CAREFUL DECISIONS ON GEOROUTING FOR SUICIDE HOTLINE

In some of the darkest human moments – when individuals contemplate taking their own lives – confidential and free help is available from caring and understanding crisis personnel. Several years ago, Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established the short-code 9-8-8 to simplify and accelerate the means to reach this support. And further improvements are coming as the entire suicide prevention lifeline eco-system is adopting technology enhancements to transmit calls and texts to more localized crisis centers, all without jeopardizing anonymity. This move to better-targeted “georouting,” which is most relevant for wireless mobility users, can be an undeniable success story – but only if regulators are careful before layering new government mandates or disrupting the current 988 Lifeline system. 

Numerous experts involved in 988 have made clear that familiarity with community and local factors of individuals in need can aid in immediate response care. It also can be vital in providing longer-term assistance and preventing reoccurring episodes. In fact, the pertinent FCC proceeding received ample comments that more precise georouting would be invaluable. It’s why the industry partners, the Lifeline Administrator (Vibrant), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) of the Department of Health and Human Services, and others have been rapidly and voluntarily working on ways to increase the precision of such call routing.

Just this week, two nationwide wireless providers, T-Mobile and Verizon (with AT&T not far behind), have successfully activated a 988 wireless call georouting system. In other words, the system testing of 2023 has moved to a fully live, implemented, and operationally-sound 988 structure that delivers an individual’s call to the respective local crisis center.

For the FCC, these developments should be welcome news. After defining an appropriate policy objective, it gets exactly what it sought without having to impose new regulations. Embracing this win-win opportunity will increase the likelihood of reducing the number of suicides and the devasting impact on affected family and friends. It also prevents legal challenges questioning FCC legal authority to impose mandates that would result in the same outcome or worse. Arguably, the Commission’s reliance on existing statutory provisions, which at best are thinly related or over encompassing, is troubling and inappropriate, especially given the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent paring of independent agency reach.

To the extent that the FCC moves ahead notwithstanding, which I humbly would suggest is unnecessary, it should do so without interfering with or jeopardizing the existing 988 system and the work that’s handled over 10 million connections. Such a transition should facilitate a seamless integration that respects current systems features and doesn’t require a retrofit and redesign of the 988 architecture. Preventing wasted time and expense should be a key priority to allow crisis centers to focus on their good work of helping callers. Likewise, the agency should be mindful that improving georouting doesn’t result in more network exposure points for potential failure or outages. Anyone who has focused on computer operations and security knows the more complexity and touchpoints, the more chance for network failure.

Take for instance, the current system’s ability to conduct an initial screen for callers who are veterans, Spanish speaking, and/or LGBTQI+ individuals. Today, those calls – which represent approximately 25 percent of total volume – are handed to crisis counselors with specialized experience and training. Any georouting solution that does not propose ways to maintain or replicate this critical technological protocol should raise concern. That is, considering an option for georouting that ignores continuing this quality of care should serve as a red flag that very well could lead to an increase in suicide risk.

Further, the current 988 Lifeline system avoids many of the issues relevant in Next Generation 911 (NG911) system design and adoption. Policymakers are well aware that the migration to a unform NG911 is occurring haphazardly and on a very slow timeline. More importantly, the system serves different functions than 988 and callers have completely different expectations. Identifying individuals’ locations and communicating with law enforcement personnel – hallmark attributes of NG911— can undermine the willingness of those considering suicide to seek assistance. Any georouting solution endorsed by the FCC should want to keep these two opposing worlds separate for the continuity of suicide prevention.           

Mandates by the FCC to move to greater georouting without direction from Congress would be disturbing. As a former FCC Commissioner, I am hard pressed to imagine why the agency would want to require that which is already being accomplished. However, if it does, systemic changes to the successful 988 system shouldn’t be made lightly or without a recognition of current system’s intentional design and features. Tread carefully.

 

  

 

 

LET’S CLICK TO CANCEL A MISGUIDED FTC PROPOSAL

Two weeks ago, the Biden Administration made a media splash with an umbrella initiative pitched as a way to aid consumers from unnecessary corporate hassles. Part of this larger effort was a push to “help” consumers cancel subscriptions and services. While cynics could be forgiven for thinking that this macro proposal was just a campaign theme rolling into the November elections, the consumer cancellation portion raises plenty of substantive concerns worth attention. Ironically, sweeping new rules, as proposed, could backfire in many instances, resulting in consumers being harmed. Federal officials would be wise to cut back on the rhetoric, acknowledge that cancellation “remedies” can be flawed, and focus attention on enforcement actions against any egregious actors.

Except for fraudsters, no one should support “headaches and hassles that waste Americans’ time and money.” Legitimate companies have no interest. Instead, they want to obtain, retain, and service customers well in order to stay in business, and potentially grow in size and scope -- not intentionally cause consumers pain or grief. This is especially true when consumers seek to cancel subscriptions or services. It takes substantial time, effort, and money to attract consumers, and recently churned customers can be the most likely to be won back. The vast majority of companies do not try to permanently burn existing relationships via shoddy cancellation procedures.

As the Administration admits, the cancellation portion of last week’s announcement basically repackaged a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) effort from early 2023.  It indicated that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which oversees our nation’s communications sectors, will initiate a new FCC proceeding to consider similar requirements.

In effect, the Administration is doubling down on a troubled FTC proceeding that is particularly ill-fitting for the communications sector. The FTC’s proposed solutions of one-stop-shops and click-to-cancel mechanisms rightly have drawn some of the most ire. Because customer cancellation procedures are not monolithic and many services, especially in the telecom field, are vital to consumers, the cancellation processes cannot and should not be dumbed-down to a click-of-a-button mentality that could prevent companies from providing important information and better offers before cancelling service. This is particularly true when little to no evidence exists that there is a problem in need of fixing. Case in point: cable TV service, which consumers have cancelled at record rates in recent years. Consider also that Affordable Connectivity Program participants were able to shed Internet service quickly when the subsidies ended without any new FTC/FCC rules. No problem there.

From a larger perspective, policymakers should realize that turning off critical services shouldn’t be done on a whim. But that is exactly what this Administration wants to mandate. The new rules would require that consumers be able to cancel a service or subscription the same way they originally signed up with the same number of steps. That means online signups for telephone services and the Internet – deemed a necessity by many – must have the same ease to cancel. There are multiple problems with this. Consider what happens after the Federal government tells consumers that they can save money and time just by clicking magic buttons. Assuming click-to-cancel works flawlessly, services and subscriptions that consumers rely on for maintaining quality of life and communicating with loved ones will be cancelled instantaneously. Think of senior citizens and the budget conscious trying to save a few bucks no longer having the benefits of modern communications technology, with companies restricted from offering better plans to meet their needs and budgets before they lose service.

Likewise, not all services and subscriptions are created equal. Cancelling telephone service should be treated differently from stopping a People magazine subscription. No one can die from missing the latest celebrity gossip. This important distinction is missing from the Administration’s mindset, much less its proposal.

Moreover, over-zealous cancellation mandates will run into reality as mistakes are made. Any corrections will take time to reestablish services and subscriptions. Consumers will suffer in the meantime. There should be a legitimate governmental interest in making sure companies are extra positive that consumers recognize and affirm any cancellation. If that means a few more steps, that’s something society should accept, not denigrate. In this instance, additional steps don’t mean burden, they mean safeguards.   

Lastly, ignored in the FTC’s consideration seems to be an understanding of who pays for new governmental mandates. Companies do not just absorb cost increase for compliance and procedural changes. The practical impact is that consumers will get the bill in the form of higher rates, reduced services, or a mixture of both. 

The real solution to any perceived cancellation problem is not new FTC rules that apply across the board. That’s overkill and ill-fitting for a very diverse set of services and subscriptions. Alternatively, the Administration should focus attention on a select industry sector or a few companies where evidence of substantial consumer harm is available and abundant. Traditional enforcement actions at either the FTC or FCC are available to address any need.