Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

31410

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3

consideration when determining an implementation timeframe?
4. Technical Considerations 34. We seek comment on the specific technical considerations for covered text providers and equipment and software vendorsincluding those providers who are rural or small businesses necessary to implement text-to-988. We propose to allow covered text providers to use any reliable method or methods e.g., mobile-switched, IP-based to support text routing and transmission to 988, similar to text-to-911
implementation. We seek comment on this proposal.
35. Network Upgrades. We seek comment on possible upgrades covered text providers would have to make to their networks to support text-to-988
capability. Since we propose to allow covered text providers to use any reliable method or methods to support text routing and delivery to 988, are any necessary network hardware or software upgrades small in scope? What specific components would require upgrading?
Can the current solutions to enable textto-911 capability be leveraged to support text-to-988, or are the implementation options for covered text providers to support text-to-988
significantly different? CTIA notes there are significant technical and policy differences between national 9
88 service that will be administered by the Lifeline and the local 911 services that are administered by thousands of PSAPs. We seek comment on CTIAs view, especially with regard to any significant technical differences.
Conversely, do commenters agree with Communications Equality Advocates that the costs to covered text providers for implementation of text-to-988
should be substantially lower than those associated with implementing text-to911? We seek further comment on the potential integration of text-to-988
solutions with existing systems, as well as other network considerations specific to covered text providers to support text-to-988.
36. We also seek comment on whether there are unique network considerations for different text messaging service technologies within the proposed outer bound scope of text-to-988 service that impact implementation. CTIA
comments that its member companies are optimistic about the technical feasibility of supporting text-to-988, provided that implementation is consistent with existing capabilities of native SMS messaging. Do commenters agree? Are there fewer network upgrades necessary to support SMSonly texts to 988? What specific network
VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:12 Jun 10, 2021

Jkt 253001

upgrades would be required should we obligate covered text providers to support other text messaging formats, such as MMS, RTT, or RCS? Given that the Commission has recognized MMS as an extension of the SMS protocol, would support for MMS messaging be comparably feasible to support for SMS?
How does the evolution of texting services to new or future formats affect network upgrade options and implementation, and how should our rules account for such evolution? Would requiring support for certain text messaging formats be more feasible for covered text providers to implement than others?
37. We specifically seek comment on the technical implementation capability and network upgrades necessary for interconnected text messaging service providers. Similar to the Commissions conclusion in the Text-to-911
proceeding, we anticipate that many interconnected text messaging service providers may choose to use a CMRS
network-based solution to deliver texts to 988 and seek comment on this expectation. Have there been developments in text-to-911 delivery by interconnected text messaging service providers that such providers can use in text-to-988 implementation? In the textto-911 context, the Commissions rules state:
To the extent that CMRS providers offer Short Message Service SMS, they shall allow access by any other covered text provider to the capabilities necessary for transmission of 911 text messages originating on such other covered text providers application services. Covered text providers using the CMRS network to deliver 911 text messages must clearly inform consumers that, absent an SMS plan with the consumers underlying CMRS provider, the covered text provider may be unable to deliver 911 text messages. CMRS providers may migrate to other technologies and need not retain SMS networks solely for other covered text providers 911 use, but must notify the affected covered text providers not less than 90 days before the migration is to occur.

We seek comment on adopting this or a comparable requirement here. We recognize that text-to-911 network integration is necessary to facilitate a CMRS network-based solution, and we seek comment on whether the same integration is necessary for transmission of text-to-988 communications by other covered text providers using that solution. We seek comment on the relationship between CMRS providers and interconnected text messaging service providers to maintain support and capability for text-to-988 service based on the technical solutions available. We emphasize that, as in the
PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

text-to-911 proceeding, even if we were to adopt a rule comparable to the textto-911 rule above, we do not intend to establish an open-ended obligation for CMRS providers to maintain underlying SMS network support merely for the use of other providers. Further, similar to the Commissions position in the Textto-911 Second Report and Order, if we adopt a rule comparable to the text-to911 rule above, we propose concluding that it is the responsibility of the covered text provider using the CMRSbased solution to ensure that its text messaging service is technically compatible with the CMRS providers SMS-based network and devices, and in conformance with any applicable technical standards. We seek comment on this proposal. Finally, as in the textto-911 context, if we adopt a rule comparable to the text-to-911 rule above, we propose requiring CMRS
providers to make any necessary specifications for accessing their SMS
networks available to other covered text providers upon request, and to inform such covered text providers in advance of any changes to these specifications.
We seek comment on this proposal.
38. We also seek comment on specific technical considerations for covered text providers that are rural or regional providers, or small businesses. Are there unique impediments or challenges to implementation that these types of providers face that warrant further consideration?
39. Equipment Upgrades. We seek comment on possible equipment or software upgrades required for covered text providers to implement text-to-988.
What challenges will equipment e.g., handsets, network infrastructure and software vendors face with respect to the implementation and deployment of text-to-988? For example, are upgrades required for operating systems, firmware, or other software on mobile devices to support text-to-988
capability? Are there upgrades necessary by vendors that are beyond the covered text providers control that require additional coordination? Will new standards need to be defined to ensure interoperability?
40. In the Text-to-911 proceeding, the Commission clarified that legacy devices that are incapable of sending texts via 3-digit codes are not subject to the text-to-911 requirements, provided the software for these devices cannot be upgraded over the air to allow text-to911. If the devices text messaging software can be upgraded over the air to support a text to 911, however, then the Commission required the covered text provider to make the necessary software upgrade available. Should we include a
E:FRFM11JNP3.SGM

11JNP3