FCC Wireless Bureau clarified Mon. where line is to be drawn for ...

for funding between wireless carriers and public safety answering points (PSAPs) was input to 911 selective routers that ILECs maintain. Routers receive 911 calls from LEC central offices and forward them to specific PSAP that serves area of emergency caller. FCC sought comment last year on request of King County E911 entity that wanted clarification on whether financing of certain network and database components of Phase 1 and interface of those elements to existing 911 system was duty of wireless carriers or PSAPs. Under E911 rules, wireless carriers bear costs of hardware and software components that precede 911 selective router, including trunk from carrier’s mobile switching center to 911 router and particular elements needed to implement certain signaling methods for delivering E911 Phase 1 information to PSAPs. PSAPs bear costs of maintaining and upgrading E911 components and functions beyond input to 911 Selective Router, Sugrue said. In comments to FCC, most wireless carriers had argued that PSAP was responsible for upgrades needed to deliver Phase 1 information compatible with existing 911 network, so appropriate demarcation point for funding would be carrier’s mobile switching center. But PSAPs contended appropriate line for determining funding was dedicated 911 selective routers of ILECs. Sugrue stressed to county that FCC still favored negotiations between parties as most efficient way to resolve such cost-allocation disputes. He said Bureau was providing guidance in this instance because King County dispute had remained unresolved since county filed request nearly year ago. Interpretation of FCC’s rules must account for existing E911 wireline network, maintained by ILECs and paid for by PSAPs via tariffs, letter said. “For wireless carriers to satisfy their obligation… to provide Phase 1 information to the PSAP, carriers must deliver that information to the equipment that analyzes and distributes,” Sugrue said, referring to 911 selective router. “We thus agree with parties who believe that the appropriate demarcation point for allocating responsibilities and costs between wireless carriers and PSAPs is the input to the 911 selective router.” Letter said that because rates of wireless carriers weren’t regulated, they had option of covering such Phase 1 costs through charges to customers. Letter said decision didn’t place “entire cost burden” for Phase 1 implementation on wireless carriers, but imposed portion on PSAPs. Sugrue also cited “concerns” of Bureau whether any carrier would choose technology that couldn’t be used by PSAPs in particular area or couldn’t be used to meet upcoming Phase 2 obligations in order to shift costs to PSAPs.