Federal Register: December 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 250)
DOCID: fr30de08-21 FR Doc E8-30999
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Federal Communications Commission
CFR Citation: 47 CFR Part 64
Docket ID: [CG Docket No. 03-123; WC Docket No. 05-196; FCC 08-275]
NOTICE: RULES
DOCID: fr30de08-21
DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.
SUBJECT CATEGORY:
Telecommunications Relay Services, Speech-to-Speech Services, E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers
DATES: Effective December 31, 2008, except for the information collection requirements contained in Sec. 64.605 that are not effective until approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date for the information collections in this section.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY:
The Commission addressed several issues relating to the Commission's Internetbased TRS Order, which adopted a system to assign users of Internetbased Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS), specifically Video Relay Service (VRS) and InternetProtocol (IP) Relay, tendigit numbers linked to the North American Numbering Plan (NANP).
SUMMARY:
Telecommunications Relay Services, Speech-to-Speech Services, E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers,
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration (Order) in CG Docket No. 03123, and WC Docket Nos. 05196, adopted December 19, 2008, and released December 19, 2008. The text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CYA257, Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CYB402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 3783160 or (202) 8632893, facsimile (202) 8632898, or via e mail at www.bcpiweb.com. It is also available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov.
In addition to filing comments with the Office of the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1B441, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to PRA@fcc.gov.
The Commission will send a copy of this Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
This Order contains new or modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this R&O as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 10413. In addition, the Commission notes that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
In this Order, the Commission assessed the effects of imposing a requirement that Internetbased TRS providers institute procedures to verify the accuracy of registration information. The Commission took steps to minimize the information collection burden for small business concerns, including those with fewer than 25 employees. For example, Internetbased TRS providers may choose their use of verification procedures. Indeed, the Commission only required that Internetbased TRS providers implement a reasonable means of verifying registration and eligibility information that is not unduly burdensome. Moreover, the Commission concluded that all Internetbased TRS providers, including small entities, will be eligible to receive compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund for their reasonable costs of complying with the verification requirements adopted in the Order. These measures should substantially alleviate any burdens on businesses with fewer than 25 employees.
Synopsis of the Report and Order
1. In this Order, the Commission addresses several issues relating to the Internetbased TRS Order, 73 FR 41286, July 18, 2008, which adopted a system to assign users of Internetbased Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS), specifically Video Relay Service (VRS) and InternetProtocol (IP) Relay, tendigit numbers linked to the North American Numbering Plan (NANP). The Commission determined that the numbering system will ensure that VRS and IP Relay users (collectively ``Internetbased TRS users'') can be called in the same manner that voice telephone users are calledusing a standard tendigit telephone numberand that emergency calls placed by Internetbased TRS users will be routed directly and automatically to appropriate emergency services authorities by the Internetbased TRS providers. The Commission mandated that the new numbering and emergency call handling plan be implemented by December 31, 2008. In an accompanying Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further NPRM), 73 FR 41307, July 18, 2008, the Commission sought comment on additional issues relating to the implementation of the tendigit numbering plan and emergency call [[Page 79684]]
handling requirements for Internetbased TRS.
2. The Order addresses issues critical to ensuring a successful transition to tendigit numbering by December 31, 2008. Specifically, the Commission addresses 911 implementation issues, the timing for user registration, use of toll free numbers for Internetbased TRS service, eligibility requirements and verification procedures, assignment of telephone numbers, and numbering cost issues. The Commission also addresses a petition for reconsideration filed by CSDVRS, GoAmerica, Viable, and Snap; a petition for clarification filed by CSDVRS; a petition for reconsideration and clarification filed by Sorenson regarding 911 and E911 issues; a petition for limited waiver filed by Sorenson regarding the use of ``proxy'' and ``alias'' numbers, and a petition for clarification filed by NENA and the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International (APCO) concerning the types of information a VRS communications assistant may provide to emergency personnel when relaying an emergency VRS call.
3. Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requires the creation of a nationwide TRS program to allow persons with hearing and speech disabilities access to the nation's telephone network. TRS must be available to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner, and must offer telephone system access that is ``functionally equivalent'' to voice telephone services, as reflected in the TRS mandatory minimum standards. The functional equivalency standard serves as the benchmark in determining the services and features TRS providers must offer to consumers. In some circumstances, TRS equipment also permits persons with hearing disabilities to communicate directly with each other (i.e., pointtopoint calls).
4. When Congress adopted section 225, relay calls were placed using a text telephone device (TTY) connected to the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). Since then, the Commission has recognized new forms of TRS, including Internetbased forms of TRS such as VRS, IP Relay, and IP CTS. Because Internetbased relay services have not been linked to a uniform telephone numbering scheme and, instead, have used shifting (or ``dynamic'') IP addresses, there has been no consistent means by which to reach an Internetbased TRS user. Also, because IP addresses have not necessarily correlated to an Internetbased TRS user's geographic location, there has been no consistent means by which an Internetbased TRS provider can directly and automatically route an Internetbased TRS emergency call to an appropriate public safety answering point (PSAP).
5. The Internetbased TRS Order addressed both of these issues. First, to ensure that voice telephone users can call a VRS or IP Relay user simply by dialing a tendigit number, i.e., in the same manner that they would call another voice telephone user, the Commission required Internetbased TRS providers to assign NANP telephone numbers to persons who use their service. The Commission determined that Internetbased TRS users should obtain telephone numbers directly from an Internetbased TRS provider, given that such a process is functionally equivalent to the process by which voice telephone subscribers obtain telephone numbers. The Commission also determined that to obtain a telephone number, an Internetbased TRS user must register with his or her selected (or ``default'') Internetbased TRS provider. In addition, the Commission extended its local number portability (LNP) obligations to Internetbased TRS providers, so that the full array of obligations relating to the porting of numbers from one service provider to another will apply when an Internetbased TRS user wishes to port his or her telephone number to a new default provider.
6. To make it possible for providers to route a call from a voice telephone user to a VRS or IP Relay user, using the TRS user's ten digit telephone number, the Commission adopted a central numbering directory mechanism that maps the Internetbased TRS user's tendigit NANP telephone number to the current Internet address of his or her end device. The Commission concluded that Internetbased TRS providers would provision routing information directly to the central numbering directory on behalf of their registered users. The Commission also determined that this routing information will be in the form of a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI). A telephone number assigned for IP Relay use will have an associated URI containing a domain name and user name, and a telephone number assigned for VRS use will have an associated URI containing an IP address and devicespecific protocol information. The Commission further determined that building, maintaining, and operating the central numbering directory would best be accomplished by a neutral third party administrator under contract with the Commission and compensated through the Interstate TRS Fund (Fund). The Commission concluded that, for security reasons, only Internetbased TRS providers should be authorized to query the central numbering directory for the purpose of obtaining information from the numbering directory to complete calls.
7. Second, to ensure that Internetbased TRS users can make emergency calls that will be directly and automatically routed to the appropriate PSAP, the Commission required that Internetbased TRS providers, prior to the initiation of service, obtain consumer location information from each of their registered users. Further, the Commission required each Internetbased TRS provider to transmit all 911 calls to the PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority that services the caller's Registered Location and that has been designated for telecommunications carriers under the Commission's part 64 rules. Each such 911 call must carry a call back number, the name of the relay provider, the communications assistant's (CA's) identification number, and the caller's Registered Location. The Commission further instructed that such calls must be routed through the use of ANI (or pseudoANI, if necessary) via the dedicated Wireline E911 Network, and the Registered Location must be available from or through the ALI Database. The Commission made clear that Internetbased TRS providers may not fulfill their 911 obligations by routing 911 calls to tendigit NPANXX numbers (so called ``administrative numbers'') of PSAPs where a selective router is utilized.
8. In the Further NPRM, the Commission sought comment on fourteen
different issues relating to the assignment and administration of ten
digit telephone numbers for Internetbased TRS. Specifically, the
Commission sought comment on: (1) Certain peripheral issues concerning
the proper handling of 911 calls placed via Internetbased TRS; (2)
registration period; (3) the eligibility of Internetbased TRS users to
receive multiple telephone numbers; (4) the use of tollfree numbers;
(5) what steps the Commission should take, if any, to facilitate
implementation of standardsbased signaling between service providers;
(6) the assignment of a single telephone number to multiple services;
(7) multiline telephone systems; (8) eligibility to obtain Internet
based TRS telephone numbers; (9) the regulatory treatment of IP CTS;
(10) additional security measures designed to ensure the integrity of the TRS system and
[[Page 79685]]
Internetbased TRS equipment and networks; (11) verification of
registration; (12) application of the antislamming rules to protect
relay consumers against unauthorized default provider changes; (13) the
extent to which the CPNI rules should apply to Internetbased TRS
providers; and (14) whether, and to what extent, in connection with the
compensation of Internetbased TRS providers for their reasonable
actual costs of complying with the Internetbased TRS Order, the costs
of acquiring numbers, and porting fees, should be passed on to
Internetbased TRS users. The Commission received numerous comments on these issues.
9. On August 15, 2008, CSDVRS, GoAmerica, Viable and Snap filed a petition seeking reconsideration and clarification of the Commission's Internetbased TRS Order with respect to the obligations of default and former default providers to route consumer information. The petitioners request that the Commission revise its rule to allow the consumer either (1) to continue to use the devices once they have ported their number with the understanding that their routing information will continue to be provisioned by the original provider that supplied the device or (2) to acquire a new device from the new default provider. Sorenson filed an opposition to the Petition for Reconsideration and the TDI Coalition and Hamilton filed comments in response to the Petition for Reconsideration. CSDVRS and GoAmerica filed replies to Sorenson's opposition to the Petition for Reconsideration.
10. On August 15, 2008, CSDVRS also filed a petition seeking clarification that the Commission's rules require VRS providers to provide fully interoperable relay service. CSDVRS requests that the Commission clarify that every VRS provider has an obligation to ensure that it is as easy for a VRS user to place outbound calls via competing providers as it is to place outbound calls via the user's default provider. Sorenson filed an opposition to CSDVRS's Petition for Clarification and CSDVRS and GoAmerica filed replies to Sorenson's opposition.
11. On August 18, 2008, Sorenson filed a petition for
reconsideration and clarification seeking the Commission to: (1) Allow
the continued use of ``proxy'' numbers; (2) recognize that 911 calls
must be routed over administrative lines in certain circumstances; and
(3) clarify the date by which E911 must be fully implemented. The TDI Coalition filed an opposition to Sorenson's Petition for
Reconsideration and the Joint Responders filed a partial opposition.
AT&T filed reply comments. On September 30, 2008, Sorenson filed a
petition for limited waiver of the prohibition on the use of ``proxy''
and ``alias'' numbers. CSDVRS, GoAmerica, Hamilton Relay, and TDI
Coalition filed oppositions to Sorenson's petition for limited waiver. Sorenson filed a reply to the oppositions.
12. On October 24, 2008, NENA and APCO filed a request for clarification that the Commission's rule governing the nondisclosure by a CA of the content of a relayed conversation does not prohibit a VRS CA, when relaying an emergency call, from disclosing background visual and auditory information to emergency personnel. Sorenson and the TDI Coalition filed ex partes in support of this request. A. 911 Issues
13. 911 Calls and the Call Completion Rule. The Commission's rules require Internetbased TRS providers to use a system that ensures that the provider will answer an incoming emergency call before other non emergency calls, i.e., that the provider will prioritize emergency calls and move them to the top of the queue. In the Further NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether, as an additional step to ensure the prompt handling of emergency calls, the call completion rule should be modified so that if an Internetbased TRS provider's CA is handling a nonemergency relay call and identifies an incoming 911 call that would be placed in queue, the CA may terminate the existing call to answer the 911 call immediately. As the Commission noted, under the current call completion rule, a CA may not terminate an ongoing call for any reason, including to answer a 911 call that would otherwise wait in a queue for the next available CA.
14. Based on the record, the Commission concludes that it should not modify the call completion rule to allow CAs to terminate an existing call in order to answer a 911 call. As several providers note, allowing CAs to terminate a nonemergency call is inconsistent with the principle of functional equivalency and the role of the CA as a dial tone. Moreover, the assumption that the CA would be terminating a call to answer a call that is more urgent may, in fact, not always be true. As Sprint Nextel notes, a call between a patient and her doctor might be terminated to answer an emergency call that presents less life threatening issues. Further, several providers note that there is little evidence in the record to demonstrate that 911 calls made to Internetbased TRS providers have been substantially delayed, or that there is otherwise any compelling reason to modify the current call completion rule, particularly in view of the requirement that providers prioritize incoming 911 calls. For these reasons, the Commission declines to modify our rules to permit CAs to terminate existing calls to answer 911 calls. The Commission will revisit this issue in the future, however, if it receives information that, notwithstanding the emergency call prioritization rule, emergency callers have had to wait more than a minimal amount of time to reach a CA.
15. Prioritization of ``Call Backs'' If 911 Call is Disconnected. As noted above, in the Interim Emergency Call Handling Order, the Commission required providers to implement a system to ensure that incoming emergency calls are answered before other nonemergency calls so that an emergency caller does not have to wait in a queue for the next available CA. The interim rules also require the CA to give the emergency personnel, at the beginning of the call, the CA's callback number so that the emergency personnel can call back the CA if the call gets disconnected. The latter rule was superseded by the Internetbased TRS Order, which requires, effective December 31, 2008, that the CA give the emergency personnel the caller's tendigit number, rather than the CA's call back number.
16. As the Commission stated in the recent VRS Numbering Waiver Order, the requirement that VRS providers implement a system to ensure that all incoming emergency calls are prioritized and do not have to wait in a queue also applies to callbacks from the emergency services personnel. Therefore, the Commission again reminds providers that they must ensure not only that incoming 911 calls are prioritized, but also that callbacks from the emergency services personnel to the consumer via the consumer's tendigit number are answered by the provider before nonemergency calls.
17. Relay of Visual and Auditory Information to Emergency
Personnel. Recognizing the Commission's commitment to adapt the
Commission's rules to ``ensure that people with disabilities who desire
to use interconnected'' IPenabled services ``obtain access to E911
services,'' NENA and APCO request clarification that VRS CAs may,
``when reasonably necessary, * * * provide visual information to a 91
1 telecommunicator that will protect the life of the caller and/or
others, including first responders.'' Authorizing such actions would ``allow interpreters to step in and describe a
[[Page 79686]]
situation accurately when the deaf user is unable to do so.'' NENA and
APCO further ask that the Commission clarify that VRS CAs may retain
records of what they see and hear during an emergency call.
18. The Commission agrees in part and so clarifies. The Commission's rules (and the statute) generally prohibit a CA from ``intentionally altering a relayed conversation'' and from ``keeping records of the content of any conversation beyond the duration of a call.'' The Commission reads these provisions to preserve the content and privacy of the ``relayed conversation,'' but background visual and auditory information regarding an emergency that a CA may see and hear during a VRS call is not part of the ``conversation.'' Thus relaying background visual and auditory information to emergency personnel regarding an ongoing emergency does not contravene the statutory and regulatory protections for ``relayed conversations.'' Bolstering the Commission's interpretation is the Commission's recognition that just as emergency personnel garner important information from the sounds they hear during an emergency call with a hearing user (the crackling of a fire, the explosion of a gunshot), emergency personnel may get functionally equivalent information from the sights a CA sees during an emergency call with a VRS user (the flames of a fire, the brandishing of a gun). Allowing a VRS CA to relay visual and auditory information regarding an ongoing emergency to emergency personnel should help protect the safety and lives of VRS users and emergency responders. Thus the Commission clarifies that, consistent with the Commission's rules and the Act, a CA may relay background visual and auditory information regarding an ongoing emergency to assist emergency personnel in responding to an emergency VRS call. Moreover, because of the importance of quick action in the face of an ongoing emergency, the Commission clarifies that VRS CAs may retain a record of background visual and auditory information regarding an emergency for a reasonable time after an emergency call has terminated for the sole purpose of providing that information to emergency personnel should they call back.
B. Registration Period
19. In the Internetbased TRS Order, the Commission required that every Internetbased TRS provider offer its users the capability to register with that provider as the ``default provider'' and provide or port for that user a NANP telephone number. In addition, the Commission required Internetbased TRS providers to obtain registration information from all new users and assign all new users a NANP telephone number. The Commission explained that requiring users to register and assigning them NANP telephone numbers has benefits that include facilitating the effective provision of 911 service. In the Further NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the length of the registration period during which Internetbased TRS providers will register existing users, obtain their initial Registered Location, and provide the users new tendigit NANP telephone numbers. The Commission also sought comment on whether there should be a cutoff date for users' registration with a default provider.
20. The Commission received a number of comments on this issue. AT&T proposes a threemonth registration period and a threemonth permissive calling period. During these periods, AT&T recommends education and outreach efforts. AT&T recommends that at the end of the permissive calling period, Internetbased TRS providers cease completing the nonemergency calls of unregistered Internetbased TRS users. The TDI Coalition recommends a sixmonth period conditioned on the Commission undertaking periodic review of actual registrations resulting from outreach and education efforts of the Commission and Internetbased TRS providers. CSDVRS recommends a 12month registration period with the requirement that each VRS provider submit its number of new registrations on a quarterly basis to the Commission. CSDVRS also recommends procedures to be put in place after the cutoff date in which callers will be routed to customer service to become registered.
21. Several commenters recommend no cutoff of calling capabilities for unregistered users. NENA claims that education of Internetbased TRS users is preferable to cutting off service. Sorenson also does not recommend a cutoff period. Rather, Sorenson recommends promoting registration and education about the benefits of signing up with a default provider, but not refusing service to individuals who choose not to register. GoAmerica recommends that registration should be required to obtain a tendigit number, but not required to use Internetbased TRS service, i.e., users should not be forced to register if they do not want to. GoAmerica further comments that mandatory registration is ``contrary to functional equivalence'' as hearing people do not have to register.
22. As the Commission stated in the Internetbased TRS Order, registration is essential to the assignment and use of NANP telephone numbers and has important public safety benefits. The Commission disagrees with GoAmerica that registration is contrary to functional equivalency. For traditional voice communications services, users ``register'' when they sign up for service by providing their name and address, and in the case of interconnected VoIP, registration is mandatory. The Commission repeats that Internetbased TRS providers must register eligible new users before providing them service. For example, any newlyprovisioned user (i.e., a user being sent a new device, or application software download) must be given a NANP telephone number. The Commission also adopts AT&T's recommendation to provide, for eligible existing users, a threemonth registration period followed by a threemonth permissive calling period; during this six month period Internetbased TRS providers will engage in consumer education and outreach efforts.
23. As noted by AT&T, the permissive calling period is comparable to the permissive calling period that is used in area code relief situations to provide flexibility as consumers adapt to the new numbering scheme. Accordingly, Internetbased TRS users may place and receive calls via the method used before December 31, 2008 during the threemonth registration and threemonth permissive calling periods. Once an Internetbased TRS user obtains a NANP telephone number, the user may still be reached by his or her ``proxy'' or ``alias'' number, but the Internetbased TRS provider will provide a message notifying the caller of the user's new NANP telephone number and advising the caller that after June 30, 2009, the user may only be reached by the NANP telephone number.
24. Providers should have no trouble getting most of their users
with hearing and speech disabilities registered by the threemonth
target deadline, but the permissive calling period provides flexibility
for a transition period in case, for some reason, some users need more
time to register. Moreover, during the permissive calling period,
Internetbased TRS providers can continue to engage in targeted
education and outreach. As discussed in our Internetbased TRS Order,
registration is necessary for Internetbased TRS providers to associate
an Internetbased TRS user's telephone number with his or her IP
address to allow for the routing and completion of calls. Moreover, mandatory registration is critical to the
[[Page 79687]]
effective handling of 911 calls. Specifically, registration allows
Internetbased TRS providers to provide first responders with location
information for emergency calls placed over Internetbased TRS. The TDI
Coalition agrees that registration is necessary for users to benefit
from effective 911 call handling. In addition, mandatory registration
will facilitate the implementation of appropriate network security
measures by reducing access to the Internetbased TRS providers'
databases and therefore, limit the exposure of the databases to abuses,
such as hacking. In order to ensure that Internetbased TRS users can
realize the benefits of the numbering system adopted in the Internet
based TRS Order, registration must be mandatory with a definitive cut
off date by which Internetbased TRS providers may not complete the nonemergency calls of unregistered users.
25. The Commission establishes the following registration schedule: The registration period will begin on December 31, 2008, the implementation date of the new tendigit numbering system. The three month registration period will end on March 31, 2009, and the permissive calling period will end on June 30, 2009. At the end of the permissive calling period, existing Internetbased TRS users who have not registered with a default provider will be treated like new Internetbased TRS users. Internetbased TRS providers must register these eligible users before they may make nonemergency calls, in accordance with the E911 goals set forth in the Internetbased TRS Order. The Commission encourages all Internetbased TRS providers to register their eligible users during the threemonth registration period, but acknowledge that there may be a need for additional time and therefore, allow a threemonth permissive calling period. The Commission also encourages Internetbased TRS providers to keep it apprised of the status of customer registrations during the registration period through ex parte filings in these dockets.
26. Some providers have stated that they are unable to distinguish a new user from an ``existing'' user who is dialing around the default provider with which he or she is registered. The Commission notes that, as a new user is ``an individual that has not previously utilized VRS or IP Relay,'' someone to whom the provider has already issued a proxy number, for example, or someone who has been issued a device that is in contact with a provider's server, would not fall into the category of a ``new'' user. In support of mandatory registration for new users as of December 31, 2008, the Commission permits providers to request a user's tendigit NANP number, which can be used to verify whether the user is registered with another provider. Such verification can be made with a simple query to the Numbering Directory using the tendigit number. This interim solution will be available to providers as of December 31, 2008. However, the Commission may consider enhancing this method with the capability to do a reverse directory lookup of identifying information in the incoming call against the URIs of registered users, or the Commission may adopt some other solution if operational experience and the record in this proceeding indicate that another method would be preferable. In any event, if a provider is unable to discern whether someone attempting to use its service is an existing user, then it should treat such user as a new user.
27. The TDI Coalition recommends that once users register with a default provider, they should be able to place relay calls immediately, at least on a temporary basis, through, for example, the assignment of a temporary ``guest'' or application number/identification system. Similar to the TDI Coalition, Sorenson claims that providers must be prepared to assign a user a NANP number within an acceptable period of time (e.g., three days, but no longer than a week). The Commission believes that under our registration and permissive calling plan, there should be no delay problems for existing Internetbased TRS users, as they may continue to place calls without a tendigit, geographically appropriate number until the end of the permissive calling period. For new users, the Commission agrees with the TDI Coalition and concludes that to the extent technically feasible, Internetbased TRS providers must allow newly registered users to place calls immediately.
28. Sorenson Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification. Sorenson raises two issues in its Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification related to registration and routing of 911 calls. First, Sorenson requests that the Commission clarify that its new rules applicable to E911 Service, which are effective December 31, 2008, only apply to 911 calls of registered users. Because the new rules require providers to make available certain information that they can obtain only from registered users, such as Registered Location information, the Commission hereby amends the new rules to apply to 911 calls placed by registered users. Sorenson also requests permission to route 911 calls to the administrative lines of PSAPs in certain cases, such as when a user's Registered Location is in a geographic area not served by a Wireline E911 Network, or when a nondefault provider is handling a 911 call but does not have access to the 911 caller's Registered Location or other relevant information. The Commission recognizes that in certain circumstances such as these, the new rules may not be fully applicable. Therefore, the Commission amends our emergency calling rules to specify that the new rules only apply to 911 calls placed by users whose Registered Location is in a geographic area served by a Wireline E911 Network and is available to the provider handling the call.
29. Sorenson Petition for Limited Waiver. Finally, Sorenson
requests that the Commission grant it a oneyear waiver of the
Commission's prohibition on the use of ``proxy'' or ``alias'' numbers
after December 31, 2008. Sorenson claims a waiver is necessary to avoid
user disruption associated with the transition to NANP numbers by
allowing Sorenson users to continue receiving calls dialed using proxy
numbers. There is strong opposition in the record to Sorenson's
petition. Contrary to Sorenson's position, the TDI Coalition claims
that continued use of proxy numbers will actually create more confusion
for users. Specifically, the TDI Coalition argues that many proxy
numbers are duplicates of NANP numbers and therefore, using proxy
numbers once NANP numbers are assigned could cause confusion for users
and interoperability problems for Internetbased TRS providers. Parties
also highlight that callers using proxy numbers will not have their
location information automatically transmitted to the appropriate PSAP
or receive emergency callbacks through alternative VRS providers in the
case of a disconnect. Moreover, commenters argue that granting
Sorenson's petition would allow Sorenson to continue to maintain its
closed directory system to the detriment of other competing VRS
providers. There is consensus among the commenters that any customer
confusion that may arise by the termination of ``proxy'' and ``alias''
numbers with the assignment of tendigit NANP numbers can be adequately
addressed by a message provided by Sorenson that notifies that caller
of the new NANP number of the called party. As stated above, an
Internetbased TRS user may be reached by his or her ``proxy'' or
``alias'' number until the end of the permissive calling period. Additionally, the Commission
[[Page 79688]]
concluded that Internetbased TRS providers must provide a message
notifying callers that after June 30, 2009, the user may only be
reached by his or her NANP telephone number. Accordingly, consistent
with the record in this proceeding, the Commission denies Sorenson's petition for limited waiver.
30. Sua Sponte Clarification and Reconsideration. The Commission also clarifies, on its own motion, that all users of Internetbased TRS must be assigned tendigit, geographically appropriate numbers, meaning numbers within their local rate centers. In our June 24, 2008 Internet based TRS Order, the Commission noted that in ``unusual and limited circumstances,'' Internetbased TRS providers could encounter difficulty obtaining truly local telephone numbers for their users. The Commission suggested that in such circumstances, Internetbased TRS providers could ``temporarily employ suitable workarounds,'' such as assigning a user a telephone number reasonably close to the user's rate center or using remote call forwarding, but only until a geographically appropriate number became available. First, the Commission clarifies that under no circumstances should a tollfree number be assigned to a user as such a workaround. As the Commission states below, tollfree numbers must always route to a user's tendigit, geographically appropriate number. The Commission clarifies this because it is concerned that the assignment of a tollfree number as a user's primary identifier could degrade the provision of E911 service to that usera concern made more acute by the short time that providers, users, and the database administrator have to implement the new numbering system. Second, the Commission reconsiders its prior suggestion that Internet based TRS providers can use workarounds in instances where they cannot obtain geographically appropriate numbers, such as assigning a non local but ``close'' telephone number or using remote call forwarding. The Commission anticipates that the instances in which geographically appropriate numbers will be unavailable from wholesale carriers will be rare, but in those rare instances the Commission now requires Internet based TRS providers to bring the situation to its attention, and the Commission will work with the carriers in that area and other entities to resolve it so that all users of Internetbased TRS service will have truly local geographically appropriate tendigit numbers. To be clear, Internetbased TRS providers must assign to each user a locally rated, tendigit, geographically appropriate number. The Commission delegates to the Wireline Competition Bureau the authority necessary to work with the Internetbased TRS providers, the carriers, and the numbering administrators to resolve any such situations.
C. Use of Toll Free Numbers for InternetBased TRS
31. In the Further NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the use of toll free numbers for Internetbased TRS, including any impact the use of such numbers may have on the provision of 911 service. AT&T claims that Internetbased TRS users should be discouraged from using toll free numbers, and those users who elect to retain their toll free numbers should be required to pay for their use. AT&T also advocates transitioning away from toll free numbers due to concerns about the ability of 911 databases to effectively route 911 calls when associated with a toll free number because, by design, toll free numbers operate as inbound numbers only. GoAmerica claims that toll free numbers go beyond functional equivalency, and recommends that all Internetbased TRS users who are assigned toll free numbers be assigned geographically appropriate numbers. GoAmerica argues that, should an Internetbased TRS user want a toll free number, the user should be able to get one, and, like AT&T, GoAmerica recognizes that toll free numbers do not work with E911 systems.
32. The TDI Coalition encourages the use of geographically appropriate numbers and argues that if a provider offers toll free numbers, ``such offering must be no more than an optional alternative to geographic numbers.'' The TDI Coalition also argues that mechanisms can be put in place to facilitate the provisioning of 911 services through the use of pseudoANI, similar to VoIP 911. Sorenson also believes that Internetbased TRS users should be able to obtain toll free numbers, should not have to surrender their toll free numbers i.e., they should be able to have a geographically appropriate number and a toll free number, provided both numbers are assigned by the same provider. Sorenson argues that the providers should be responsible for the costs of the users' numbers and should be permitted to submit costs to the Interstate TRS Fund in connection with only one number (toll free or geographic) per device.
33. CSDVRS recommends that VRS providers be allowed, but not required, to issue toll free numbers and that users should be able to obtain toll free numbers from any provider, not just the default provider. With respect to 911 service, CSDVRS states that since toll free numbers do not have access to 911 services, devices assigned only a toll free number will need to carry clear disclaimers about their 911 limitations.
34. The Commission concludes, for the reasons discussed above in connection with registration, that Internetbased TRS users should transition away from the exclusive use of toll free numbers to ten digit, geographically appropriate numbers, in accordance with our numbering system. Important to this finding is that tendigit NANP numbers will ensure that emergency calls will be routed directly and automatically to the appropriate PSAP. Accordingly, similar to the Commission's registration plan, Internetbased TRS users are allowed a threemonth period to transition to tendigit, geographically appropriate numbers, with an additional threemonth permissive calling period for unregistered users. At the end of the permissive calling period, the Commission requires Internetbased TRS providers to have assigned tendigit, geographically appropriate numbers to all current holders of toll free numbers who wish to continue using those toll free numbers. An Internetbased TRS user may retain a current toll free number or obtain a new toll free number so long as that toll free number is directed to the tendigit, geographically appropriate number. As discussed below, voice telephone users are responsible for the costs of obtaining and using their individual toll free numbers and therefore, functional equivalency does not require that the use of toll free numbers in connection with Internetbased TRS should be compensable from the Interstate TRS Fund.
D. Eligibility Requirements and Verification Procedures
35. In the Further NPRM, the Commission sought comment on who
should be eligible to obtain telephone numbers. Specifically, the
Commission sought comment on the need for eligibility requirements or
verification procedures when telephone numbers are assigned; e.g., must
the recipient have a hearing or speech disability and therefore need to
use TRS to access the telephone system and, if so, should the recipient
be required to verify that fact, or can a number be assigned to a voice telephone user who may desire to
[[Page 79689]]
communicate directly (videotovideo) with a TRS user? The Commission
also sought comment on related issues, including the effect of
particular proposals on the Interstate TRS Fund, potential number
exhaustion concerns, possible other means by which the Commission or
providers can facilitate the provision of ``pointtopoint'' Internet
based calls, and the scope of section 225 with regard to these questions.
36. Eligibility To Obtain TenDigit Numbers. The Commission concludes that, at this time, only individuals with a hearing or speech disability will be eligible to obtain tendigit telephone numbers under the numbering system adopted in the Internetbased TRS Order. Although several commenters request that the Commission also allow hearing persons to obtain tendigit numbers from Internetbased TRS providers for the purpose of enabling pointtopoint video communications (i.e., nonrelay calls) between a hearing person and an individual with a hearing or speech disability, the Commission declines to do so at this time.
37. While the Commission recognizes the potential benefits of facilitating direct communication between TRS users and voice telephone users, the Commission nevertheless limits the assignment of tendigit numbers to persons with hearing and speech disabilities at this time. First, the Commission is cognizant of the limitations imposed by section 225, which instructs the Commission to prescribe regulations governing the provision of ``telecommunications relay services,'' and specifically authorizes the recovery of costs ``caused by * * * telecommunications relay services.'' Direct pointtopoint calling is not a ``telecommunications relay service'' under section 225. In addition, the assignment of telephone numbers to voice telephone users for the purpose of pointtopoint calls raises cost recovery issues. The Commission must ensure that costs specific to facilitating such calls are excluded from those costs for which providers may seek compensation from the Fund (and also are not included in those costs that determine the compensation rate). For example, costs associated with assigning a telephone number to a hearing person to facilitate direct calls, including costs related to obtaining the number, record keeping, and technical support activities, would not be compensable from the Fund. The Commission therefore finds that further evaluation is needed of the specific costs that would be associated with both assigning numbers to voice telephone users for the purpose of making pointtopoint calls, and with the processing of such calls, in order to establish safeguards to ensure that such costs would not be borne by the Fund. Finally, the Commission's paramount concern at this time is to ensure that it facilitates calls to Internetbased TRS users with hearing or speech disabilities and provide these users with automatic 911 access consistent with the functional equivalency mandate. For these reasons, the Commission concludes that only individuals with a hearing or speech disability will be eligible to obtain tendigit telephone numbers under the numbering system adopted by the Commission at this time.
38. Eligibility and Verification Procedures. The Commission also sought comment on what safeguards should apply, such as eligibility requirements and/or verifications, when a user registers with a default provider and is assigned a tendigit telephone number. In addition, the Commission sought comment on how providers might verify the accuracy of initial registration information in order to curb IP Relay fraud. Commenters generally support registration verification as a means of ensuring that registration information provided by users is accurate and preventing the improper use of Internetbased TRS, particularly IP Relay. At the same time, commenters emphasize that registration verification procedures should not unduly burden Internetbased TRS users in the process of obtaining tendigit numbers.
39. To verify the accuracy of initial registration information and to help ensure that VRS and IP Relay are used only for their intended purpose, Internetbased TRS providers must institute procedures to verify the accuracy of registration information, including the consumer's name and mailing address, before issuing the consumer a ten digit telephone number. In addition, to ensure that registered users are aware of the eligibility limitations set forth above, the verification procedures must include a self certification component requiring consumers to verify that they have a medically recognized hearing or speech disability necessitating their use of TRS.
40. In taking these actions, the Commission does not mandate the use of any particular verification procedures. Instead, the Commission requires only that Internetbased TRS providers implement a reasonable means of verifying registration and eligibility information that is not unduly burdensome. Such means may include, for example: (1) Sending a postcard to the mailing address provided by the consumer, for return to the default Internetbased TRS provider; (2) inperson or on camera ID checks during registration; or (3) other verification processes similar to those performed by voice telephone providers and other institutions (such as banks and credit card companies). Such registration should be accompanied by consumer education and outreach efforts designed to inform Internetbased TRS consumers of the importance of providing accurate registration information. The Commission expects that these measures will reduce the misuse of Internetbased TRS by those who may take advantage of the anonymity currently afforded users, particularly IP Relay users, without unduly burdening legitimate Internetbased TRS consumers seeking to obtain tendigit telephone numbers. The consumer education and outreach materials also should make clear that: (1) The consumer may obtain a telephone number from, and register with, his or her provider of choice (notwithstanding any prior relationship the consumer may have had with another provider); (2) the consumer may change default providers at any time and, in doing so, retain his or her telephone number by porting the number to the new default provider; (3) the consumer may make calls through, and receive calls from, any provider (and the consumer is not limited to making or receiving calls through his or her default provider); and (4) the provider cannot condition the ongoing use or possession of equipment, or the receipt of different or upgraded equipment, on the consumer continuing to use the provider as its default provider.
41. As stated above, these requirements will apply to those users
who have registered and obtained a tendigit number beginning December
31, 2008, except for the information collection requirements contained
in section 64.605 that have not been approved by OMB and, as such, the
Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing
the effective date for the information collection requirements
contained in this section. Such requirements subject to OMB approval
include the outreach and education obligations set forth in the above
paragraph, as well as the verification and selfcertification
requirements. Because these requirements are subject to OMB approval,
the Commission does not require providers to implement these provisions
until they have received such approval and are in effect. Once the
verification and selfcertification requirements become effective, [[Page 79690]]
however, providers will be required to verify the accuracy of any
registration information that was obtained prior to the effective date,
as well as obtain selfcertifications from users who acquired tendigit numbers, in compliance with these requirements.
E. Assignment of Telephone Numbers
42. In the Further NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the Consumer Groups' claim that functional equivalency requires that deaf and hardofhearing users have one tendigit, NANP number for multiple devices. The Commission also sought comment on whether, if such a system were in place, the cost of the additional functionalities should be passed on to the Internetbased TRS user. In their comments in response to the Further NPRM, the Consumer Groups clarified their position and stated that functional equivalency does not require that a user must have the option of using the same telephone number with multiple types of TRS services, but rather, that some type of call forwarding would be sufficient. With respect to the cost of the call forwarding service, the Consumer Groups urge the Commission to consider their opinion that the functionality of call forwarding is commonly included in services provided to telephone users at no charge and that the additional administrative costs to assess and collect such a fee, which they believe will be nominal, will exceed the cost of providing the functionality.
43. AT&T believes that the Commission should not mandate a single telephone number for multiple services. AT&T believes that Internet based TRS providers can implement call forwarding and other services to offer a onenumber solution to users who have registered with that provider as their default provider. CSDVRS recommends that providers be allowed, but not required, to offer such a functionality as it is an enhanced functionality rather than a functionally equivalent feature. GoAmerica shares the same view as CSDVRS, but argues that it may be problematic to have the same number assigned for different services that have different technologies, platforms and endpoints. Sorenson recommends deferring the issue to focus resources on the immediate challenges of implementing the new numbering system. Similarly, NeuStar argues that, ``[a]s technology evolves, it may be possible for a single [telephone number] to be associated with multiple services in an IP environment, but that time is not here yet.''
44. Assignment of numbers for multiple types of service. The Commission agrees that functional equivalency does not require that an Internetbased TRS user be assigned a single tendigit, NANP number for multiple types of services. Given the short timeframe to implement our numbering system and the importance of public safety, the Commission determines that a tendigit, geographically appropriate number will be associated with the URI of one user, for one type of service, e.g., IP Relay or VRS. Nothing in this Order is intended to restrict an Internetbased TRS provider from offering a feature that would automatically forward an incoming call for the user at one service (e.g., VRS) to the user at another service (e.g., IP Relay) in those cases where the user has obtained numbers for both services from the same provider if it does not result in additional costs to the Fund. However, a provider that is not a default provider may not be able to replicate the same feature based on the information available in the Numbering Directory. As the Commission garners experience with the numbering system, the Commission will be better able to analyze possible solutions to allow a single number to be associated with multiple types of services consistent with the emergency handling and interoperability rules.
45. Assignment of telephone numbers for multiple URIs for the same type of service. The Commission does not place limits at this time on the quantity of telephone numbers that an Internetbased TRS user may obtain from Internetbased TRS providers. For example, a VRS user may obtain different numbers for VRS devices at different locations such as home and office. This meets basic functional equivalency and provides more reliable E911 location information. Nothing in this Order is intended to restrict an Internetbased TRS provider that has provisioned a user with multiple numbers for the same service from offering callforwardingtype features that automatically forward an incoming call for the user at a URI associated with one telephone number to the user at a URI associated with another telephone number if it does not result in additional costs to the Fund. The Commission notes, however, that an Internetbased TRS provider that is not the default provider of these numbers may not be able to replicate the same feature based on the information in the Numbering Directory. Consistent with the Commission's rules, each provider of Internetbased TRS is required to obtain from each registered Internetbased TRS user the physical location at which the service will be first utilized for each number and to provide the user one or more methods for updating the physical location for each number.
46. Assignment of telephone numbers for multiple URIs at the same location. Because the Commission does not place limits at this time on the quantity of telephone numbers that an Internetbased TRS user may obtain from Internetbased TRS providers, a user may also obtain numbers for different devices on the same premises, such as multiple VRS devices in the home. Although the central Numbering Directory does not permit a single telephone number to be shared by multiple devices at the same location, nothing in this Order restricts an Internetbased TRS provider or an independent equipment supplier from developing and implementing a solution that provides a ``multiple extensions'' feature if it does not result in additional costs to the Fund. As the Commission garners experience with our numbering system, the Commission will be better able to analyze possible solutions to allow a single number to be associated with multiple devices consistent with emergency handling and interoperability rules.
47. Assignment of telephone numbers for a single URI. Given the short timeframe to implement our numbering system and the importance of public safety, the Commission finds that if multiple tendigit, geographically appropriate telephone numbers are associated with a single URI, they must all be provided by a single Internetbased TRS provider. Thus, only one Internetbased TRS provider is responsible for managing the Registered Location information associated with that URI. This requirement will reduce the likelihood of conflicting Registered Location information for the same URI.
48. Recapturing unused numbers. Because the Commission anticipates that providers will not encourage consumers to obtain more telephone numbers than they actually intend to use, the Commission declines to put into effect a means to recapture unused numbers at this time, but will monitor the situation and reserve the right to do so at a later date.
F. Numbering Costs
49. In the Internetbased TRS Order, the Commission concluded that
Internetbased TRS providers may seek compensation from the Fund for
their reasonable actual costs of complying with the requirements adopted in that order. The Order further concluded that
[[Page 79691]]
costs recoverable from the Fund may include those directly related to:
(1) Ensuring that database information is properly and timely updated
and maintained; (2) processing and transmitting calls made to tendigit
numbers assigned pursuant to the Internetbased TRS Order; (3) routing
emergency calls to an appropriate PSAP; (4) other implementation tasks
directly related to facilitating tendigit numbering and emergency call
handling; and (5) consumer outreach and education related to the
requirements and services adopted in the Internetbased TRS Order.
50. At the same time, the Commission stated that those numbering costs compensable from the Fund did not include ``those costs directly related to consumers' acquiring a tendigit number or to the costs associated with number portability.'' Noting that voice telephone users generally bear these costs, the Commission sought comment on ``whether Internetbased TRS users acquiring tendigit numbers should also bear these costs. In addition, the Commission sought comment on whether other specific costs associated with numbering should, consistent with costs paid by voice telephone users, be passed on to consumers, ``including, for example, E911 charges.'' As explained more fully below, the Commission concludes that certain costs, which typically are borne by consumers of voice communication services, are not compensable from the Fund and, at the election of each provider and subject to Commission approval (as explained below), may be passed on to Internet based TRS users who are registered with that provider. These costs include: (1) Costs associated with an Internetbased TRS consumer's acquisition of a tendigit geographic telephone number, (2) costs associated with an Internetbased TRS consumer's acquisition and usage of a toll free telephone number; and (3) any E911 charges that may be imposed on Interstate TRS providers under a state or local E911 funding mechanism. The Commission also addresses below number portability costs.
51. Costs Relating to the Acquisition of a TenDigit Geographic Number. Section 225 states that the Commission's regulations shall ``require that users of [TRS] pay rates no greater than the rates paid for functionally equivalent voice communication services with respect to such factors as the duration of the call, the time of day, and the distance from point of origination to point of termination.'' As noted in the Further Notice, Congress therefore contemplated that TRS consumers would pay certain costs associated with making a call, just not the additional costs that are attributable to the use of a relay service to facilitate the call. Because number acquisition costs are not attributable to the use of relay to facilitate a call, and because the record reflects that these costs generally are borne by users of voice communication services, the Commission finds, consistent with section 225 and the functional equivalency mandate, that number acquisition costs are not compensable from the Fund. Therefore, a provider that assigns a telephone number to a consumer may pass the costs on to that consumer. However, to ensure that only these customer specific, actually incurred costs are passed on, the Commission requires that any Internetbased TRS provider wishing to pass on numberingrelated costs to its users first obtain Commission approval. The Commission delegates to the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau the authority to rule on such requests.
52. Commenters' arguments that costs of obtaining tendigit telephone numbers should not be borne by consumers are insufficient to justify treating Internetbased TRS users differently than users of voice communication services with respect to passing through number assignment costs to end users. First, some commenters contend that number assignment costs are ``generally small'' and, as such, do not justify the administrative expense that would be involved in recovering them from consumers. The Commission disagrees. Internetbased TRS providers reasonably may take into consideration the administrative cost of billing consumers in determining whether to pass certain numbering costs on to consumers and, if so, how much to charge. The fact that providers may incur administrative expenses, however, does not justify treating Internetbased TRS users differently from users of voice communication services.
53. Second, the Commission disagrees with the contention that it should allow costs associated with acquiring numbers to be reimbursed by the Fund to the extent that anticipated ``cost savings'' resulting from the Internetbased TRS Order (associated with a possible future reduction in IP relay fraud) can be expected to ``outweigh'' the cost of acquiring numbers. Potential ``cost savings'' to the Fund resulting from a reduction in IP Relay fraud similarly does not provide a basis for treating Internetbased TRS users differently in this context, given that the approach the Commission adopts here is consistent with the language and functional equivalency objective of section 225.
54. Finally, GoAmerica asserts that it is ``discriminatory'' to charge deaf and hard of hearing persons for telephone numbers because Internetbased TRS users already ``pay more for the ability to communicate than hearing persons.'' In particular, GoAmerica suggests that Internetbased TRS users must incur the cost of high speed Internet access, in addition to the cost of a regular telephone line, in order to have both TTY access and access to VRS. The record, however, does not support this claim. The record reflects that hearing consumers who use interconnected VoIP services may pay as much, if not more, than Internetbased TRS users for service costs that may include number assignment charges, other associated fees, and broadband Internet access. The Commission therefore finds that Internetbased TRS consumers' costs to obtain tendigit telephone numbers are not compensable from the Interstate TRS Fund and, at the election of each provider and subject to Commission approval (as explained above), may be passed on to the consumer.
55. Costs Relating to the Acquisition and Use of a Toll Free Number. The Commission also sought comment on allowing the continued use of toll free numbers by Internetbased TRS users. In addition, the Commission sought comment on whether Internetbased TRS users should be subject to a fee for the use of toll free numbers, as are voice telephone users.
56. Although the Commission permits the continued use of toll free
numbers by Internetbased TRS users to the extent provided in this
Order, the Commission agrees with commenters who assert that the costs
associated with obtaining and using a toll free number should not be
compensable from the Fund. As AT&T asserts, for example, users who
elect to retain their toll free number ``should be required to pay for
the use of that number'' and doing so ``would make Internetbased TRS
more functionally equivalent.'' The Commission therefore finds that
Internetbased TRS providers may not seek compensation from the Fund
for the cost of assigning a toll free number that has been assigned to
an Internetbased TRS consumer after December 31, 2008. Internetbased
TRS providers similarly may not seek compensation from the Fund for
usage charges associated with any toll free number held by an Internet
based TRS user after June 30, 2009 (marking the end of the registration
period). Moreover, any toll free number held by an Internetbased TRS user should, on or before June 30,
[[Page 79692]]
2009, point to the user's assigned tendigit, geographically
appropriate number. After June 30, 2009, Internetbased TRS providers
may not route calls to users' telephone numbers other than their ten
digit, geographically appropriate numbers that have been associated
with the users in the numbering database. To be clear, costs associated
with users' toll free numbers will not be compensable and
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
William Dever, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 4181578.
For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document contact Judith B. Herman at (202) 4180214, or via the Internet at PRA@fcc.gov.