1

State of California / Public Utilities Commission
San Francisco
M E M O R A N D U M

Date:November 2, 2017

To:The Commission

(Meeting of November 9, 2017)

From:Kimberly Lippi

Public Utilities Counsel, Legal Division

Yan Solopov

Public Utilities Regulatory Analyst, Communications Division

Subject: Filing Comments in FCC PS Docket 17-239: Inquiry Concerning 911 Access, Routing, and Location in Enterprise Communications Systems

RECOMMENDATION: The CPUC should file comments in response tothe FCC’s Notice of InquiryConcerning 911 Access, Routing, and Location in Enterprise Communications Systemsreleased on September 26, 2017[1] (“Notice” or NOI).The NOI seeks comment on a number of issues existing with the 9-1-1 capabilities of Enterprise Communications Systems (ECS).[2] The CPUC has in the past referred to these as Multi-Line Telephone Systems (MLTS), Private Branch Exchange (PBX), Centrex, Hybrid, and Key Systems. The FCC seeks comment on consumer expectations, information about past regulatory actions by states, potential and existing ECS standards and best-practices, and relevant statistics for 9-1-1 calls from an ECS environment. Staff recommends that the CPUC file comments to the FCC to:

●Provide information about the CPUC’s previous positions and actions addressing 9-1-1 access for ECS[3];

●Provide information about issues relevant to disabled persons accessing 9-1-1 in an ECSenvironment; and

●Describe the CPUC’s review of E911 service in California, including any gaps or limitations the CPUC identified with respect to addressing E911 accessfor ECS.

Comments are dueNovember 15, 2017; reply comments are due December 15, 2017.

Background:

The FCC’s Notice of Inquiry

The FCC issued this NOI todetermine why 9-1-1 call routing capabilities of Enterprise Communications Systems have lagged behind those of wireless, wireline, and interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technologies.[4] The FCC has identified that customers expect that 9-1-1 calls made from anywhere in the country will be routed to the appropriate 9-1-1 call center of Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP), that location and callback information will be transmitted to the PSAP, and that the location information provided will be accurate and precise, enabling emergency personnel to respond effectively.[5]

The FCC seeks concrete information, such as the total number of telephone numbers associated with ECS, the percentage of 9-1-1 traffic they generate, the commonality of failed 9-1-1 calls from ECS, and other statistics.[6] Additionally, the FCC seeks comments on consumers’ expectations regarding their ability to access 9-1-1 when calling from an ECS,[7] and inquires about issues unique to persons with disabilities when calling from an ECSenvironment.[8]

The FCC also seeks comments on regulatory approaches for addressing Enterprise Communications System’s9-1-1 issues, and inquires about past actions by states to address ECS issues.[9] The FCC seeks to identify which entities and/or processes should be utilized, and whether state-level, and/or FCC action is needed. Finally, the FCC seeks comments about the effectiveness of existing standards and best practices supporting access to 9-1-1 for ECS, and whether additional voluntary ones should be established.[10]

The CPUC’s Past FCC Comments and Regulatory Actions

The FCC has previously examined the provision of 9-1-1 by ECS, however, it has not adopted E911 requirements for either legacy orInternet Protocol (IP)-based ECS. Instead, the FCC has deferred to state and local authorities to devise the 9-1-1 obligations of ECS operators and service providers. In previous FCC proceedings related to E911 service for ECS, the CPUC supported the FCC’s efforts to ensure that PBX systems are compatible with 9-1-1[11], and noted that while 9-1-1 capability was available in PBX equipment, it could not be taken advantage of due to lack of standardization.[12] The CPUC further stated that certain areas, such as the Automatic Location Information (ALI) data-base administration, are best addressed at the local level, but that rules should be established to ensure data is collected in a standard format established by the National Emergency Number Association (NENA).[13]

The CPUC further conducted a rulemaking (R.10-04-011) to improve public safety in California by improving access to E911 by MLTS and PBX systems. The CPUC issued Decision (D.)13-07-019, which directed the local exchange carriers (LECs) to take actions designed to raise customer awareness of critical E911 MLTS and PBX safety issues. In that decision, the CPUC further noted limitations on its abilities to fully address E911 issues, including the fact that the FCC deregulated the manufacture and distribution of customer premises equipment (CPE), and the fact that primary responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the 9-1-1 system may rest with other state agencies which have technology responsibility, and not with the Commission. Further, the CPUC noted that while various statutes may affect the lawful use of telecommunications facilities (e.g., prohibitions against use of such equipment for illegal purposes, which can lead to disconnection of service), in general, the CPUC could not compel customers either to install specific facilities or to subscribe to specific services.

Ultimately, the CPUC addressed the public safety issues in California’s E911 system byraising awareness of this critical public safety need amongst the stakeholders, especially the PBX MLTS customers; and supporting legislative efforts for California to adopt effective E911 legislation such as mandating MLTS customers to provision for MLTS E911.

The California Chapter of NENA, CALNENA, submitted a copy of the NENA model legislation for MLTS systems in that proceeding as a viable blueprint for E911 legislation in California. This model legislation is often used as a guideline in drafting legislation, by states contemplating implementing their own set of regulations. The CPUC found this legislative approach to be balanced and prudent. To date, California has not adopted legislation to regulate 9-1-1 service as it applies to enterprises.

Discussion: Staff recommendsthat the CPUC file comments onthe following issues:

A)CPUC’s regulatory actions addressing 9-1-1 access for Enterprise Communications Systems:

B)

The FCC seeks information about planned or existing actions by state regulators addressing issues related to ECS.[14]

CPUC Decision (D.)13-07-019, issued July 17, 2013, required all local exchange carriers to distribute to existing and potentialMLTS customers a CPUC-developed advisory brochure on enabling E911 capabilities. Additionally, carriers were required to place the official MLTSlogo offered on the CPUC website on their own website(s), to link directly to the CPUC’s advisory document.

In that Rulemaking (R.10-04-011), the CPUC also hosted a workshop addressing ECS, inviting participation from representative stakeholders. It addressed the areas of public safety need for ECSE911 capabilities, describing how public utilities and other service providers can work with businesses to implement these services, and identifying the feasibility and cost of doing so.

Further, General Order 168 provides:

  1. Consumers have a right to expect that that voice providers will offer connections to E911 emergency services and access to Public Safety Answering Points to the extent this is technically feasible and required by law, and to clear and complete disclosure of material limitations on access to 9-1-1 emergency services.
  2. Consumers have a right to receive clear and complete information about any limitations affecting the services they select, including limitations on bandwidth, applications or devices that may be used in connection with their service.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the CPUCissue comments to the FCC’s NOI describing its previous actions for E911 service for ECS.

C)Issues relevant to disabled persons accessing 9-1-1 in an Enterprise Communications Systemsenvironment:

The FCC seeks comment about unique issues that persons with disabilities may encounter when attempting to contact emergency services from an ECS environment.[15] Additionally, the FCC seeks comment about the current capabilities of ECS to provide emergency communications, and about the potential for future ECS to support accessible communications media, such as real-time text.[16]

The CPUC’s Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications program provides California consumers with text communications devices designed to assist those with hearing and/or speaking disabilities. Public safety answering pointscurrently maintain on-site capabilities for communicating with callers using these devices. ECS which operate through IP and cloud based services require the conversion of an analog to IP signal to complete a 9-1-1 call. These devices are designed around analog signals, and the conversion often results in technological compatibility-based issues such as dropped calls, connection problems, and text garbling.

Staff Recommendation: Staffrecommends that the CPUC submit comments(1) describing the compatibility issues present with real time text communications devices in Enterprise Communications Systems environments, and (2) stating that there is a need for future ECS to support and be made compatible with text communications devices, including analog signal-based ones.

D)Existing Gaps in E911 Implementation for ECS:

E)

The FCC seeks comment on whether issues relevant to Enterprise Communications Systems are suited to state-level action, and asks which entities, processes, best practices, or standards should be utilized in their establishment.[17] The FCC seeks information on whether significant gaps in implementing E911 for ECS still exist.[18]

As noted above, in R.10-04-011, the CPUC conducted a review of critical emergency access protections of E911 provisioning to business customers and MLTS users in California. In addition to the requirements that the CPUC imposed on LECs, described above, the CPUC cited certain limitations on its ability to implement and address E911 access by ECS/MLTS/PBX systems, including the need for legislation requiring MLTS owners/operators/lessees to provide E911 services with accurate caller location information, FCC deregulation of the manufacture and distribution of CPE, lack of state role in overseeing CPE manufacturing and distribution, and the CPUC’s inability to compel customers to purchase certain equipment or services. The CPUC further examined the current industry tools, services, and practices to understand all of the pertinent operational or logistical issues with E911, andreviewed a number of recommendations to help solve the E911 concerns in California.

Staff Recommendation:Staff recommends that the CPUC submit comments describing the CPUC’s review of E911 service in R.10-04-011, including any gaps or limitations the CPUC identified therein with respect to addressing E911 access. Finally, the Communications Division has requested from CalOES any data from their call detail records showing how many calls were made from ECS devices, and will provide any information obtained.

Assigned Staff:

Legal Division: Kimberly Lippi (415-703-5822)

Communications Division: Yan Solopov (415-703-5345)

198906402

[1]In the Matter of Inquiry Concerning 911 Access, Routing, and Location in Enterprise Communications Systems, Notice of Inquiry, PS Docket 17-239 (FCC 17-125) (rel. Sept. 26, 2017) (NOI).

[2] ECS serve large enterprises, such as businesses, hotels, educational institutions, and semi-public venues like courtesy phones in airports. Because ECS have evolved as private systems, they have not been consistently designed to deliver E911 services in the same manner as wireline, wireless, or interconnected VoIP networks. For example, dialing “9-1-1” may require dialing a prefix, or the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) may not receive a complete call-back number for the calling station, preventing the PSAP from re-establishing a connection if the initial call is cut off. ECS systems must also be programmed to provide location information to PSAPs; this is not an automatic feature.

[3] The CPUC refers to these systems as Multi-Line Telephone Systems (MLTS), Private Branch Exchange (PBX), Centrex, Hybrid, and Key Systems.

[4]NOI at ¶ 3.

[5]Id. ¶ 1.

[6]Id. ¶¶ 19, 33.

[7]Id. ¶ 34.

[8]Id. ¶ 35.

[9]Id. ¶¶ 15, 39.

[10]Id. ¶¶ 39, 40.

[11] The CPUC stated that only the three digits 9-1-1 should be used to reach emergency services, not 9-9-1-1 or any other combination of digits.

[12] Comments of the CPUC, CC Docket No. 94-102 (filed Jan. 6, 1995).

[13] NENA is a non-profit national organization dedicated to the provision of effective and accessible 9-1-1 service for North America. It has developed a Technical Requirements Document on Model Legislation E911 for Multi-Line Telephone Systems, commonly referred to as “NENA Model Legislation”.

[14]NOI at ¶¶ 15, 39.

[15]Id. ¶ 35.

[16]Id. ¶ 27.

[17]Id. ¶¶ 39, 40.

[18]Id. ¶ 42.