IP CTS, which provides real-time captions for telephone conversations, is an easy and convenient service to use without special equipment, which can facilitate its improper use by those without disabilities, potentially, according to the FCC, as a result of marketing by the IP CTS providers. The FCC came to believe that this may be happening and that such improper use could be a key driver of the recent growth of the program to $892 million a year, which is 80 percent of the total TRS Fund expenditures. In June 2018, the FCC addressed what it believed were excessive rates by setting compensation rates based on actual average provider costs. In this Order, the FCC addresses potential waste, fraud and abuse of IP CTS by, for the first time, requiring service providers to pass through certain information from users to the VRS Database, which is to be matched against provider-submitted call detail records used for reimbursement. It should be noted, however, that while identities of IP CTS users are verified through the process, eligibility is verified only through a self-certification of eligibility from the user, which is passed along by the service provider to the Database.

A separate Order in the item grants temporary, partial waivers of the IP CTS emergency call-handling requirements to relay certain information to the PSAP and to initiate the reconnection of disconnected 911 calls. The waiver applies for IP CTS configurations where:

(1) a user initiates an IP CTS call by connecting to the IP CTS provider via the Internet—i.e., generally web and wireless-based forms—and (2) the IP CTS provider assigns the user a NANP telephone number that the provider can transmit with a 911 call and that enables a PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority to call the user back via IP CTS.

Finally, in the FNPRM, the FCC seeks comment on additional reforms to the IP CTS program, including requiring IP CTS providers to submit a unique account identifier to the TRS Fund in monthly call detail records submitted for compensation and allowing IP CTS providers to provide service to new and porting users for up to two weeks pending the completion of identity verification by the Database administrator. (As the FCC has found in several programs, identity verification is not a perfect process and a dispute resolution or appeal process becomes necessary, which can take additional time to resolve.) The FNPRM also seeks comment on amending the FCC’s rules to modify its emergency call handling requirements consistent with the waiver granted.

Thus far, the FCC has only released a public notice summarizing the action. Based on the presentation to the Commissioners, the NPRM proposes to establish a set of location accuracy requirements specifically for wireless calls originating from indoor locations. The Commission’s proposals are technology neutral, and would allow the wireless carriers to determine which technology they would deploy to meet the standards. However, the Commission proposes accuracy standards for both the horizontal axis (X.Y coordinates) and the vertical axis (Z coordinate). As described in the presentation, the Commission proposes to require a horizontal accuracy of less than 50 meters for 2/3 of calls within 2 years and 80% of calls within 5 years. For vertical accuracy – i.e., floor level accuracy – the Commission proposes to require an accuracy of 3 meters or less for 2/3 of calls within 3 years and 80% of calls within 5 years.

These standards would be implemented on a nationwide basis, per county or per PSAP. The Commission proposes to test the compliance of technologies with these standards through an independent test bed, much like the test bed established by the Commission’s advisory committee, CSRIC.

Two Commissioners, Pai and O’Rielly, expressed concern with the Commission’s implementation deadlines. Both pointed to the experience with Phase II location accuracy for outdoor wireless calls as examples that the Commission may be moving too aggressively. In addition, Commissioner O’Rielly asked that the Commission also address privacy implications of having such detailed location information available at all times.

Finally, the Commission addressed complaints by PSAPs that location data required under existing rules is not being transmitted. The Commission has proposed whether to establish a minimum time period within which wireless carriers must provide a “first fix” of location. It also asks whether to standardize confidence data and to require PSAP best practices, including “re-bidding” for location data.

The NPRM is part of an increased focus on 911 quality and reliability issues in the wake of massive 911 outages such as the one following the June 2012 Derecho. Other FCC actions relating to 911 issues include the Text to 911 Order, which required wireless service providers to send “automatic ‘bounce-back’ text message in situations where a consumer attempts to send a text message to 911 in a location where text-to-911 is not available,” and the 911 Reliability Order, which required 911 service providers to adopt best practices to ensure reliable 911 service and report outages to public safety answering points in a timely manner. These actions demonstrate the FCC’s continued emphasis on developing policies that ensure reliable access to 911. Judging from the Commissioners' statements, this focus is not likely to dissipate any time soon.

Kelley Drye Telecommunications paralegal Jennifer Rodden contributed to this post.

Under the new legislation, PSAPs would be permitted to register all 911 trunks and "other lines used for the provision of emergency services" in the do-not-call database. The Commission proposes to allow both primary PSAPs and secondary (overflow) PSAPs to register numbers in the database. The Commission also asks for comment on the most efficient way to establish the registry, including ways the registry could be coordinated with the National Do-Not-Call registry for residential telephone numbers.

The NPRM also seeks comment on various enforcement provisions related to the new registry. The legislation requires the Commission to establish monetary penalties of "not less than $100,000 per incident nor more than $1 million per incident" for disclosure of the numbers in the registry and between $10,000 and $100,000 per call made in violation of the do-not-call restriction. Further, similar to the finding it made with respect to the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act ("CVAA"), the Commission asks whether it may proceed against non-licensees directly, without first issuing citations that are otherwise required under the Communications Act.

Comments will be due 30 days from publication of the NPRM in the Federal Register, with reply comments due 45 days from FR publication.