FCC Tries to Help Emergency Responders Find 911 Cell-Phone Callers

Carriers would have to provide more accurate information to 911 centers.

A picture taken on October 12, 2011 in the French western city of Rennes shows (FromL) a Samsung phone, a Blackberry phone and an Iphone 4.
National Journal
Brendan Sasso
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Brendan Sasso
Feb. 20, 2014, 10:58 a.m.

The Fed­er­al Com­mu­nic­a­tions Com­mis­sion voted Thursday to move ahead with a pro­pos­al to re­quire cell-phone car­ri­ers to provide more ac­cur­ate in­form­a­tion about the loc­a­tion of 911 calls.

Tele­phone com­pan­ies already have to in­form 911 call cen­ters about the loc­a­tion of land­line callers, and there are also fed­er­al stand­ards to en­sure that emer­gency re­spon­ders can find cell-phone callers when they are out­doors. But there are cur­rently no re­quire­ments for loc­a­tion ac­cur­acy for in­door 911 cell-phone callers.

With more than 70 per­cent of 911 calls now com­ing from cell phones, poor loc­a­tion in­form­a­tion is mak­ing it in­creas­ingly dif­fi­cult for of­fi­cials to re­spond to emer­gen­cies. Find­ing a caller in­side of a large multistory build­ing is a par­tic­u­lar prob­lem, the com­mis­sion found.

The pro­pos­al would re­quire car­ri­ers to loc­ate 911 callers with­in 50 meters of their loc­a­tion ho­ri­zont­ally and with­in three-meter ver­tic­ally, which would es­sen­tially al­low emer­gency re­spon­ders to know which floor of a build­ing the call was com­ing from.

The car­ri­ers would have to meet the ho­ri­zont­al stand­ard ac­cur­acy for 67 per­cent of calls with­in two years and 80 per­cent of calls with five years. The car­ri­ers would have three years to meet the ver­tic­al ac­cur­acy re­quire­ment for 67 per­cent calls and five years for 80 per­cent of calls.

Ajit Pai and Mi­chael O’Re­illy, the two Re­pub­lic­ans on the five-mem­ber com­mis­sion, ap­plauded the new stand­ards but wor­ried that the com­mis­sion was set­ting an un­real­ist­ic timeline.

“Car­ri­ers can­not be­gin to de­ploy a tech­no­logy solu­tion that does not yet ex­ist,” Pai said. “And the pub­lic should not be led to rely on a prom­ise that can­not be kept.”

CTIA, the lob­by­ing group for cell-phone car­ri­ers, said its com­pan­ies “stand ready to work” with the com­mis­sion but urged the agency to pur­sue “re­quire­ments that are groun­ded in veri­fied data, not as­pir­a­tion­al tar­get”‘set­ting.”

FCC Chair­man Tom Wheel­er had little sym­pathy for the Re­pub­lic­an and in­dustry con­cerns.

“Hey, we’re deal­ing with hu­man life,” he said.

Wheel­er ar­gued that it’s “nev­er wrong to over­reach” on pub­lic safety, but he said the com­mis­sion will re­main flex­ible if tech­no­lo­gic­al prob­lems arise.

The FCC will re­view com­ments on the pro­pos­al be­fore vot­ing on fi­nal reg­u­la­tions. 

The com­mis­sion ad­vanced the pro­pos­al after Demo­crat­ic Rep. Anna Eshoo and Re­pub­lic­an Rep. John Shimkus sent a let­ter to the agency last month call­ing for bet­ter loc­a­tion ac­cur­acy on 911 calls. 

What We're Following See More »
NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
5 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
COMMISSIONERS NEED TO DELIBERATE MORE
FCC Pushes Vote on Set-Top Boxes
5 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Federal regulators on Thursday delayed a vote on a proposal to reshape the television market by freeing consumers from cable box rentals, putting into doubt a plan that has pitted technology companies against cable television providers. ... The proposal will still be considered for a future vote. But Tom Wheeler, chairman of the F.C.C., said commissioners needed more discussions."

Source:
UNTIL DEC. 9, ANYWAY
Obama Signs Bill to Fund Government
11 hours ago
THE LATEST
REDSKINS IMPLICATIONS
SCOTUS to Hear Case on Offensive Trademarks
11 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"The Supreme Court is taking up a First Amendment clash over the government’s refusal to register offensive trademarks, a case that could affect the Washington Redskins in their legal fight over the team name. The justices agreed Thursday to hear a dispute involving an Asian-American rock band called the Slants, but they did not act on a separate request to hear the higher-profile Redskins case at the same time." Still, any precedent set by the case could have ramifications for the Washington football team.

Source:
IT’S ALL CLINTON
Reliable Poll Data Coming in RE: Debate #1
13 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
×