NENA's Response to President Clinton

National Emergency Number Association FAX Memo

To: NENA Members From: John Ellison, President
Date: July 31, 1996
Subject: NENA's Response to President Clinton

"We need a new national community policing number that's just as simple and easy to remember as 9-1-1 . . . " ". . . the 9-1-1 emergency number system today is completely overburdened." These are partial quotes from President Clinton's remarks, made in Sacramento on July 23, 1996.

I am sure the remarks made during this press conference concerned you as much as they did me. The NENA Executive Board has been working to determine exactly what is planned in response to the President's order, and preparing NENA's position. NENA's Washington Counsel, Jim Hobson, researched the matter and assisted in preparing a letter to be sent to the President as well as Janet Reno, Attorney General, and Reed Hundt, Chairman of the FCC. While this letter is too long to send to you by fax, the following points are made in the letter and form the basis of NENA's position.

NENA has made contacts within the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services to become involved in the discussions concerning this issue. NENA is working to keep "One Nation - One Number" alive and well. We encourage you to remain watchful, and join NENA in opposing new N-1-1 numbers for emergency or non-emergency calls.

The Letter

August 2, 1996 

William J. Clinton
The President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20500 

Dear President Clinton: 

As President of the National Emergency Number Association (NENA), 
I am writing to thank you for the determination you expressed last 
week to maintain 9-1-1 as the principal means to telephone for 
emergency police, fire or medical assistance. We stand ready to work 
with the Department of Justice, the FCC, the telecommunications 
industry and law enforcement professionals in "keeping 911 lines 
clear for true emergencies." (White House Statement, July 23, 1996) 

Based on NENA's 15 years of experience in emergency communications, 
and the nearly three decades of history of 9-1-1 calling, we 
respectfully suggest that there is no pat technical solution and no 
single national answer to the problem of distinguishing and separately 
routing and responding to emergency and non-emergency calls. 
Separately non-emergency calls will not change the overall level of 
calls that still must be answered by someone. Fundamentally, the cost-
effective use of the 9-1-1 network depends on widespread public 
education and intensive training of emergency call-takers. 

The single emergency number concept was inspired nationally but 
implemented locally, according to the varying needs and resources 
of state, county and municipal public safety administrations. 
Similarly, any plan for addressing perceived 9-1-1 problems caused 
by non-emergency use should take into account these local variations. 
For example, it is simply not accurate to declare generally, in the 
words of the July 23rd statement, that "all across the country, usage 
of 911 systems has grown dramatically, far outstripping the capacity 
of 911 operators to answer the calls." 

To the contrary, 9-1-1 networks in most of the United States are not
overloaded. While many of the calls taken by emergency operators are
classifiable as non-emergencies, these operators typically are well 
trained to end such calls quickly and courteously by referring the 
caller to other sources of assistance. Indeed, it is the very existence
of well-identified, conventional 7-digit non-emergency numbers that 
allows misplaced non-emergency calls to 9-1-1 to be re-routed speedily and
effectively. 

The 9-1-1 "horror stories" that garner media attention from time to time 
tend to emanate from congested urban areas where network capacity,
consumer education and call-taker training may seriously need improvement.
Accounts of system overloads also arise episodically from mass
use of cellular phones by "good Samaritans" to report traffic accidents. 

In the first of these cases, urban congestion, the solutions for large
metropolises such as Los Angeles and Atlanta may not be optimal for
Norfolk, Virginia or Arapahoe County, Colorado. Each of these areas was 
cited in the July 23rd statement for their large percentages of
non-emergency calls made to 9-1-1 numbers. In our experience, public 
safety officers with consistent call overloads usually need more
call-takers. The operative question, we believe, should be how well the 
calls were handled. If Arapahoe County 9-1-1 call-takers are able to
receive so many non-emergency calls and still respond effectively to
emergencies, the situation there is not one of national crisis. 

In the second case, episodic mass calling from cellular phones, the FCC 
issued July 26th a set of "wireless compatibility" regulations for 9-1-1
calling which, over the next 18 months to five years, will go a long way 
toward relieving this problem -- through automatic identification of the
mobile caller's telephone number and location -- and are likely to inspire
additional non-regulatory solutions. While the cellular mass calling
phenomenon remains a present aggravation for callers and responders, it 
is not unlike the multiple consumer reporting of power outages which
utility companies are learning how to deal with. 

Finally, Mr. President, you were quoted as urging a national police
non-emergency number "as easy to use and remember as 911." Nothing in
your remarks suggests that such a national number be three-digit "abbreviated
dialing." NENA generally has opposed the assignment of abbreviated-
dialing  numbers for non-emergency purposes, for at least three reasons: 
(1) If the call is not an emergency, conventional dialing will suffice; 
(2) the competing use of three-digit numbers is bound to dilute the 
public ability to remember and use 9-1-1; and (3) abbreviated dialing 
systems are quite expensive, as testified to by the billions of dollars 
already invested in the "wireline" 9-1-1 network and the large sums that 
will be required to achieve "wireless compatibility." In short, 
abbreviated dialing is not cost-effective if local 7-digit numbers or 
800 numbers will do the job. 

Local police 7-digit non-emergency numbers already are in use. Others 
can be readily obtained where needed, including easy-to-remember 
combinations of digits. If local police departments wish to pay for an 
800-number service such as the "379-COPS" access announced by AT&T, 
they should be free to do so. But we strongly doubt that a national 
abbreviated-dialing system of non-emergency access to community 
policing services is desirable or necessary. 

As a not-for-profit organization of 5,000 public safety and communications
professionals, NENA remains committed to its singular mission of fostering
the availability, implementation and technological advancement of a 
universal emergency telephone number system through education, training, 
planning and research. Again, we applaud your concern for "keeping 911 
lines clear for true emergencies," and look forward to working with the 
Justice Department and others to consider alternative means of handling 
police non-emergency calls. 

Sincerely, 

John Ellison 
President, NENA,
and Executive Director,
Shelby County, Alabama 9-1-1 

cc: Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States & Reed Hundt, Chairman,
Federal Communications Commission

[back to main 311 page]