Punishing State Fee Diversion Could Harm 911, FCC Warned

Punishing state 911 fee diverters could worsen funding problems for the emergency call system and might be ineffective, commented local and public safety groups this week in docket 20-291. Penalizing local governments for states’ decisions is “much like sending your daughter to bed without dinner because your son took a cookie from the jar without permission,” the National Association of State 911 Administrators (NASNA) responded to the FCC notice of inquiry. “The two siblings are related, but the response is not.”

Some ask how much the FCC can do to stop diversion in states like New York and New Jersey, which the agency flagged in several annual reports (see 2009230046). New York last month protested the agency blocking it and other 911 diverters from 4.9 GHz spectrum (see 2010060057). The New York 911 Coordinators Association supported withholding frequency licenses and renewals (see 2010260047). CTIA urged the FCC to do more than shame offenders (see 2011020040).

“Approaching 911 fees from a punitive angle is flawed,” commented NASNA. “When a state diverts state 911 funds to non-911 purposes, public safety communications is harmed. To then withhold federal grant funding from the same public safety communications systems is to double down on the injury that has already been done.” States where the value of diverted funds outweighs potential grants won’t be discouraged, it added. Restricting frequency licensing might make states take notice but “could pose an immediate danger to the public,” it said. NASNA urged the FCC to collaborate with elected state legislators, rather than “second-guess” their decisions. “To overturn" such sovereignty "to address the actions of a small subset of those groups constitutes federal overreach and is potentially a violation of the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.” States should be transparent about fees and their use, disclosing when they don't use funds properly, the group said.

Disqualifying diverters from federal grants “has not significantly impacted New Jersey’s diversionary practices" as public service answering points "will continue to be fully self-reliant for funding through at least the current fiscal year," commented the New Jersey Association of Counties. “This action only further harms local operators desperate for additional resources, who are now ineligible for federal grant funding through no fault.”

Congress authorized the FCC only to report on fee diversion, said the Boulder Regional Emergency Telephone Service Authority from Colorado, a state the commission hasn’t flagged as diverting. The 2012 NET 911 Act didn’t “provide for any denial of federal benefits or other penalty ... let alone authorize the Commission to deny benefits,” the local authority said: Denying grants or licenses will harm 911 service and public safety.

Emergency call centers “that are already missing funds they were expecting from 9-1-1 fees would be further harmed when they lose eligibility for federal grant funding or Commission licenses, programs, or advisory committees,” APCO commented. Be wary of states that claim they ended diversion by changing the name of their 911 fees, as that would only “cement” reduced funding, said the National Emergency Number Association. New York and New Jersey had 90% of the diversion, it noted.

Revamp annual state 911 reports to the FCC, which “would be more valuable ... if they focused on the extent to which 9-1-1 is underfunded and the impacts of underfunding on emergency response rather than focusing on whether expenditures fit the Commission’s interpretation of ‘9-1-1 related,’” said APCO, listing inadequacies. The cost of providing 911 “far exceeds” fee revenue, it said. "Not all states have established a dedicated funding mechanism for 9-1-1 which means they could not be labeled as a ‘diverter’ regardless of whether responsible governance and funding mechanisms are in place.” The FCC and state agencies may not know if diversion is occurring at the local level, APCO said. "Whether fees are being ‘diverted’ might not be a good indication of whether 9-1-1 fees are being used in a manner that would meet consumers’ expectations.”

Reject new rules for industry, said T-Mobile. “Proposals for added bill disclosures, or prohibitions of the collection of fees for diverting states, could undermine efforts by carriers ... to implement and maintain consumer friendly billing.”

Editor's note: This is part of an ongoing series of articles about 911, including on fee diversion and dispatching problems in Washington, D.C. To read some of those stories, see here, here, here and here for those reports from 2020. For a news report in this issue about DC 911 problems, (see 2011030060).