NG911 NPRM Most Changed Among 3 NPRMs Approved by FCC
The FCC’s final 42 GHz NPRM, released Friday, got few changes from the draft proposed by Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, as expected (see 2306020048). Commissioners approved the 42 GHz item 4-0 Thursday (see 2306080042). The final version of the next-generation 911 NPRM adds numerous questions to the draft and got the most tweaks among the items approved Thursday. No major changes were made to the final NPRM on robocalls and robotexts, which were also approved unanimously (see 2306080043).
The FCC took a step suggested by Amazon’s Kuiper Systems and sought comment in the 42 GHz NPRM on whether to authorize secondary operations in the band. The Amazon subsidiary wanted the FCC to ask: “Can the Commission enable greater use of the band through one or more secondary allocations while protecting primary licensees from harmful interference?” The language added to the final version: “We also seek comment on whether we could enable secondary operations in the 42 GHz band, while still ensuring primary licensees protection from harmful interference.”
The final version of the 42 GHz NPRM doesn’t pick up language requested by NCTA on whether, since an equipment ecosystem already exists for the lower 37 GHz band, industry could “bring the 37 GHz band in to use quickly as this proceeding considers the 42 GHz band?” The FCC acknowledges the NCTA filing in a footnote, but without adding language. Rosenworcel noted in her statement the FCC asks “if our approaches could be combined with shared-used models in other spectrum bands, like the lower 37 GHz band.”
Commissioners also took out language in the 42 GHz draft referencing the “Incumbent Informing Capability NTIA is currently working to develop.” Only Rosenworcel issued a statement as part of the NPRM.
Next-Gen 911
The final version of the NG911 NPRM adds questions on the benefits the public should expect and the costs for wireline, interconnected VoIP, and Internet-based telecommunications relay service providers “to deliver calls in IP-based format when a state or local 911 authority has requested it.”
The FCC now seeks comment on “the kinds of costs that would be associated with transport and transit of these calls in IP format from originating providers to an ESInet [emergency services IP network] or other designated point(s) that allow emergency calls to be answered upon request of 911 authorities.” The FCC also now asks how the costs differ “depending on where and how the call is routed and delivered” and how to mitigate the costs.
Also added to the NPRM is a battery of questions on interoperability not in the 911 draft. “Are there other elements of interoperability we should consider in the NG911 environment?” the FCC now asks: “What are the current roles of originating service providers and [public safety answering points] in ensuring interoperability? What interoperability issues occur at the demarcation point and how would commenters define the roles and responsibilities of originating service providers, PSAPs and 911 authorities, and NG911 service providers with respect to interoperability?” The FCC asks, “Should we specify that originating service providers’ obligations to deliver calls in an IP-based format extend to the new communication formats expected for NG911, such as photos and video?”
Other questions added to NG911 NPRM probe the FCC’s proposed approach on allocating costs, including on what effect the proposal would have on negotiations between providers and 911 authorities on potential cost allocation mechanisms. “We invite commenters to identify steps that the Commission should take to promote cooperative efforts by 911 authorities and originating service providers that will lead to creative technological solutions for accelerating NG911 deployment, and ultimately improved 911 service for the public,” the NPRM now says. The NPRM also asks about “best practices that have been developed based on lessons learned” on NG911 implementation and lessons learned from implementation of real-time text by carriers. The NPRM includes written statements by Rosenworcel and Commissioner Geoffrey Starks.
The final robocall/robotext item includes a CTIA-sought question on whether any consumer benefits may be lost as a result of an opt-out or limit on the number of calls and messages sent (see 2306070026). Only Rosenworcel had a statement attached to the NPRM.