HATFIELD TO HEAD E911 TECHNICAL INQUIRY AT FCC

As part of Hatfield-led inquiry, Commission said it would examine ILECs’ providing of facilities and equipment needed to receive and use E911 data elements. Earlier in fall, Assn. of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO) and other public safety groups highlighted role of LECs in closing connection among wireless subscribers, carriers, databases and public safety answering points. Filing by APCO and other groups said LEC cooperation was “missing link” in some E911 situations. Sprint PCS also has raised concerns at FCC on what it viewed as lack of progress among LECs in upgrading automatic location information databases needed to support Phase 2.

“Dale’s experience, demonstrated skill in technology issues and his prior work at the Commission will serve him well as he leads this effort,” Wireless Bureau Chief Thomas Sugrue said. Hatfield is dir. of interdisciplinary telecom program at U. of Colo. at Boulder. As part of his post-FCC career in Washington, FTC earlier this year named Hatfield as its monitor trustee to oversee AOL-Time Warner merger, position he will continue since FCC role is part time. Sugrue said bureau would issue public notice in next few weeks with more “detailed guidance regarding the scope of this inquiry, including outlining the procedures for moving forward.”

On petitions for reconsideration, each of which was filed Nov. 13, each carrier objected to FCC statements in Oct. waiver orders that if schedule in approved deployment plan wasn’t met, company would be characterized as out of compliance and referred to Enforcement Bureau. FCC is seeking comment on those petitions by Dec. 19, with replies due Jan. 4. Public notice on comments said petitioners contended FCC had: (1) Improperly adopted strict liability standard for future compliance. (2) Improperly predetermined agency would institute enforcement action in context of any potential Phase 2 waiver request. (3) Failed to recognize that availability of complaint technology from vendors was beyond control of carriers. (4) Taken actions on Phase 2 waivers that were discriminatory in some cases. Cingular urged FCC to alter Phase 2 deployment schedule for its GSM wireless network and rescind its referral to Enforcement Bureau. Because of similar issues raised by reconsideration petitions, FCC said it would create single, consolidated pleading cycle.

Cingular asked for reconsideration of parts of E911 Phase 2 order that require it to begin selling Enhanced Observed Time Difference (E-OTD) of Arrival-capable handsets Oct. 1, although it said order acknowledged “evidence that the handsets would not be commercially available from manufacturers.” Company also objected to referral to Enforcement Bureau of question of whether Cingular had violated Oct. 1 deadline of beginning E911 Phase 2 rollout. Carrier said FCC “knowingly granted Cingular’s waiver on the basis of obsolete information.” Issue comes down to one of timing. In July, Cingular originally sought waiver of Phase 2 rules that would allow it to deploy E-OTD as handset-based solution in its GSM markets and switch-based solution in TDMA markets. In GSM markets, Cingular sought temporary waiver of handset accuracy mandate, pledging “aggressive” rollout schedule. After being told in late Sept. by equipment vendors that E-OTD handsets wouldn’t be available in time to meet proposed schedule, Cingular told FCC it couldn’t meet original rollout schedule. Commission “instead held Cingular to its original and obsolete deployment schedule,” company said. “This was clear error.”

Cingular said Commission should reconsider its decision because agency had: (1) “Unreasonably ignored” fact that Oct. 1, 2001, deadline couldn’t be met because E-OTD handsets weren’t available from any vendor. (2) Set Phase 2 E911 rules and deployment deadlines in Oct. order that were “unenforceable and lacking in any foundation because they are impossible to satisfy.” (3) “Ignored critical evidence” on equipment availability and applied “discriminatory waiver standard” because such evidence was considered when other carriers were granted waivers. (4) Improperly set strict liability standard for failing to meet E911 conditions “that deem a carrier in automatic violation with no opportunity to be heard.” In Oct. 5 orders, FCC said AT&T and Cingular had submitted compliance plans for TDMA parts of their networks too late for agency to act. Cingular took exception to that, saying Commission hadn’t set deadlines for filing waiver requests and had no statutory or rule deadlines by which to act.

Nextel and Nextel Partners said they weren’t objecting to ultimate grant of their request to implement Assisted GPS Phase 2 solution but said some parts of agency’s decision were “arbitrary and capricious,” made without explanation, and improperly taken without public notice. Nextel took exception to part of order that indicated lack of availability of equipment at future benchmark dates wouldn’t be excuse for carrier to not meet deployment schedule. In such cases, order said FCC would take enforcement steps, Nextel said: “Without any factual or legal foundation, the Commission has impermissibly prejudged any future waiver request that Nextel may be required to file and substantially modified the E911 Phase 2 waiver standard applicable to Nextel.” Nextel also objected to FCC decision to grant small and midsized carriers more time to file E911 Phase 2 waiver requests. By giving only carriers smaller than largest 6 national companies additional time to file or update requests for relief, Nextel said, Commission “inappropriately” created 2 classes of carriers for E911 waiver purposes.