“911, what is your emerg...”

“Please speak clear... the call is break...”

“I heard classroom 218... are you...”

“Hello?”

Now imagine this instead.

“911, what is your emergency?”

“I’m in classroom 218. Come now.”

“Okay. I heard classroom 218. What school are you at? What is your name? Help is on the way.”

Now imagine first responders entering that same building.

“Chief, can you hear me? Please confirm classroom 218.”

“Engine 4 to Command. We lost radio contact in the stairwell.”

In those moments, communication is not a convenience. It is part of the emergency response.

The emergency does not start when first responders arrive. It starts when the 911 call goes through from inside the building. But the ability to support that emergency starts much earlier.

It starts with building design.

Because the building should not stand between people and help.

The 911 Call Has Changed

For decades, emergency calling was built around a landline tied to a known address. That is no longer what society expects and it’s not how we communicate.

According to the FCC’s most recent annual 911 report to Congress, states and other jurisdictions reported nearly 213 million voice calls to 911 in 2024. More than 151 million of them, about 71%, came from wireless phones.

That shift matters.

People carry their emergency lifeline in their pocket. They expect it to work when they text, receive alerts, share information, and call 911.

Mobile networks improved. Dropped calls became less common. Phones became smarter than most of us ever expected. Location technology advanced. Over time, mobile 911 became expected.

But one thing did not improve at the same pace:

The building.

Inside too many buildings, the same dead spots never went away.

The nurse’s office.

The elevator.

The parking garage.

The basement office.

Year after year, people learned to work around them.

We accepted that with an “it is what it is” kind of defeatism.

But during an emergency, “it is what it is” can become dangerous.

And on too many unfortunate occasions, it has.

A minute can be the difference between life and death.

Part of the reason is what buildings are made of. Concrete, steel, low-E glass, and below-grade levels weaken radio signals, and the same materials show up in building after building. In my experience, these materials are among the most common reasons buildings struggle to pass ERCES coverage testing.

Sometimes the problem is not the phone.

It is the building.

Day One Emergency Connectivity

Day One Emergency Connectivity means a building is designed, specified, tested, documented, and delivered with emergency communications in mind before the first occupant walks through the door.

The goal should be simple:

Every new building should be designed with reliable emergency connectivity for both the people inside and the responders coming to help.

Two related needs belong in this conversation.

• Division 28 ERCES (emergency responder communication enhancement systems) supports first responder radio communications inside the building.
• In this article, I use Division 27 “911 Inside” (a Safer Buildings Coalition coined term) to describe occupant-side emergency connectivity, including emergency calling, mass alerts, text notifications, sharing critical information, and keeping occupants reachable during an emergency.

These are different systems, but they belong in the same life safety conversation.

• ERCES supports the responder.
• 911 Inside supports the person calling for help.

Together, they help connect the person inside the building with the people coming to help.

The Conversation Must Expand

Requirements commonly associated with NFPA 1225 and IFC Section 510, as adopted and amended by each local authority having jurisdiction (AHJ), have created the foundation for in-building emergency responder communications.

That foundation matters. It recognizes that when first responders enter a building, their radios need to work.

The next step is to extend the conversation to occupant-side emergency connectivity (911 Inside) through Division 27 planning.

That does not mean replacing ERCES. It means completing the emergency communications picture.

Here Is the Ask

Build a repeatable national emergency communications design baseline for new buildings.

A school prototype may be used across a district. A multifamily design may be repeated across multiple markets. Healthcare, hospitality, warehouse, retail, and office projects often share similar layouts and pathways.

But ERCES and occupant-side emergency connectivity requirements can vary by jurisdiction, AHJ, radio system operator, permit office, and local code adoption. 

That creates uncertainty.

A standardized Division 27 and Division 28 baseline would not eliminate local review. It would not override the AHJ or local amendments, and it would not replace RF engineering, field testing, permitting, or site-specific design.

But it would give every project a better, aligned starting point.

That baseline should address:

• Early coordination with the AHJ and radio system operator to confirm whether ERCES is required
• Identifying other stakeholders early: permit office, owner, general contractor, low-voltage project manager, fire alarm company, and design team
• Room, wall, pathway, riser, rooftop, grounding, and dedicated circuit power requirements
• ERCES and occupant-side emergency connectivity design assumptions
• Early agreement with the AHJ on which areas of the building will be deemed “critical” or “general”
• Pretesting, predictive modeling, walk testing, and final validation
• Fire alarm interface, monitoring, annunciation, and backup power coordination
• Closeout documentation aligned with what the AHJ and owner need
• Annual testing and long-term maintenance expectations

For owners and facility managers, this creates a clearer path during planning, renovation, budgeting, and turnover.

For AHJs and radio system operators, it creates a clearer review path. For occupants and first responders, it creates safer buildings from day one.

From Hope to Proof

Standardization should not make projects harder. It should make the right steps easier to follow.

Owners and facility teams should be able to ask practical questions early:

• Has ERCES been evaluated under Division 28?
• Has occupant-side emergency connectivity been evaluated under Division 27?
• Will the final closeout package include test results, floor plan maps, alarm information, monitoring details, and maintenance requirements?

The right technical solution may vary. It may include public safety or commercial distributed antenna systems (DAS), signal boosters, small cells, passive infrastructure, fiber-based or hybrid systems, or a combination, depending on the building, code requirements, carrier needs, and AHJ expectations.

The point is not to force one solution.

The point is to make sure emergency connectivity is considered before the building is occupied, renovated, expanded, or turned over.

A building should not simply claim to be ready. It should be able to prove it.

Testing should not be an opinion.

It should be documented in the closeout package.

The Building Should Not Stand Between People and Help

At the beginning, we heard a call break apart.

Then we imagined what should happen instead.

That is the difference.

When someone dials 911, the call should go through.

When public safety sends an alert, the message should reach the people inside.

When first responders enter, their radio transmissions should make it back to dispatch.

That is Day One Emergency Connectivity.

• It means we thought about the emergency before the emergency happened.
• It means we designed for the call before the call was made.
• It means we planned for the responder before the responder arrived.

The goal is not just better coverage in some buildings.

The goal is reliable emergency connectivity for occupants and first responders in every new building being designed today.

The make-up of the building should not stand between people and help.