Modernizing 9-1-1: Responsibility Should Follow Function
By Susan Ornstein
Senior Legal & Regulatory Affairs Attorney
For decades, one of the fundamental assumptions underlying 9-1-1 regulation was relatively simple: identify the type of communications service being provided, and the applicable 9-1-1 obligations generally followed.
That approach made sense in a communications environment built around distinct technologies and service categories. Wireline service was different from wireless service. Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) was treated differently from traditional telephone service. Each operated within relatively identifiable network boundaries, and the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) could attach specific 9-1-1 requirements to defined classes of providers.
Today’s communications environment is considerably more complex.
Today, an emergency communication may begin on a wireless network, over Wi-Fi, through a satellite connection – potentially all from the same device. Users may initiate communication from a wireline phone, a smartphone, a smartphone app, a tablet or laptop, a connected vehicle, a wearable, or other device. It may involve voice, text, location information, images, video or other data related to the potential emergency. The providers and technologies involved in establishing, routing and delivering that communication may differ from those that existed when many of the Commission’s current regulatory categories were developed.
The FCC’s new Modernizing the 911 Framework Notice of Inquiry (“NOI”) recognizes that reality. The Commission is undertaking a broad examination of whether its existing approach remains appropriate as technologies converge and new ways of reaching emergency services emerge. Among other issues, the FCC is reconsidering its longstanding analysis for determining which technologies and services should be subject to 9-1-1 requirements, whether requirements should be harmonized across service categories, and how its legal authority applies to a changing communications ecosystem.
Those are the right questions.
From Allerium’s perspective, however, the most important question may be even more basic: In a modern communications ecosystem, what should determine when a provider has 9-1-1 responsibilities?
Start with the function, not the label
The answer should begin with how people expect to use it.
Regulatory classifications will continue to have legal significance, but they are becoming an increasingly imperfect proxy for determining a provider’s actual role in an emergency communication. Two services may perform similar emergency communications functions for consumers while falling into different regulatory categories.
A modern framework therefore should look more closely at what a provider’s users expect the service to do and what the provider’s service can actually do.
Would consumers reasonably expect the device or service to be able to contact 9-1-1? Can the provider enable a consumer to initiate a 9-1-1 communication? Can it determine or provide location? Can it route the communication? Can it transport or deliver that communication to the 9-1-1 system?
These types of questions provide a more durable starting point than attempting to fit every new technology into regulatory categories developed for an earlier communications ecosystem.
Capability alone should not define the answer
Technical capability alone cannot be the entire test.
A growing number of devices and services may be technically capable of facilitating some form of emergency communication. It would be difficult to justify imposing an identical set of regulatory requirements on every technology merely because that capability exists.
The more meaningful question is what happens when a provider affirmatively enables 9-1-1 functionality and consumers reasonably come to rely on it.
Consumers generally do not know, and should not need to know, how a communications service is classified under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. A person facing an emergency sees a much simpler proposition: Can I use this device or service to reach 9-1-1?
Once the answer presented to the consumer is yes, public policy should examine what reasonable responsibilities accompany that representation.
That does not necessarily mean automatically importing every existing wireline, wireless or interconnected VoIP requirement into every emerging technology. It does mean asking whether the 9-1-1 capability being offered is appropriately supported by the functions necessary to make that capability meaningful, including reliable connectivity, accurate location where technically feasible, appropriate routing and effective interoperability.
Harmonize outcomes, not architectures
The FCC also asks whether historically different 9-1-1 requirements should become more harmonized.
There is significant value in greater consistency, particularly where different technologies perform equivalent functions. But harmonization must focus on public safety outcomes rather than prescribing identical technical architectures.
Modern 9-1-1 systems are built around Internet Protocol (“IP”) networks, software-based functional elements and standardized interfaces. The National Emergency Number Association (“NENA”) i3 architecture, for example, establishes an interoperable framework of functional elements and interfaces for processing multimedia emergency communications in an IP environment.
That standards-based model provides an important lesson for regulation.
The Commission can establish clear expectations about what must be accomplished without dictating how every provider must accomplish it. Requirements can define responsibilities for reliable delivery, routing, location, interoperability and other functions while allowing providers flexibility to implement those responsibilities in ways appropriate to their technologies and network architectures.
This approach promotes both accountability and innovation.
A framework designed to evolve
The FCC should resist two extremes.
The first would be to continue relying primarily on regulatory categories developed around older communications technologies, even as those categories become less connected to the functions consumers actually use.
The second would be to impose exactly the same requirements on every technology that could conceivably support an emergency communication.
Neither approach is likely to produce a durable framework.
Instead, Allerium believes the Commission should pursue a function-based, technology-neutral approach that considers consumer reliance, 9-1-1 authority expectations, technical and operational feasibility, interoperability, and the functions within each provider’s control.
That framework can provide meaningful accountability while preserving the flexibility necessary for communications technology to continue evolving.
Allerium intends to participate in the FCC’s NOI proceeding and to work with public safety, communications providers, technology companies, and other stakeholders as the Commission develops the record.
The technology underlying 9-1-1 will continue to change. Applications will change. Devices will change. Networks will change. Entirely new communications models will emerge.
The regulatory framework should be capable of changing with them.
The enduring principle should be simpler: when a provider performs a function necessary to connect people with emergency assistance, responsibility should follow the function it performs, the expectations it creates, and the elements it can control.
This post contains forward-looking statements, including statements regarding anticipated regulatory and funding developments in the public safety communications market, the expected adoption of Next Generation 9-1-1 and related technologies, and Comtech’s and Allerium’s plans, strategies and market position. These statements are based on current expectations and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially, including changes in or delays to the adoption, implementation or enforcement of federal and state regulations; the availability and timing of government funding and procurement; the pace of customer adoption; competition; and rapid technological change. For a discussion of these and other risks, see the “Risk Factors” section of Comtech’s most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and subsequent filings with the SEC. Comtech undertakes no obligation to update these statements, except as required by law. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of any government body.