Telecom, Internet Companies Cautious About Expanding FCC E-911 Rules
The FCC’s request for comments on whether to expand its new E-911 rules for VoIP providers generated little enthusiasm from telecom or Internet providers in filings late Mon. Businesses from SBC to Skype to Motorola told the FCC expansion could add consumer confusion, particularly if regulations were too specific for an ever- changing technology. The FCC had issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) as part of its E-911 VoIP order that asked about a variety of expansions, such as applying the rules to more types of VoIP services or adding more requirements such as performance reporting or deadlines for applying location technology.
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.
SBC said the FCC shouldn’t adopt more 911 requirements for VoIP providers until communications companies and the public safety community have time to carry out the current rules: “The imposition of new 911 requirements could divert resources away from substantial industry-wide efforts already underway to ensure VoIP 911 compliance.” Other SBC recommendations: (1) The FCC should encourage development of automatic location identification (ANI) technologies to help locate customers with portable VoIP service but shouldn’t mandate the adoption of any particular one. (2) The FCC should monitor how quickly VoIP providers update customers’ registered location information before deciding if performance measures are needed. (3) The FCC shouldn’t impose more reporting requirements on VoIP providers.
On an issue with direct impact on its own operations, SBC urged the Commission to “stand by its decision not to regulate the manner in which ILECs offer 911 services to VoIP providers.” VoIP providers need access, directly or through CLECs, to the trunks and selective routers maintained by ILECs to meet the FCC’s E-911 requirements. There’s enough market-based progress to eliminate any need for “restrictive regulatory obligations on ILECs to offer 911 services to VoIP providers,” SBC said. The company revealed it recently nailed down a commercial agreement to provide Vonage with trunking, E-911 selective routing, assignment of pseudo-ANI location service and access to SBC’s E-911 database management system. SBC said it was willing to provide similar services to other VoIP providers. An SBC source said this was the first mention of SBC’s contract with Vonage. The company in May announced such access services were available but now has a contract to offer them to Vonage.
Skype urged the agency not to expand E-911 requirements beyond the current “interconnected” VoIP providers. It would be “premature” to add other types of IP services such as Skype’s SkypeIn and SkypeOut services “that do not replace traditional telephone services,” the company said. The NPRM’s proposal to apply the E-911 requirements “to separate offerings that could be combined by a user to enable both calls to and from the PSTN [public switched telephone network] threatens to create consumer confusion without providing significant public safety benefits,” Skype said. The company said very few of its customers subscribe to both in-bound and out-bound service offerings. Even if they did, compliance with the E-911 requirements isn’t technically possible now, Skype said. Skype said one regulation would be helpful: Commission action ensuring that network operators don’t block VoIP providers’ E-911 traffic: “This concern is not speculative… Port blocking affects not only voice communications generally, but also emergency communications.”
The National Telecom Co-op Assn. (NTCA) urged the FCC to remember there are “technical and operational differences” between large Bell companies and the small rural ILECs represented by NTCA: “While some degree of standardization may be realizable, each rural network is unique; configurations vary as do the combinations of vendors used provision each rural network. Unanticipated interoperability problems are a possibility. VoIP providers should expect to deal with each rural provider on a case-by-case basis.” In answer to an FCC question about whether VoIP providers should create redundant systems for E-911 service, NTCA said that’s a “worthwhile objective” but it’s “premature” to adopt redundancy regulations now: “It is most important that carriers work together to create a fully functional, ubiquitous E911 system and see what issues develop.”
EarthLink said additional FCC action won’t necessarily aid the development of new VoIP technology needed to better provide E-911 service: “To be truly worthwhile, and to capture the attention and loyalty of the American consumers, VoIP providers have got to go much further, and design services that are measurably superior than today’s standard LEC E911. Meeting this goal will take ongoing technological progress, coordination with CPE [customer premises equipment] and equipment vendors and public safety officials and a regulatory approach that allows industry to advance the range of emergency services and allows consumers to choose which emergency service functions work best for them.” EarthLink emphasized that “one size does not fit all,” and “to be of real value, the VoIP regulatory approach must be formed in recognition of the many permutations and variations of the service… FCC deadlines cannot push the technology any faster, incent manufacturers any more or force the consumers to buy new handsets.”
USTelecom (USTA) said it agreed “wholeheartedly” with the need for the E-911 order but “does not think that the Commission should necessarily expand its scope.” USTelecom warned: “The Commission would do more harm than good if it were to create more regulation or mandate specific technological solutions. New communications technologies are constantly emerging. What form these technologies take is often unpredictable. The Commission can help facilitate efficient market adaptation to new technologies by establishing goals and resolving disputes. If instead the Commission adopts specific rules and regulations that must be adjusted to take advantage of opportunities presented by new technologies, the Commission will only harm the public interest.”
The Information Technology Industry Council said the FCC shouldn’t apply the order to ‘one-way’ VoIP services that originate or terminate calls on the PSTN, but don’t do both. “Consumers are exceedingly unlikely to regard these specialized products as a substitute for traditional analog telephone service and thus will not expect to rely on them for 911 services.” ITI also urged the Commission not to establish “an inflexible June 2006 deadline for service providers to provide automatic geographic identification capabilities” because “at present, it is unclear which technology or mix of technologies can best achieve this capacity.”
ITI urged caution when dealing with wireless VoIP: “Wi-Fi-based VoIP services will typically be used within a few hundred feet of a wireline access point and thus are fundamentally different than CMRS services which operate at long distances from cell towers,” said ITI. “WiMAX- based VoIP services are in their infancy and it would be unnecessary and unwise to create a regulatory regime for products that are still being developed.”
Motorola agreed, urging the FCC “to proceed with caution before broadly imposing specific E-911 obligations and deadlines on the nascent wireless VoIP market.” Imposing such requirements on wireless VoIP would be “premature and could well be counterproductive,” Motorola said. “The wireless industry is only beginning to develop wireless VoIP systems and solutions.”
Intrado, which sells 911 services to VoIP providers and others, recommended against giving a major role to state and local govts. in overseeing compliance with the VoiP E-911 rules: “Although state and local governments play a role in determining fees and possible cost recovery processes… it is critical that state and local governments refrain from imposing additional implementation rules and regulations that are not in the interest of VoIP service customers simply because ’they have always done it that way’ for wireless 911/E911.”
The Neb. PSC said “states should continue to play a significant role in implementation of E-911 requirements. States “are in the best position to ensure that VoIP providers’ service is consistent with already existing networks and procedures,” the Neb. regulators said. The Tex. Commission on State Emergency Communications said “there should be no legal or policy reasons to depart from the historic role states and localities have played in 911/E911 implementation.”
Several individual consumers also filed comments in the proceeding, mainly expressing concern about the impact on privacy of requiring location information for VoIP users. “It concerns me that VoIP access points would automatically locate where a call is coming from without the user specifically opting in for this service,” said one. Another said requiring “people with roaming wireless Internet VoIP [to] register” would create “a Big Brother like society.” It’s not clear if the concerned consumers are connected to any campaign. Similar concerns were expressed on an Internet news site called Addict3d.org. “Looks like the U.S. government is trying to eliminate one more piece of info that you probably thought was private: your location when you're making a VoIP call,” said an article on the news site. “Proposed methods include requiring mobile VoIP phones to include GPS units.” The site links to Engadget.com, which includes a link to the FCC’s page for submitting electronic comments.