Sprint PCS told FCC that while it didn’t believe Commission meant...
Sprint PCS told FCC that while it didn’t believe Commission meant to impose “strict liability” standard on wireless carriers for Enhanced 911 Phase 2 service, it still should “remove any uncertainty.” Alltel, American Cellular and Dobson Cellular petitioned FCC…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
last month for reconsideration of E911 order that granted small and medium- sized carriers additional time to implement interim Phase 2 deadlines. Carriers challenged what they viewed as “strict liability” component of order, which they said would deem operators noncompliant for failing to meet benchmarks without regard to vendor’s or manufacturer’s inability to supply compliant equipment. Concern of Alltel and others had been that they would be subject to automatic enforcement actions if they missed requirements, even if it was due to circumstances outside of their control. Sprint: (1) Questioned whether FCC had legal authority to adopt strict liability standard. Communications Act allows agency to penalize carrier for failing to comply with rule, but in most cases penalty is appropriate only if action is willful violation, it said. “Clearly a wireless carrier’s failure to meet a certain Phase 2 deadline because of circumstances beyond its control… cannot be a ‘willful’ act or omission - - regardless of how the term willful may be defined.” (2) Said that even if FCC had statutory backing to carry out strict liability standard, “it appears reasonably clear that the Commission did not intend to do so in the Phase 2 stay order.” That would create “entirely new waiver standard and a radical change in Commission precedent,” filing said. Sprint urged FCC to focus on removing obstacles to Phase 2 deployment instead of enforcement threats. “If wireless carriers are unable to deploy Phase 2 services as a result of conditions beyond their control, and the Commission attempts to enforce a strict liability standard, carriers will be forced to focus on legal actions to protect themselves rather than deployment of 911 systems,” it said. It said “technical obstacles” many LECs had imposed on processing requests for Phase 2 service from public safety answering points were likely to be resolved by year-end. But Sprint said “newest ILEC obstacle” involved efforts by certain LECs to recover upgrade costs for automatic location identification systems from wireless carriers instead of PSAPs, as FCC had stipulated. “Unless the Commission acts expeditiously, Phase 2 service will be further delayed,” Sprint said.