Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules because the . . . call taker is able to read the callers message as it is being typed, rather than waiting until the caller presses the send key. We seek comment on this assertion and other potential benefits and drawbacks of RTT
to 988. We note that pursuant to the 2016 RTT Order, all wireless service providers are permitted to support RTT
on their IP networks for purposes of 911
compliance and for purposes of complying with the general accessibility requirements of Parts 6, 7, and 14 of the Commissions rules as an alternative to supporting TTY communications over IP. In light of the deployment of such RTT capabilities in wireless IP
networks, are there any impediments to wireless service providers routing RTT
texts to the 988 number, in the event that Lifeline chooses to support RTT?
Do newer text messaging protocols like RTT and RCS represent a significant portion of the text messaging ecosystem, or are they likely to in the near future?
Are consumers likely to expect the ability to use these kinds of platforms to send text messages to 988? Do these texting solutions make texting more accessible for individuals with disabilities? Are there other reasons to include, or exclude, these types of applications from our definition? Are there any text message formats that we should specifically exclude from the definition we adopt? For example, in crafting the text-to-911 rules, the Commission chose to exclude from its requirements a variety of services, including relay service . . . , mobile satellite service MSS, and in-flight text messaging services, as well as text messages that originate from Wi-Fi only locations or that are transmitted from devices that cannot access the CMRS
network. Should we adopt any similar exclusions here?
17. Second, we seek comment on how to structure our delegation to the Bureau to ensure that covered text providers support formats within the scope of the definition we adopt that the Lifeline can receive. We propose, as an initial matter, requiring covered text providers to support transmission of SMS
messages to 988, since that is what the Lifeline can presently receive. We further propose directing the Bureau, after consultation with our federal partners at SAMHSA and the VA, to issue a Public Notice no less frequently than annually proposing and seeking comment on requiring covered text providers to transmit any new message formats to 988 that the Lifeline can receive and that are within the scope of the definition we adopt. If the Bureau proposes requiring implementation of a
VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:12 Jun 10, 2021

Jkt 253001

new message format, we further propose directing the Bureau, after notice and comment, to issue a second Public Notice, requiring covered text providers to transmit the new message format to 988 by a fixed deadline that we specify unless the record demonstrates that implementation is not technically feasible. We seek comment on this proposal. Does it appropriately balance the need for expedient implementation with avoiding unduly burdening covered text providers with implementing formats that the Lifeline cannot receive? Should we require the Bureau to issue a Public Notice more or less often than annually? Or is there another mechanism, such as one similar to the Commissions Text-to-911 PSAP
registry, whereby PSAPs issue a valid request for texting service from covered text providers, that we should consider?
Is technical feasibility an appropriate standard for exclusion, or do commenters recommend a different standard? Should we have a standard for exclusion by the Bureau at all? If we do not have a standard for excluding certain technologies, is notice and comment necessary? What is an appropriate implementation deadline for us to specify after the Bureau issues its Public Notice requiring implementation? For instance, would six months be sufficient? Should we instead allow the Bureau flexibility to set an appropriate deadline? Should we provide any further direction to the Bureau regarding the evaluation we propose to require?
18. We also seek comment on structuring the scope of covered text messages differently. For instance, should we simply adopt a definition of text message and require covered text providers to support all such formats, regardless of whether the Lifeline can support that format presently? Should we adopt a narrower definition of text message that conforms to what the Lifeline can support at present? While we appreciate the simplicity of either of these approaches compared to our proposal, how would commenters address our concern that the former is unnecessarily burdensome, and the latter is not adequately future-proofed?
19. Covered Text Providers. We propose to apply our text-to-988
requirement to covered text providers as that term is defined in the text-to-911
rules, to include all CMRS providers as well as all providers of interconnected text messaging services that enable consumers to send text messages to and receive text messages from all or substantially all text-capable U.S. telephone numbers, including through the use of applications
PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

31407

downloaded or otherwise installed on mobile phones. We note that the term covered text provider used in this notice of proposed rulemaking differs from the term covered providers used in the rules the Commission adopted in the 988 Order, which refers to all telecommunications carriers, interconnected VoIP providers, and oneway VoIP providers. We seek comment on this proposal, and on any alternative approaches to the scope of entities that must establish text-to-988 transmission capability. For example, if we can apply the definition of text message in the Truth in Caller ID rules to texting to 988, should we apply our text-to-988
rules to providers of text messaging services, as defined in section 227 of the Act and our Truth in Caller ID rules?
In that context, we define text messaging service as a service that enables the transmission or receipt of a text message. Is the Truth in Caller ID
model preferable, for instance because it may incorporate a broader range of providers that support text messaging service, or is our proposal preferable, for instance because it is more specific? We also seek comment on other possible models and scopes of covered providers.
Would using CMRS providers exclude services over certain spectrum bands or non-switched wireless services that transmit text messages to 988, and should we instead include wireless carriers, or a different term, in our definition of covered text providers?
20. Interconnected Text Messaging Services. In adopting the text-to-911
rules, the Commission observed that there are a variety of widely available text messaging services and platforms with different technological capabilities, including SMS, MMS, and over-thetop OTT applications delivered over internet protocol IP-based mobile data networks. As the Commission explained in the Text-to-911 Second Report and Order, SMS requires use of an underlying carriers SMS Center SMSC
to send and receive messages from other users while MMS-based messaging makes use of the SMSC but also involves the use of different functional elements to enable transport of the message over IP networks. A third category, OTT applications, may be offered by CMRS providers or third parties and allow consumers to send text messages using SMS, MMS or directly via IP over a data connection to dedicated messaging servers and gateways. These OTT services, which are often downloaded through mobile app stores, are increasingly popular with consumers and may be interconnected with the publicly
E:FRFM11JNP3.SGM

11JNP3