any additional 
software or hardware? If so, what specific costs would be associated 
with such installation? Is it possible for an application to 
automatically detect whether a PSAP is capable of receiving only text 
or also other advanced media types, such as images? How would an entity 
or entities be selected to build and maintain the national database(s) 
of where text-to-911 applications work and what costs are associated 
with creating and maintaining a database? Who should bear those costs? 
What entities would provide the smartphone application? Should there be 
a process whereby applications are certified in some way? If so, what 
entity should perform this certification?
    59. Under this system, only users of smartphones would be able to 
install the applications that would enable them to send text messages 
to 911. How, if at all, should the Commission address this issue? Could 
the system outlined above be adapted to handle SMS messages after 
translation to a SIP-based message format? Are there prototypes or 
alternatives of application-based NG911 systems that the Commission 
should consider as models? Are there any activities by standards-
setting bodies that may play a role in the short-term deployment of 
text-to-911 services based on software applications?

B. 911 Prioritization in Major Emergencies

    60. A critical feature of public safety is the ability of persons 
in need of assistance to have reliable access to emergency services, 
especially during times of major disasters such as large-scale natural 
and man-made disasters. The August 23, 2011 East Coast earthquake and 
Hurricane Irene demonstrated that concentrated demands on the capacity 
of commercial communications networks during and immediately after 
emergencies can hinder the ability of consumers to make voice calls. 
This, in turn, could jeopardize consumers' ability to contact 911, 
potentially leaving 911 callers without the assistance they need. We 
seek comment on how best to address this concern in both legacy 
networks and the emerging broadband networks that will support NG911.
    61. One way to enhance consumers' ability to contact 911 in the 
wake of a disaster is to prioritize 911 traffic over non-911 traffic. 
Accordingly, we seek comment on whether GSM and CDMA networks are able 
to support prioritization of 911 calls. If so, are wireless providers 
currently prioritizing 911 calls to their respective radio access 
networks (both for GSM and CDMA networks)? What are the costs of 
incorporating 911 prioritization technology, to the extent it exists, 
into these networks? What are the qualitative and quantitative benefits 
of doing so? Are 911 prioritization technologies for GSM or CDMA 
networks used outside of the United States today, and if so, where and 
what has been the experience with these technologies, including with 
respect to their reliability? If not, can anything be done to improve 
them to support 911 use? Are there similar concerns about network 
congestion inhibiting 911 calls on wireline networks? If so, do 
providers prioritize wireline 911 calls, or should they? What are the 
advantages and disadvantages of doing so? Would prioritizing 911 calls 
during and after a major emergency limit the ability of consumers to 
complete non-911 calls that serve a socially important purpose, such as 
calls to confirm the safety or whereabouts of family members?
    62. Another way to improve consumers' ability to reach 911 in the 
wake of a disaster is to encourage users to limit their use of the 
network so that calls to 911 are more likely to go through. Could 
legacy service providers take preparatory or preventive measures to 
mitigate congestion and thereby increase the likelihood that consumers 
are able to contact 911 during major disasters? Are there best 
practices that providers or others could encourage consumers to follow 
to mitigate congestion after major disasters? Would the network 
protocols and systems used for Wireless Priority Services (WPS) be 
suitable for prioritizing 911 calls, and if so, would any adjustments 
be needed?
    63. As discussed above, after the East Coast earthquake on August 
23, 2011, many consumers were unable to make voice calls, but they 
could send text messages. To what degree would the deployment of text-
to-911 capability improve the ability of consumers to reach 911 during 
a major disaster by reducing network congestion? What are the relative 
costs and benefits of short-term deployment of this capability through 
retrofitting of legacy networks versus developing text-to-911, as well 
as the priority mechanisms discussed above, as basic components of 
emerging and future broadband networks? We seek comment on these issues 
and ask commenters to address any other significant considerations with 
respect to industry standards and practices, including any evolving 
trends and industry initiatives addressing the avoidance or mitigation 
of 911 service disruptions during major disasters.
    64. We also seek comment on the potential for prioritization of 911 
traffic in existing and future mobile broadband networks. For example, 
Long Term Evolution (LTE) provides mechanisms for prioritizing traffic 
through capabilities such as Allocation Retention Priority (ARP), which 
assigns fifteen levels of priority. We seek comment on whether these 
capabilities and/or other LTE and IMS capabilities can support 
prioritization for 911 calls. We seek comment on the technical 
feasibility, potential benefits, and costs of doing so. Do wireless 
providers intend to prioritize 911 calls on LTE or IMS networks? Are 
they incorporating this technology into their commercial networks 
today? What costs are associated with incorporating such technology 
into LTE or IMS networks, and what are the qualitative and quantitative 
benefits of doing so? Would PSAPs need to make any changes to their 
facilities to ensure appropriate prioritization of 911 calls delivered 
over LTE or IMS? If so, what costs would be associated with such 
changes? What NG911 standards are being developed for LTE or IMS 
technologies and networks, if any, that would reduce the risk of 
network congestion? Should standards-setting bodies consider additional 
standards to address this matter? Should broadband networks be 
configured to support prioritization of

[[Page 63267]]

911 calls? If so, how can that be done cost effectively?
    65. We note that in the Open Internet Order, the Commission 
specifically stated that nothing in our Open Internet rules 
``supersedes any obligation or authorization a provider of broadband 
Internet access service may have to address the needs of emergency 
communications or law enforcement, public safety, or national security 
authorities, consistent with or as permitted by applicable law, or 
limits the provider's ability to do so.'' We believe that to the extent 
the 911 prioritization alternatives considered here would apply to 
broadband Internet access service providers, they fall within this 
provision. We seek comment on this view. In addition, in the Open 
Internet Order, we declined to adopt a requirement that network 
managers provide public safety users with advance changes in network 
management practices that could affect emergency services, but we 
``encourage[d] broadband providers to be mindful of the potential 
impact on emergency services when implementing network management 
practices, and to coordinate major changes with providers of emergency 
services when appropriate.'' Would the same approach be appropriate in 
the context of 911 prioritization?
    66. Are there any other legal issues involved in prioritizing 911 
traffic? For example, to the extent a 911 call is carried by a provider 
subject to section 202(a), would prioritization of a 911 call be 
considered ``discrimination,'' and if so, would it be considered a 
reasonable form of discrimination? What other legal issues, if any, 
would need to be considered and addressed?
    67. Further, with respect to legacy networks and emerging broadband 
networks, we seek comment on how service providers and public safety 
officials would manage and coordinate prioritization of 911 traffic in 
emergency situations. What role should service providers and public 
safety officials play in determining the need for and scope of 
prioritization in mobile wireless networks? Should 911 prioritization 
be implemented temporarily based on the specific conditions of the 
emergency, or should it be implemented on a permanent basis? If 
prioritization were temporary, who should determine when to initiate it 
and when to terminate it?

C. Facilitating the Long-Term Deployment of NG911 Text and Multimedia 
Applications

    68. In deciding what role, if any, the Commission should play in 
the long-term deployment of NG911 text and multimedia alternatives, we 
seek to maximize the benefits to consumers from any action we would 
take while taking into consideration the costs of compliance for 
providers and PSAPs. We therefore seek comment on the expected benefits 
of facilitating that deployment, the results of any ongoing trials and 
on the activities of standards-setting bodies involving texting 
services and multimedia applications (including data, photos, and 
video), and the relative merits of using various technical approaches 
to achieve those benefits. As in our prior evaluation of short-term 
alternatives, when evaluating the record with respect to long-term 
alternatives, we intend to place significantly more weight on the 
estimated impacts that are supported by hard data or are otherwise 
well-documented.
1. Expected Benefits of Availability of NG911 Text and Multimedia 
Applications
    69. Although quantifying the benefits of a long-term deployment of 
texting and multimedia applications for emergency communications may be 
difficult, we need to determine whether such deployment will 
significantly benefit consumers. Therefore, as in the case of short-
term alternatives, we seek more information on the benefits of long-
term NG911 applications, particularly with respect to improving 911 
accessibility for people with disabilities, meeting consumer 
expectations, providing PSAPs with valuable additional information, and 
increasing reliability and resiliency.
    70. Accessibility of 911. Long-term NG911 applications based on 
based on SIP and RTT also have the potential to provide substantially 
improved accessibility to 911 services for people with disabilities, as 
well as to provide an alternative means for non-disabled people to 
access 911 when voice access is unavailable or could pose risks to the 
caller, for example in a silent call scenario. This finding is 
supported by EAAC survey data showing that 48.1% of respondents drawn 
primarily from the disabilities community would prefer to use text 
messaging to contact 911. Further, as noted in the Notice of Inquiry, 
the ICO Plan found that ``[t]he biggest gap between the technologies 
used for daily communication and those that can access 9-1-1 services 
is that for the deaf and people with hearing or speech impairments.'' 
In addition, to the extent that long-term alternatives support not only 
text, but also video and multimedia applications, they could enhance 
accessibility for people with disabilities who rely on media other than 
text to communicate.
    71. We therefore seek more information on the benefits and 
associated costs of facilitating advanced text-to-911 and multimedia 
services, such as those based on SIP and RTT, to improve the 
accessibility of the 911 system. How do these benefits and costs 
compare to the benefits and costs of the short-term solutions discussed 
earlier? To what extent can advanced text and multimedia services 
assist individuals with hearing or speech disabilities or those who are 
deaf-blind? What benefits are created by the ability of these services 
to offer real-time connectivity or to enable the caller to send photos, 
videos, or data? To what degree will improvements in accessibility 
associated with text and multimedia services be limited to people with 
advanced mobile devices? If so limited, what are the likely 
consequences for people with disabilities who may not be able to afford 
smartphones that provide such capabilities?
    72. Consumer expectations. SIP-based text-to-911 capable of 
supporting RTT could help ensure that the 911 system meets consumer 
expectations regarding the ability to make multimedia transmissions to 
PSAPs in a next-generation environment. We therefore seek comment on 
whether promoting or requiring delivery of text and multimedia 
communications accurately reflects current and evolving consumer 
expectations and the needs of PSAPs and first responders. We seek 
information regarding how many people have attempted to send multimedia 
applications (including data, photos, or video) to 911 during 
emergencies but failed. Have there been instances where the ability to 
send multimedia applications to 911 could have made a significant 
difference in the ability of first responders to assist the caller or 
the speed of the response? We also seek information that quantifies the 
impact that incorrect consumer expectations about the ability to send 
multimedia applications to 911 may have on the health and safety of the 
public.
    73. Improved information for PSAPs. Long-term NG911 alternatives 
founded on SIP-based standards will not only support text-to-911, but 
also will support multimedia sessions that combine voice, text, photo, 
and video capability. Such multimedia applications will provide PSAPs 
and first responders with valuable additional information to assess the 
nature and severity of an emergency and determine the appropriate 
response. PSAPs and first responders may use such additional 
information to speed

[[Page 63268]]

their response or determine the type of response required (e.g., 
whether to dispatch police, fire, or EMT units). For example, as noted 
above, in a traffic accident, NG911 would not only enable the PSAP to 
receive the 911 call for help from the caller seeking assistance, but 
also would enable it to correlate the call with 911 calls from others 
at or near the scene and combine the information with video from nearby 
traffic cameras to assess the impact on traffic and identify the first 
responders that could reach the scene the fastest. In addition, if any 
vehicles in the accident had automatic collision notification systems, 
the PSAP would receive additional information regarding the severity of 
the crash that could help determine the likely medical needs of 
accident victims and the appropriate emergency medical response. In 
some cases, enhanced information could lead to quicker apprehension of 
criminal suspects or could facilitate screening of potentially 
fraudulent or malicious 911 calls. For example, the PSAP could ask a 
caller to take a picture or video of the scene of an alleged incident 
to verify that the caller is indeed close to the scene. In the 
Technical Background section, we explained that NG911 technologies also 
include a number of multimedia applications, which are broader than 
just person-to-person text and messaging services. Are there any steps 
the FCC should take now to encourage further development of those 
technologies?
    74. We seek comment on the benefits of providing additional 
information to PSAPs, particularly if supported by data, for example on 
the incidence of fraudulent calls, or descriptions of emergency 
incidents where multimedia information could have been helpful. We also 
seek comment on the benefits of supporting video communications for 
people with disabilities who have come to rely on this mode of 
communication on a daily basis, such as persons who use American Sign 
Language. Finally, we seek comment on whether PSAPs are equipped to 
handle an increased volume of data from multimedia applications. How 
will PSAPs process and sort through such information? What additional 
resources, if any, will they need to be able to do so?
    75. Improved reliability and resiliency. IP-based messaging 
services could contribute to improved reliability and resiliency of 
emergency response networks because they generally consume less 
bandwidth than voice calls and may use different spectrum resources or 
traffic channels. This may enable people in disaster areas to send text 
messages to 911 even if they cannot place a voice call. Similarly, as 
911 network technology migrates from circuit-switched to packet-
switched networks with improved technology, PSAPs will have more tools 
to filter text messages by incident, so that they can spend less time 
with multiple callers reporting the same incident. For example, IP-
based text and multimedia could be combined with other technologies 
such as device-to-device communication (e.g., automatic crash 
detection) to process information more efficiently. We seek comment on 
the impact of IP-based messaging solutions on PSAP operations and 
emergency response during large-scale disasters. How do the benefits 
and costs compare to the benefits and costs of short-term text-to-911 
solutions discussed earlier?
2. Standards Development for NG911 Applications
    76. Standards. We also seek comment on ongoing activities of 
standards-setting bodies regarding deployment of IP-based text and 
multimedia emergency services for next generation networks. In the 
Notice of Inquiry, the Commission noted that ``[w]hile the basic 
components of identification, location lookup, and call routing are 
present in all NG911 proposals, there have been at least three 
different proposed approaches for how to implement these elements in 
specific networks.'' The three proposals noted by the Commission were 
the ATIS `Considerations for an Emergency Services Next Generation 
Network (ES-NGN)'; the NENA architecture based on Internet Engineering 
Task Force (IETF) protocols; `NENA Functional and Interface Standards 
for Next Generation 9-1-1 Version 1.0 (i3)'; and the 3rd Generation 
Partnership Project architecture; `IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) 
Emergency Sessions.
    77. NENA has noted that NENA and 3GPP requirements must be aligned 
to make NG911 available. We seek comment on whether such alignment is 
necessary and, if so, how much time is needed to effectuate an 
alignment. What benefits would such alignment provide? The 3GPP 
architecture is compatible with NENA's i2 architecture. While NENA's i2 
permits VoIP providers to send 911 voice calls and location information 
to PSAPs, 3GPP extends the i2 solution to include text and video. We 
seek comment on whether aligning 3GPP with NENA's i3 requirements would 
result in substantive changes to NENA specifications, 3GPP 
specifications, or both. What costs, if any, are associated with 
aligning NENA and 3GPP requirements? We also seek comment on whether it 
would be necessary to align these requirements and specifications with 
ATIS' proposals. Can protocol gateways be used to connect i3 systems 
to, for example, 3GPP IMS systems? What functionality would these 
gateways need to support? Do these gateways pose potential scaling or 
reliability problems? Are there any technical specifications or 
requirements needed to further the development of the more advanced 
devices and functionalities that are broader than just person-to-person 
text and messaging services?
    78. NENA has also indicated that more recent versions of its NG911 
technical specifications and its NG911 transition plan will be needed 
for the 3GPP/NENA alignment. As noted above, 3GPP has published a 
report on the use of NOVES that provides a general description of 
perceived needs. In addition, ATIS has created its INES Incubator. We 
seek comment on when these interim and final specifications for 
handling NOVES are likely to be published. Will there be alignment 
issues involving NOVES and INES? Are there additional specifications or 
requirements needed to implement long-term NG911 solutions for text and 
multimedia? Have any additional efforts to develop NG911 standards been 
conducted to implement these specifications, requirements, or 
solutions? We request that commenters provide the Commission with any 
relevant data that has been gathered from these efforts to develop 
NG911 standards.
3. Approaches Based On IP-Based Messaging or Real-Time Text
    79. As noted above, there are at least three IP-based messaging 
mechanisms, including SIP-based pager-mode, MSRP, and XMPP. We also 
provided a description of RTT, which permits characters to be sent when 
typed. Further, we described ATIS' INES Incubator program and other 
next generation text-to-911 standards-setting initiatives.
    80. Comments. Wireless providers generally argue that SMS-to-911 
should not be part of the NG911 framework. Instead, providers maintain 
that industry should be given additional time to develop standards for 
IP-based emergency services, such as NOVES. According to T-Mobile 
``[r]ather than expend resources trying to make SMS work for 911, 
stakeholders should instead focus on next-generation communications 
services that will provide better 911 access to all consumers.'' CTIA 
argues that ``[a] new messaging suite will provide functionality 
similar to and exceeding

[[Page 63269]]

current messaging services and is expected to be incorporated into a 
future release of the LTE standard.'' According to CTIA, NOVES is 
anticipated to be finalized by September 2012 as part of 3GPP Release 
11. CTIA argues that ``industry and the Commission need to weigh the 
benefits of proposed interim solutions against the risk of delay to 
such long term solutions for which development efforts are entering the 
advanced stages.'' AT&T recommends that the Commission ``encourage work 
by industry groups such as NENA, ATIS, and 3GPP to develop standards 
for NOVES for next generation networks that include non-SMS text based 
messaging options.'' Verizon states that ``significant activities are 
under way to develop a uniform approach for the delivery of * * * NOVES 
* * * including the use of messaging for emergency services. RTT, which 
will be feasible for NG911 networks and consumer equipment, is still 
undergoing assessment but has been standardized by 3GPP as the optimal 
replacement for legacy TTY/TDD devices in 4G wireless communications 
networks [and] the Commission should support and monitor these efforts, 
and not be distracted by less effective interim measures.''
    81. CSRIC 4B notes that ``a long term solution may be provided by * 
* * NOVES * * * a new service for which requirements are being 
developed in the NENA Next Generation Messaging Group and in the 3GPP 
SA1 group.'' According to CSRIC 4B, ``The NENA Next Generation 
Messaging Working Group is currently developing use cases and 
requirements for NOVES, and those requirements are expected to be 
aligned with those in the ATIS Wireless Technology and Systems 
Committee (WTSC) and 3GPP SA1, which will be, at some future point, 
standardizing NOVES. Further, according to CSRIC, ``When 3GPP SA1 
completes the requirements for NOVES, other 3GPP groups will determine 
whether network architecture changes are needed and whether any new 
protocols (or changes to existing protocols) are needed to support 
NOVES.'' CSRIC 4B estimates that work on NOVES industry standards may 
be completed by March 2012.
    82. Public safety commenters also have concerns about SMS-to-911 
and generally support RTT as a text-to-911 solution. APCO notes that 
``there are a number of Quality of Service concerns with the use of SMS 
to 911'' and that ``RTT has the potential benefit of allowing hearing-
impaired or speech-impaired individuals to communicate directly, in 
real time, with an NG911 capable PSAP, rather than having to be routed 
through an intermediary service.'' NENA states that ``[d]ue to its more 
conversational flow, Real-Time Text * * * is a preferred method of 
communication for many text users, and particularly for individuals 
with disabilities.'' NENA also notes that ``standards-compliant RTT 
should be supported in all NG9-1-1 deployments.''
    83. Discussion. We seek comment on the timeframe in which standards 
are likely to be completed for RTT or other IP-based messaging 
solutions, and how much additional time will be required for providers 
to implement these solutions in their networks. What are the advantages 
and disadvantages of RTT and other IP-based messaging solutions, and 
which solutions show the most potential for allowing individuals to 
communicate with 911? Should the Commission play a more active role in 
monitoring or facilitating the standards-setting process, or should it 
not act until next generation non-voice emergency messaging standards 
are closer to being finalized? Should the Commission coordinate a 
voluntary industry-wide timetable or establish a mandatory timetable 
for standardization, implementation, and roll-out to facilitate 
planning by manufacturers, software vendors, and PSAPs?
4. Approaches Based on Software Applications
    84. In our discussion of short-term alternatives, we sought comment 
on developing ``over the top'' software applications that would enable 
consumers to send text messages and other non-voice media to PSAPs 
using IP networks. We specifically sought comment on the feasibility of 
developing a non-voice NG911 system in the short term that would 
consist of two components: (1) A database or databases that would 
identify where text-to-911 capabilities are available and how to reach 
the appropriate PSAP and/or text answering center; and (2) one or more 
software applications for smartphone operating systems. We noted that 
this system could be rolled out quickly and would not require any major 
provider network or mobile handset upgrades.
    85. We seek comment on whether ``over the top'' software 
applications such as the one described above have long-term as well as 
short-term potential to support delivery of text and other media to 
911. Are there additional software-based applications that we should 
consider as long-term options even if they are not viable in the short 
term? We seek comment on the costs and timeframes for deploying such 
applications. Could we use software-based applications to reduce the 
time to deployment, minimize the effort required by and costs for 
providers, and maximize the operational reliability of NG911?
    86. We also seek comment on the potential for long-term software 
applications to support voice, text, video, and images, both separately 
and in combination. Could such applications be made compliant to 
existing and emerging standards? What level of broadband IP 
connectivity would PSAPs need to support multimedia applications, 
particularly bandwidth-intensive applications such as video? Would 
PSAPs need to install any additional software or hardware? If so, how 
much would such additional software or hardware cost? Would 
applications be capable of automatically detecting the capability of 
individual PSAPs to receive particular media? To what degree would 
PSAPs using software-based applications require access to regional or 
national databases? Who would build and maintain such databases? How 
much would such databases cost and who would bear that cost? What 
entities would provide the smartphone applications? Should such 
applications be certified, and if so, who should perform the 
certification?

D. The Commission's Role in Expediting Deployment of Text-to-911 and 
Other NG911 Applications

    87. In this section, we seek comment on the role the Commission 
should play to expedite the development and widespread deployment of 
the short-term text-to-911 and long-term text and multimedia solutions 
discussed above.
1. Incentive-Based vs. Regulatory Approaches
    88. In response to the Notice of Inquiry, wireless providers 
generally argue that the Commission should not adopt any text-related 
requirements at this time. Instead, providers maintain that the 
Commission should wait until standards, such as IMS and NOVES, are more 
fully adopted. For example, AT&T states ``the Commission should not 
specify which technologies should be used in the NG911 environment, but 
should allow standards to define these technologies.'' Sprint Nextel 
highlights that it ``supports efforts to deploy an NG911 service that 
will include both voice and text capabilities'' but that ``there are 
many technical considerations that must be resolved * * * through 
standards-setting organizations before NG911 implementation can move 
forward.'' On

[[Page 63270]]

the other hand, NENA argues that ``waiting until all or most PSAPs have 
NG9-1-1 capabilities and all access network providers support NG9-1-1 
standards and then simultaneously enabling text support is an untenable 
model. Consumers expect to access 9-1-1 by text now, not many years 
from now. * * *. It would be best, in our opinion, for text to be 
enabled soon, nationwide, over a short deployment period. We believe 
that can be accomplished.''
    89. We seek comment on whether there are any incentive-based 
approaches that the Commission could or should adopt to encourage the 
rapid development of text-to-911 solutions. Should the Commission 
develop best practices for deploying text-to-911 and other multimedia 
applications, for example through CSRIC? Alternatively, should the 
Commission adopt deadlines, timetables, or uniform network interface 
standard requirements? Do providers have an incentive to rapidly 
develop NG911 solutions if the Commission does not impose such 
measures? If so, what are those incentives? Are there any actions that 
the Commission could take to act as a catalyst or facilitator for early 
operational prototypes? Should the Commission defer additional 
regulatory action until standards are more universally adopted? If so, 
what specific set of standards would have to be completed to trigger 
such action? What degree of flexibility should the Commission afford to 
providers in their efforts to deploy NG911 solutions? Which mobile 
devices and networks should be subject to requirements? For example, 
should requirements apply only to devices capable of accessing the 
Internet or sold after a specific date established by the Commission?
2. PSAP-Based Triggers for Providers To Provide NG911 Solutions for 
Non-Voice Emergency Messaging to 911
    90. In the NG911 environment, PSAPs will need certain equipment and 
operational procedures in place to receive text and other media types 
from wireless providers. In response to the Notice of Inquiry, many 
commenters argued that the Commission should not require wireless 
providers to make investments in their networks to provide NG911 
solutions until PSAPs are able to receive text and other media. We seek 
comment on the degree to which PSAP readiness should be factored into 
Commission action relating to NG911 implementation. What are the 
advantages and disadvantages of waiting until PSAPs can receive text 
and other media?
    91. The Commission's existing E911 rules require CMRS providers to 
make Phase I and Phase II service available ``only if the administrator 
of the designated Public Safety Answering Point has requested the 
services required * * * and is capable of receiving and utilizing the 
data elements associated with the service.'' We seek comment on whether 
a similar process would be appropriate in the NG911 context, such that 
PSAPs would have to request delivery of text or other media to 911 and 
demonstrate the capability to receive such traffic. If so, what 
specific showing should a PSAP be required to make to establish its 
ability to receive text and other media types? For example, NENA states 
that ``[a] transition to NG9-1-1 starts when an ESInet is deployed and 
one PSAP is ready to utilize NG9-1-1.'' Should ESINet deployment be a 
required element of the PSAP showing? Should the PSAP demonstrate that 
it supports IP-based message routing (e.g., by advertising its 
geographic coverage region via a national, state-wide or regional LoST 
server?
a. State or Regional Approaches
    92. With over 6,800 PSAPs in the United States, spanning a wide 
range of sizes and resources, individual PSAPs are likely to have 
highly varying timetables for developing the technical and operational 
capability to handle text as well as other media. Therefore, while 
there is significant benefit to having providers provide text-to-911 to 
individual PSAPs that are capable of receiving it, implementing this 
approach at the individual PSAP level could impose inefficiencies and 
burdensome costs on providers. Our experience with deployment of E911 
on a PSAP-by-PSAP basis is instructive in this regard, as it resulted 
in providers frequently implementing E911 capability in areas where 
PSAPs were not yet E911-capable. For this reason, we seek comment on 
whether we should assess PSAP NG911 readiness at the state or regional 
level rather than the individual PSAP level. What are the advantages 
and disadvantages of such an approach?
    93. We envision that state and regional entities will play a 
significant role in the deployment of NG911. The ICO Plan states that a 
successful transition will depend on a high level of coordination, 
cooperation, and planning among the state, regional, and local 911 
authorities. NENA notes that ``state and local public safety agencies 
and 9-1-1 authorities must begin to take a hard look at the cost 
savings that could be realized through regionalization of non-PSAP 
NG911 components such as ESInets.'' NENA also highlights that ``each 
state will need to coordinate the deployment of ESInets statewide'' and 
``explicitly include appropriate tools and mechanisms to ensure that 
future upgrades can be deployed state-wide in a small number of 
years.'' NENA envisions that state transition plans would ``provide for 
seamless interoperability between legacy networks and NG9-1-1 
networks.''
    94. Sprint Nextel contends that ``[c]oordinated implementation * * 
* will be even more essential to NG911 deployment, since the NG911 
system will be based on a system of [ESInets] deployed at the local 
state level.'' T-Mobile argues that ``the Commission should ensure that 
there is at least a substantial level of regional coordination with 
respect to the conversion to, and implementation of, NG911 systems.'' 
Absent such coordination, T-Mobile contends, interoperability benefits 
will be lost, and NG911 implementation costs for providers may be 
substantially higher if providers have to simultaneously support legacy 
911 systems and upgraded NG911 systems in the same region.
    95. We seek comment on steps the Commission could take to 
facilitate such a coordinated approach. Specifically, we seek comment 
on whether the Commission should require PSAPs to demonstrate a 
specified level of technical NG911 capability at the statewide or 
regional level as a precondition to providers being subject to any 
Commission requirement to deliver text or other media to PSAPs in the 
state or region. What are the advantages and disadvantages of such an 
approach? For example, should the Commission refrain from requiring 
wireless providers to support delivery of text or other media to 911 in 
a given state or region until the state or region meets certain 
conditions, such as the deployment of an ESInet? If we adopted a state 
or regional approach and the deployment of an ESInet served as the 
trigger, what would happen if not all PSAPs in the state or region were 
upgraded to link to the ESInet? Should the state or region be required 
to meet other technical conditions?
    96. We also seek comment on any legal or regulatory barriers that 
may exist at the state or local level that could hinder the deployment 
of NG911. A number of commenters contend that outdated state 
regulations have hampered the deployment of NG911 networks. For 
example, NENA asserts that ``[m]any existing laws, regulations and 
tariffs make specific reference to

[[Page 63271]]

older technologies or system capabilities which may inadvertently 
inhibit the migration to NG9-1-1.'' According to NENA, examples 
include:
     Provisions that require specific technology components for 
E911 service delivery that are not necessarily the same for NG911.
     Regulations that ``assume the existence of legacy 
components,'' such as the selective router, which may impede the 
transition to ``NG9-1-1 deployments.'' For example, NENA refers to 
current Commission rules requiring ``the delivery of wireless and voice 
over IP (VoIP) 9-1-1 `calls' over the `wireline E9-1-1 network.'''
     State regulations, laws, or tariffs that currently do not 
allow 911 authorities or new 911 SSPs to receive relevant routing, 
location, and other related 911 information in the possession of the 
incumbent SSPs at reasonable rates and terms.
     Existing 911 service arrangements and tariffs that inhibit 
new entrants from making similar competitive services available on a 
component-by-component basis, where technically and operationally 
feasible.
     In some states, liability protection for 911 service 
providers may be provided only through the tariff of a Local Exchange 
Carrier (LEC) rather than via statute. In such cases, if a LEC 
withdraws its tariff or NG911 services fall outside the scope of the 
tariff, providers of NG911 services, and possibly PSAPs as well, will 
not receive liability protection.
    97. States are also concerned about outdated regulations that may 
hinder the deployment of NG911 networks. The Public Safety 
Communications Office (PSCO) of the California Technology Agency notes 
that it is ``currently exploring state and local barriers and will seek 
to remove them'' and ``recommend[s] that the FCC do the same at the 
federal level.'' The Texas 9-1-1 Agencies request that the Commission 
address interconnection disputes and the registration and certification 
of NG911 SSPs. The Ohio PUC supports ``a dual state-federal regulatory 
framework for NG911 in which the FCC establishes broad, national 
objectives, standards and benchmarks, but leaves coordinating the 
implementation and transition to the states.''
    98. Providers and 911 SSPs are similarly concerned about regulatory 
obstacles that may hinder NG911 development. Dash asserts that 
``requirements for CLECs to purchase 9-1-1 or CAMA trunks any time the 
CLEC seeks to deploy interconnection facilities * * *. imposes burdens 
on the PSAPs because [PSAPs] have to conduct interoperability testing 
on each trunk and otherwise be prepared to receive 9-1-1 calls from 
those trunks regardless of whether the CLEC is actually using them.'' 
In Dash's view, ``this discriminatory behavior'' results in CLECs being 
``bound to the ILEC's outdated model.'' Dash argues that ``CLECs, VoIP 
providers and other competitive service providers should be permitted 
to use * * * new 9-1-1 solutions and not be required to purchase 
services that they would not absent regulatory or monopoly mandates.'' 
AT&T contends that ``[s]tate laws and regulations governing the types 
of devices and `calls' allowed to access the NG911 network will also 
require modifications'' in the following areas: (1) Determining ``the 
eligible use of NG911 funds''; (2) ensuring that requirements do not 
mandate ``technology components for E911 service delivery that are 
incompatible with NG911 service''; and (3) ensuring that laws and 
regulations are ``functional, standards-based, and performance-based 
without reference to any specific proprietary technology, manufacturer, 
or service provider.'' Further, L.R. Kimball maintains that 
``[r]evisions to or the elimination of older laws and tariffs would be 
necessary in order to require interconnections.'' Moreover, L.R. 
Kimball argues for ``overhaul'' of ``the 911 regulatory environments at 
both the federal and state level * * * to promote competition.'' L.R. 
Kimball also observes that ``[t]here are currently no regulations in 
place to drive carriers to implement a SMS to 911 interconnection.''
    99. In light of these concerns, we seek comment on whether as a 
precondition to Commission action, states should be required to 
demonstrate that they have adopted appropriate or removed outmoded 
legal or regulatory measures to facilitate NG911 deployment, such as 
deregulation of legacy 911 interconnection arrangements and enactment 
of liability protection for NG911 providers and service providers. 
Would this approach incentivize states to eliminate outdated laws and 
regulations? Are there other steps that we should take to encourage the 
elimination or mitigation of state and local regulatory barriers to 
NG911?
    100. We also seek comment on what statutory or regulatory changes, 
if any, would be necessary for the Commission, other federal agencies, 
states, tribes, or localities to facilitate and oversee the deployment 
of NG911 networks. Are there specific FCC regulations that the 
Commission should eliminate or modify to facilitate the deployment of 
NG911 networks? What specific actions can the Commission take that 
would incentivize states and localities to eliminate outdated 
regulations that hinder the deployment of NG911 networks?
b. Advanced Regional 911 Centers
    101. AT&T contends that consumer confusion occurred during previous 
deployment of basic 911 and E911 service and is equally likely with 
respect to the deployment of NG911. AT&T describes the launch of basic 
911 service as having been ``accompanied with significant consumer 
confusion regarding whether or not there was access to a particular 
service in a particular area.'' AT&T also contends that widespread 
publicity concerning the Black Hawk County, Iowa, text-to-911 trial 
caused confusion elsewhere in the country regarding the availability of 
text-to-911. AT&T warns that if ``the Commission fails to establish 
clear direction for a standardized design for non-voice emergency 
communications, the result will be a patchwork implementation of non-
voice emergency capabilities and additional consumer confusion.''
    102. NENA has noted the need for additional technical requirements 
to address this issue, stating that ``while all [NG911] PSAPs must 
handle all media, a legacy PSAP behind [an ESInet-to-legacy PSAP 
gateway] would only handle voice media and TTY. There is no mechanism 
by which a caller could discover what media the PSAP supports. This 
will be covered in a future edition of [the NENA i3 Solution].'' We 
invite comment on the amount of time that will be required for the 
issuance of such requirements, as well as their adequacy for avoiding 
caller confusion.
    103. AT&T states that use of the aforementioned ``gateways to 
interwork [ESInets] with legacy PSAPs will only further complicate 
implementation of NG911.'' Instead, AT&T proposes building ``regional 
entities to handle non-voice emergency services media types when the 
local PSAP cannot.'' The regional centers would ``support NG911 
capabilities so that every PSAP need not be updated before certain 
advanced services can be supported.'' According to AT&T, ``[n]ot only 
will this [approach] ensure interoperability, but it will also limit 
the capital outlay required to deliver NG911 services, thereby 
accelerating deployment.'' We seek comment on AT&T's proposal. In 
particular, we seek comment on the costs and practicability of AT&T's 
proposed regional PSAP approach relative to the upgrading of individual

[[Page 63272]]

PSAPs. Would the AT&T approach reduce the amount of capital outlay 
required as compared to upgrading individual PSAPs? Would it enable 
more rapid deployment of NG911? How long would it take to implement 
AT&T's approach? Are there benefits to co-locating a regional center 
with a PSAP that is already being upgraded to NG911? Are there benefits 
to co-locating a regional center with another location that already 
supports some NG911capabilities, such as a TRS or VRS center? We also 
seek comment on the specific protocol interfaces and functionality that 
should be in place at the advanced 911 centers before providers are 
required to provide text and other media types to these call centers. 
AT&T also states that the Commission should limit ``advanced 
functionality in NG911 systems until a baseline network'' of the 
regional centers exists. Should the Commission go so far as to limit 
advanced functionality in such circumstances or in any other 
circumstances?

E. Consumer Education and Disclosure Mechanisms

    104. The Notice of Inquiry sought comment on how to educate and 
prepare consumers for disparate PSAP capabilities in an NG911 
environment. Commenters generally agreed that NG911 applications such 
as text-to-911 will not be deployed uniformly and that a nationwide 
education effort will therefore be needed during the transition. 
Motorola warns that while ``the transition to NG911 is underway, 
misinformation and confusion about the deployment details are likely to 
spread'' and maintains that an ongoing ``comprehensive and multifaceted 
public education effort'' that is ``keyed to the actual deployment of 
new services'' will be key to helping civilians understand the 
capabilities and limitations of the NG911 system.'' NENA urges that 
``left unchecked, this confusion could lead consumers to waste time 
texting 9-1-1 or leave unused other means of communications at their 
disposal, wasting precious seconds in an emergency.''
1. Expected Benefits
    105. Even using the most optimistic assumptions about the 
deployment of NG911, consumers are unlikely to have access to text or 
other NG911 applications everywhere in the United States at the same 
time. Access to these applications will vary depending on the 
consumer's location, and even in areas where NG911 is deployed, 
specific applications may vary locally or regionally depending on the 
PSAP's policies for accepting text or multimedia messages. In addition, 
technical factors such as variations in the capabilities of different 
caller handsets may lead to non-uniform access. At the same time, as 
NG911 deployment occurs in certain communities or regions, consumers 
elsewhere are likely to learn through the media, social networking, and 
other sources that text, photos, and video to 911 are available in some 
places, which may lead consumers to be uncertain or confused about 
availability of these capabilities in the consumer's own community.
    106. Given the significant risk of consumer uncertainty and 
confusion, there are clear benefits to be gained from providing the 
public with accurate and up-to-date information about the availability 
or non-availability of NG911 applications in their home communities and 
in other locations where they may travel. For example, if the public is 
not adequately informed about the availability or non-availability of 
text-to-911 in specific areas, consumers could put themselves at risk 
by attempting to send text messages to the local PSAP and being unaware 
that the text has not been received. In deciding how the Commission can 
most effectively minimize consumer confusion throughout the transition 
to NG911, we seek to maximize the benefits to consumers from any action 
we would take while taking into consideration the burden of compliance 
to providers. We therefore seek comment on the expected benefits and 
costs of implementing various approaches to consumer education and 
implementing disclosure mechanisms. We also ask whether there are any 
contractual issues that might deter consumers from texting or sending 
photos or video to 911. How many subscribers would face additional 
charges for sending texts, photos, or video to PSAPs from their mobile 
devices? Could such additional charges in some cases deter them from 
doing so? If so, should providers, the Commission, or others develop 
practices to address this situation?
2. Approaches for Education and Disclosure
    107. Commenters agree that there is a significant need for a 
nationwide education effort while text-to-911 is being rolled out. We 
seek comment on the types of educational programs that should be 
created to abate and prevent consumer confusion as text-to-911 services 
are deployed in the short term. 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? Can current 911 educational programs be adapted to 
help individuals understand text-to-911? Should educational programs 
differ depending upon the group that is being targeted, such as the 
disabilities community or non-English speakers? How should educational 
programs evolve as text-to-911 services become more prevalent? Would 
any of the educational approaches that the FCC used in the past, such 
as the campaign to inform purchasers of wireless microphones of the 
need to clear the 700 MHz band for public safety purposes, be useful 
here?
    108. We also seek comment on the appropriate role for the 
Commission and for other government and private sector entities in any 
public education effort. Motorola notes that ``[e]ntities at the local, 
state, and federal levels all need to be thinking about how to 
disseminate accurate information to the public'' and suggests that 
``beyond formal education efforts, providers of next generation 
communications services need to clearly communicate to their users any 
limitations with respect'' to 911 service access. Qualcomm suggests 
that federal agencies, including the FCC and DHS, in conjunction with 
state and local governments, take responsibility for consumer 
education. The State of California suggests that the Commission should 
take a role in education akin to its role in the digital television 
transition by creating a national public information campaign. More 
specifically, NENA suggests ``the FCC should collaborate with industry 
and media partners and public safety to educate consumers about the 
current and ongoing limitations of SMS for emergency communications.'' 
TSAG, however, comments that education ``begins with a nationally 
recognized institution, driving a baseline national program * * * 
supportive of state and local efforts'' but leadership ``should reside 
in states and [be] delivered through regional and local NG911 
organizations and institutions.'' Wichita-Wilbarger believes the 
Commission should not ``require states to specifically designate an 
organization to be responsible for the statewide organizing, planning 
or implementing of NG9-1-1.'' We seek further comment on what entities 
should be involved in educational programs. What role should the 
Commission play? What role can other federal agencies, state and local 
entities, and those in the public and private sectors play? Where would 
the Commission or other federal agencies obtain funding for consumer 
education efforts? What are the advantages and

[[Page 63273]]

disadvantages of various approaches to consumer education? How can the 
Commission and other federal agencies support local agencies and the 
media as they work to educate their communities? What are the best 
methods of educating consumers about the availability or non-
availability of NG911 applications in their communities? Should we 
require providers to disclose limitations on the availability of NG911 
applications? If so, should we require such notice at the physical 
point-of-sale, online, in bill inserts, or elsewhere? Could providers 
leverage existing marketing and billing practices to provide notice to 
consumers on a cost-effective basis?
    109. Aside from educational programs, could other resources be 
developed to help individuals learn about where text-to-911 services 
are and are not available? For instance, what is the feasibility of 
developing a consumer-focused map or website showing such availability, 
possibly building on the PSAP database that the Commission maintains or 
on other sources? Could local availability information be built into 
text-to-911 applications themselves, so that the application would 
automatically indicate whether text-to-911 is available at the caller's 
current location? What would the cost be of developing such resources 
initially and of updating them as the availability of text-to-911 
expands to new areas? Could information be provided in bills sent to 
consumers and instructional materials included with new mobile devices 
to increase awareness?
    110. Finally, despite educational programs and resources, some 
individuals will likely attempt to send text messages to 911 in 
locations where text-to-911 is not supported. AT&T notes that ``there 
is a chance that a failed non-voice emergency call could result in no 
immediate feedback.'' 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 such risk, we 
believe 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 
information on how to contact the PSAP (e.g., a message directing the 
consumer to dial a 911 voice call). We seek comment on this approach, 
including what methods are necessary to ensure that such disclosure is 
accessible to people with different types of disabilities. What 
currently happens when consumers attempt to send SMS or other text-
based messages to 911? Do wireless providers send an error message in 
response? If so, what information does the error message convey? Is it 
technically feasible for all providers to provide such error messages 
to consumers? What would the cost be to implement this capability 
across all providers and regions? Should error messages contain certain 
standardized information? What role, if any, should the Commission play 
in developing best practices, model responses, or requirements for the 
provision of standardized error messages?

F. Overlap With CVAA and EAAC

    111. In October 2010, Congress enacted the CVAA, which amends the 
Communications Act and imposes a variety of new obligations on service 
providers, equipment manufacturers, and the Commission that relate to 
providing access to communications services for people with 
disabilities. Section 106 of the CVAA requires the Commission to take 
certain steps ``[f]or the purpose of achieving equal access to 
emergency services by individuals with disabilities, as a part of the 
migration to a national Internet protocol-enabled emergency network.'' 
Specifically, Section 106 requires the Chairman, within 60 days after 
enactment of the Act, to establish the EAAC. Within one year of its 
establishment, the EAAC must: (1) Conduct a national survey of 
individuals with disabilities to determine the most effective and 
efficient technologies and methods by which to enable emergency access; 
and (2) submit to the Commission recommendations to implement such 
technologies and methods. Section 106 grants the Commission ``the 
authority to promulgate regulations to implement the recommendations 
proposed by the Advisory Committee, as well as 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.''
    112. As required by the CVAA, the Chairman established the EAAC in 
December 2010, 60 days after enactment of the statute. The EAAC is 
composed of state and local government representatives responsible for 
emergency management and emergency responder representatives, national 
organizations representing people with disabilities and senior 
citizens, communications equipment manufacturers, service providers, 
federal agency representatives responsible for implementation of the 
NG911 system, and subject matter experts. Section 106(c) of the CVAA 
specifically requires the EAAC to provide recommendations to the 
Commission:
    (1) With respect to what actions are necessary as a part of the 
migration to a national Internet protocol-enabled network to achieve 
reliable, interoperable communication transmitted over such network 
that will ensure access to emergency services by individuals with 
disabilities;
    (2) For protocols, technical capabilities, and technical 
requirements to ensure reliability and interoperability necessary to 
ensure access to emergency services by people with disabilities;
    (3) For the establishment of technical standards for use by public 
safety answering points, designated default answering points, and local 
emergency authorities;
    (4) For relevant technical standards and requirements for 
communication devices and equipment and technologies to enable the use 
of reliable emergency access;
    (5) For procedures to be followed by IP-enabled network providers 
to ensure that such providers do not install features, functions, or 
capabilities that would conflict with technical standards;
    (6) For deadlines by which providers of interconnected and non-
interconnected VoIP services and manufacturers of equipment used for 
such services shall achieve the actions required in paragraphs (1) 
through (5), where achievable, and 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; and
    (7) For the establishment of rules to update the Commission's rules 
with respect to 9-1-1 services and E-911 services (as defined in 
section 158(e)(4) of the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 942(e)(4))), for users of 
telecommunications relay services as new technologies and methods for 
providing such relay services are adopted by providers of such relay 
services;
    (8) That take into account what is technically and economically 
feasible. Since its establishment, the EAAC has met on a monthly basis 
and has conducted the required survey of people with disabilities, 
which was released in July 2011. In December 2011, one year after its 
establishment, the EAAC will

[[Page 63274]]

submit its recommendations to the Commission on the NG911 accessibility 
issues set forth above. The CVAA then empowers the Commission to 
implement the EAAC's recommendations by regulation, to the extent such 
recommendations are achievable and technically and economically 
feasible.
    113. There is considerable overlap between the NG911 text and 
multimedia capabilities discussed in this Notice and the NG911 
accessibility issues being considered by the EAAC in its implementation 
of the CVAA. As we have observed in our discussion of potential 
benefits earlier in this Notice, adding text and multimedia 
applications to the 911 system can provide significant benefits to both 
people with disabilities and non-disabled people. Moreover, we believe 
it is important to encourage to the fullest extent possible the 
development of common text-to-911 and multimedia-to-911 solutions that 
serve both the broad goals of NG911 and the NG911 accessibility goals 
of the CVAA. By focusing on developing common solutions rather than 
developing specialized technologies solely for use by people with 
disabilities, we are more likely to be able to spread the cost of such 
technology across all network users and providers and to generate 
economies of scale that lower such costs. We seek comment on this 
approach. Will the development of common text-to-911 and multimedia-to-
911 solutions benefit both people with disabilities and non-disabled 
people and lead to greater cost efficiencies? Are there limitations to 
this approach, such as instances where people with disabilities may 
still require development of more specialized technology to meet their 
emergency accessibility needs?
    114. In light of the overlapping issues, we also seek comment on 
the relationship between this proceeding and our implementation of the 
CVAA and the work of the EAAC. Should we incorporate the EAAC's 
recommendations into the record in this proceeding? Would coordinating 
or combining the two proceedings promote broader and more rapid NG911 
deployment?

G. Legal Authority

    115. Background. In the Notice of Inquiry, the Commission 
recognized that ``[s]tate, Tribal, and local governments are the 
primary administrators of the legacy 911 system and are responsible for 
establishing and designating PSAPs or appropriate default answering 
points, purchasing customer premises equipment, retaining and training 
PSAP personnel, and purchasing 911 network services.'' Nevertheless, 
the Commission noted that ``[c]ertain communications technologies * * * 
necessitated the adoption of a uniform national approach'' and sought 
comment on whether there should be some level of federal oversight for 
the transition to NG911. Further, the Commission sought comment ``on 
the extent of the FCC's jurisdiction to oversee the transition to 
NG911, since PSAPs, service providers, consumer device manufacturers, 
and software developers will all be involved.'' The Commission also 
invited comment on the role that other federal agencies, such as ICO, 
should play in the transition to NG911.
    116. Comments. Several commenters encourage the Commission to 
implement a uniform national approach. Other commenters, however, 
assert that the Commission's authority over certain providers, such as 
broadband access providers, is still undetermined and will require 
further clarification or legislation. For instance, CTIA states that 
``some of these providers of current and future application-based 
communications services are not FCC licensees and thus fall outside the 
FCC's regulatory jurisdiction entirely.'' CTIA argues that while the 
CVAA gives the Commission some regulatory power to enact the 
recommendations of the EAAC, ``it does not give the Commission plenary 
authority over electronic messaging and video conferencing 
services''and ``the limits of the Commission's authority under the 
[CVAA] are unclear.''
    117. Discussion. Since 1996, the Commission has exercised authority 
under Title III of the Communications Act to require CMRS providers, as 
spectrum licensees, to implement basic 911 and E911 services. This 
authority includes--as a fundamental and pervasive element of the 
Commission's licensing authority--the power and obligation to condition 
its licensing actions on compliance with requirements that the 
Commission deems consistent with the public interest, convenience, and 
necessity. Existing E911 requirements for wireless service providers 
clearly further the public interest in ways directly connected to the 
Commission's mandate in section 151 to ``promot[e] safety of life and 
property through the use of wire and radio communication.'' Similarly, 
the options we consider in this proceeding to facilitate availability 
of text-to-911 and other NG911 capabilities to consumers would fall 
within our broad Title III authority over spectrum licensees as 
requirements that serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity 
by, for example ``promoting safety of life and property.'' Therefore, 
we believe that we have well-established legal authority under sections 
151, 301, and 303(r) and other Title III provisions to take the 
regulatory and non-regulatory measures described herein that would 
apply to users of spectrum. We seek comment on this analysis.
    118. We also believe that the CVAA confers authority with respect 
to implementation of text-to-911 and other NG911 features to the extent 
that such implementation serves the statutory goal of ``achieving equal 
access to emergency services for people with disabilities, as a part of 
the migration to a national Internet protocol-enabled emergency 
network.'' As noted in the previous section, the CVAA authorizes the 
Commission to promulgate regulations to ``ensure the accessibility, 
usability, and compatibility of advanced communications services and 
the equipment used for advanced communications services by individuals 
with disabilities'' and to do what is 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.'' The CVAA defines ``advanced 
communications services'' to include electronic messaging service, 
defined as a ``service that provides real-time or near real-time non-
voice messages in text form between individuals over communications 
networks.'' The CVAA also includes in the definition of ``advanced 
communications services'' ``interconnected VoIP service'' and ``non-
interconnected VoIP service.'' The CVAA's mandate to ensure ``the 
accessibility, usability, and compatibility'' of this broad category of 
advanced communications services provides generous authority to cover 
many of the actions we consider in this proceeding, including, for 
example, requiring 911 capabilities for text-based communications 
services. We seek comment on this reading of the CVAA and whether there 
are any limitations to the scope of this authority relevant to our 
proposals in this proceeding.
    119. Furthermore, we believe that the Commission would also have 
the ancillary authority to regulate certain entities over which (or 
over whose actions at issue) we may not have express regulatory 
authority. Under section 4(i) of the Communications Act and the 
judicial precedent recognizing the Commission's ancillary authority,

[[Page 63275]]

the Commission is empowered to impose requirements when it lacks 
specifically enumerated authority, provided its actions fall within the 
agency's general grant of jurisdiction over ``interstate and foreign 
communication by wire or radio'' and the regulation is reasonably 
necessary to effectuate the Commission's responsibilities under the Act 
and rules promulgated pursuant to the Commission's express authority. 
Applying this principle to the NG911 context, it appears that the 
successful application of text-to-911 and other multimedia NG911 
requirements to communications providers pursuant to the direct 
mandates of Title III or the CVAA may require that we impose certain 
requirements on broadband access providers, System Service Providers 
(SSPs), network operators, and other entities involved in the provision 
of broadband Internet access and other network services. For instance, 
a CMRS provider may be unable to provide text-to-911 without 
adjustments to the database management and call routing services 
currently provided by the SSP. In addition, a non-interconnected VoIP 
provider may need the cooperation of the operator of the broadband 
network over which the text to 911 travels to identify the user's 
location. In such instances, we would have ancillary authority to 
impose rules on entities that fall under our subject matter 
jurisdiction as necessary to ensure that Title III licensees, entities 
subject to our authority under the CVAA, and other entities subject to 
direct statutory authority can fulfill their new NG911 obligations. 
Similarly, we may also decide, pursuant to our direct, express mandate 
under the CVAA, that individuals with disabilities must have access to 
an IP-enabled emergency network that allows them to send text and other 
multimedia information to the PSAP, without further delay. In this 
case, we would also have ancillary authority to require action that has 
broader effects on the non-disabled community, should it be infeasible 
at this time, for technical or other reasons, for providers to tailor 
implementation of their CVAA obligations only to individuals with 
disabilities. We seek comment on this analysis. We also ask commenters 
to address other potentially relevant sources of authority.
    120. A number of commenters note that liability protection will 
need to be expanded to include all entities that participate in the 
NG911 environment. The Commission recognizes that existing sources of 
liability protection will possibly need to be updated to accommodate 
the range of parties, services, and devices that will be involved in 
the provisioning of NG911 services. The primary basis for liability 
protection related to the provisioning of NG911 services stems from 
section 201 of the New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act 
(Net 911 Act). Under this section, 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. We seek comment on whether the NET 
911 Act's extension of liability protection embraces the full range of 
technologies and service providers that will be involved in the 
provisioning of NG911 services. We also seek comment on 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.

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Ex Parte Presentations

    121. The proceeding initiated by this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding 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 Sec.  1.1206(b) 
of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by Sec.  1.49(f) of 
the Commission's rules 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

     Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  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 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 a.m. to 7 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.

[[Page 63276]]

C. Accessible Formats

    123. To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), 
send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

D. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    124. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 
U.S.C. 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 the Appendix. Written public comments are 
requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with 
the same filing deadlines as comments filed in response to this 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 Act Analysis

    125. The 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 Paperwork Reduction Act. 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

    126. It is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 201, 222, 
251(e), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, and 332, of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 
157, 201, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, and 332; 
section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 1302; section 4 of the Wireless Communications and Public Safety 
Act of 1999, as amended by the New and Emerging Technologies 911 
Improvement Act of 2008, 47 U.S.C. 615a; and sections 104 and 106 of 
the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 
2010, 47 U.S.C. 615c, 617, that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 
hereby adopted.
    127. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-26258 Filed 10-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P