Tread Carefully on 911 Fee Diversion Response, FCC Told

solutions in the FCC’s notice of inquiry “are inappropriate in response to the issue and may cause significant harm to the cause of improving public safety communications systems for use by the public.” The FCC shouldn’t adopt too narrow a definition for diversion that might conflict with 911 surcharge laws, the PUC said. Avoid imposing penalties that further harm local 911 systems, impede upgrades or severely hurt local governments, it said. Give states flagged as diverters an appeals process and a chance to correct behavior, it said. The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency doesn’t support "a nationwide fixed ‘list’ of allowable 911 expenses at the federal level nor do we support a liberal application of 911 fees to all public safety functions," PEMA replied. “An approach to a national list of allowable expenditures that is more restrictive or contradicts state statutes or eligibility rules would penalize Pennsylvania 911 systems and has the potential to significantly impact 911 service.” Conditioning federal grants on no diversion is more effective when more money is at stake, PEMA said. "A large-scale federal funding program for 911, in a similar fashion to FirstNet, would serve as a strong deterrent to 911 fee diversion." The FCC hasn’t flagged Colorado or Pennsylvania as diverters. USTelecom and the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) discouraged requiring providers to disclose on bills that a customer’s state is a diverter. ATIS said its Network Reliability Steering Committee “strongly opposes this approach because it would put the service providers in the middle of an issue that does not directly involve them and over which they have no authority to resolve.” Local and public safety groups warned in comments last month that some ways of punishing diversion could harm 911 (see 2011030029).