Ohio Senate Bill SB50

Ohio 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/7/23
• Report Pass: 6/6/23

Caption

Revise 9-1-1 law; regards emergency telecommunicator training

Impact

The implications of SB50 on state laws include significant changes to how wireless service providers collect fees for 9-1-1 services. The bill mandates that providers include a specific line item for these fees on consumer bills, ensuring transparency in charges related to emergency services. This can lead to better funding for state and local emergency services, as it streamlines the financial processes around 9-1-1 services and the associated training for emergency telecommunicators. Overall, the changes aim to enhance the operational efficacy of emergency responses throughout Ohio.

Summary

SB50 is an amendment to existing laws governing 9-1-1 services in Ohio and addresses various aspects of emergency telecommunicator training and the funding structure for 9-1-1 systems. The bill primarily revises several sections of the Revised Code that outline how 9-1-1 services should be implemented and maintained in the state. It sets forth requirements for telecommunications providers regarding the collection and remittance of 9-1-1 charges while creating a framework for a statewide next-generation 9-1-1 system that integrates more advanced technology for emergency communication.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB50 appears to be generally positive among stakeholders advocating for improved emergency services. Supporters argue that the bill represents a necessary modernization of the 9-1-1 infrastructure, which will help ensure that first responders can effectively utilize advanced technologies in their operations. However, there are concerns among some service providers about the financial burden this bill may impose, specifically regarding compliance with the new billing structures and the potential impact on customer relations.

Contention

Notable points of contention within the discussion of SB50 center around the financial implications for telecommunication providers, particularly regarding the collection and remittance processes. Opponents of the mandatory collection fees argue that the added requirements may complicate billing processes and lead to customer objections. Additionally, the requirement for telecommunicator training to align with the new 9-1-1 standards raises questions about training costs and responsibilities, leading to debates about who should bear these expenses.