In Key Areas, FCC’s Latest Draft 9-8-8 Item Lands in Reasonable Territory

Just last Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released draft text of items for its October 17, 2024, Open Meeting. Included as part of the release was a draft 9-8-8 Suicide & Crisis Hotline Third Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The intention of these proposed final rules is to facilitate georouting for wireless calls to 9-8-8. Upon reflection of the text, certain policy cuts seem eminently reasonable.

Having written recently about this, I expressed concern when the agency signaled action on 9-8-8 georouting was imminent. Specifically, my worry was that any governmental activity could disrupt or interfere with the great work that has already been accomplished with such a simplification in dialing and subsequent implementation of the current system. The reality is that even well-intentioned regulations can cause affected parties to pause, make assessments, and sometime alter current operations. In this instance, crisis centers already have received over ten million contacts from the resulting number; people on the edge of horrific decisions were being counseled; and the system was working. Therefore, policymakers needed to be extremely careful with any effort that would impede it.  

Setting aside for the time being the Commission’s decision to impose specific georouting requirements – and even the jurisdictional authority to do so – the resulting item seems appropriately delicate in its approach. In fact, it endorses and embraces key decisions made in 2020 that should be applauded. For example, it maintains routing centralization of 9-8-8 and avoids system fragmentation. When the number was created a few short years ago, the item included a requirement that 9-8-8 calls be centrally routed “to the toll free access number for the Lifeline and the Veterans Crisis Line” rather than localized call centers. At the time, it was reasoned that doing so would ease the call routing process, generate operational and cost efficiencies, and lower the risk of misdirected calls. Moreover, it was argued that centralized routing allowed “flexibility to design specialized routing for self-identifying groups, such as veterans, Spanish speakers, or LGBTQ youth.” A quick review shows that all of this was realized.

Thankfully, October’s draft item maintains this position and preserves the vital routing role of the Lifeline Administrator, in cooperation with its government overseer, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Specifically, the text states, “we recognize that SAMHSA and the Lifeline Administrator are best suited to ensure that calls are properly routed and ultimately answered by a crisis center once the call is received by the Lifeline Administrator from the originating wireless provider. The record highlights that the Lifeline Administrator, under the direction of SAMHSA, plays a critical role in managing the 988 Lifeline’s system by balancing call volume, ensuring calls are efficiently routed to appropriate and available crisis centers, and minimizing the technical burdens placed on crisis centers so they can focus on saving lives…We find that the success of the Lifeline system in helping individuals in crisis underscores the importance of maintaining the centralized routing system.” 

Similarly, the creation of the 9-8-8 system coincided with an explicit or implicit acknowledgement, depending on your viewpoint, that it would necessarily be different than the 9-1-1 emergency calling system, and its successor, NG 9-1-1. That is, the two systems serve separate purposes with competing interests. Privacy, anonymity, and other relevant features of the 9-8-8 system can run counter to use of NG9-1-1, which can benefit immensely from knowing the contacting individual and the exact location of the call. In fact, allowing the extraction of a caller’s location information under NG9-1-1 could decrease interest in individuals reaching out for critical care by trained suicide prevention professionals as in the 9-8-8 system. Quite likely, it would degrade trust. Simply put, 9-8-8 calls are not traditional emergency calls and can’t be treated as such.

Moreover, the architecture and designs of the two systems are widely distinct. Here again, the draft item appropriately notes, “the Lifeline Administrator states that ‘reliance on technologies, such as NG911, can impact the ability . . . to carry out its duties as Administrator, including responsibility for routing of contacts to the 988 Lifeline.’” To the extent that a unified 9-8-8/NG9-1-1 georouting approach intended to keep separate network configurations, a key issue is whether there would be any benefits to do so, especially measured against the cost of added exposure points for network failure. The Commission wisely rejects this approach as being untested and potentially jeopardizing the purpose of the item, shifting to georouting of 9-8-8 calls.

In terms of the texting NPRM portion of the item, it is unclear whether the technology exists to georoute 9-8-8 texts and, if so, how quickly it could be deployed. This would not be the first time the Commission imposed public safety obligations on communications companies with the hope that the technology will develop in the future. The comments from interested parties in the NPRM, assuming it is adopted, will be telling as it relates to the Commission’s authority and the status of current and future routing technology. 

*          *          * 

The 9-8-8 calling code helps prevent human suicides. It is working as intended. Adding georouting – without fragmenting the system or entangling it with NG9-1-1 – could improve its operations and save more lives.