FCC Wireless Bureau clarified Mon. where line is to be drawn for allocating costs of Enhanced 911 Phase 1 network and database components. Bureau Chief Thomas Sugrue, in letter to King County, Wash., E911 program, said “proper demarcation point” 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.
Wireless carriers lined up at FCC to oppose petition by Richardson, Tex., which wants agency to clarify process by which requests for Phase 2 Enhanced 911 service are made by public safety answering points (PSAPs). Richardson, in petition filed earlier this month, wants Commission to confirm that PSAP makes valid request for such service by informing carrier that necessary equipment upgrades for Phase 2 service will be finalized before delivery of E911 data by carrier and by having adequate cost- recovery mechanism in place to upgrade equipment. Echoing comments of other carriers, Verizon Wireless urged FCC this week to deny petition. PSAPs must be able to receive and use E911 data as condition of valid request, Verizon argued. PSAP must have capability to receive this enhanced location information at time that it makes request to carrier, Verizon told FCC. In part, Verizon said Richardson’s petition doesn’t acknowledge that FCC requirements “balanced the objective of rapid E911 deployment with that of mitigating carrier’s costs and ensuring that PSAPs timely upgrade their own networks.” CTIA also urged Commission to reject Richardson request. “Richardson’s request should be denied because it is bad public policy, it conflicts with the Commission’s rules and the Commission already has addressed the matter.” CTIA argues in comments that policy based on PSAPs’ intention to upgrade their equipment would be faulty, because sometimes such plans don’t materialize and carriers are left sorting through requests from agencies that both have and haven’t completed upgrades.
Assn. of Public Safety Communications Officials-International (APCO) stepped up pressure on wireless carriers Wed. to meet upcoming Enhanced 911 deadline by sending letters requesting location technology service in next 6 months. Letters from public safety answering points (PSAPs), which APCO also submitted to FCC, come as several carriers have waiver petitions pending before Commission on Phase 2 of E911. “It’s going to be tough to get a waiver,” FCC Deputy Wireless Bureau Chief James Schlichting told reporters after APCO news conference in Washington. FCC last week opened public comment period on waiver request of AT&T Wireless, which wants to deploy hybrid handset- and network-based solution for pinpointing location of wireless 911 caller (CD April 9 p4). APCO officials also outlined details of national project to have at least one community public safety system in 48 states ready to receive more specific Phase 2 location data by Oct. deadline. APCO Pres. Lyle Gallagher told us association was embarking on project that would involve wireless carriers to resolve new interference issues in public safety bands.
National Emergency Number Assn. (NENA) completed testing of caller location system developed by U.S. Wireless, concluding it met Enhanced 911 (E911) Phase 2 requirements. NENA is evaluating and reporting on availability of wireless location technologies and their ability to meet Oct. deadline for E911 Phase 2 set by FCC. NENA represents 7,000 public safety workers who manage primary 911 call centers. “After this testing, we are confident that there are existing location technologies meeting FCC requirements,” NENA Exec. Dir. Mark Adams said. “E911 is critical for public safety and its implementation must not be delayed.” Assn. tested U.S. Wireless solution last month in Seattle, including areas with dense urban, residential, light industrial and freeway environments. Separately, Assn. of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International (APCO) reiterated its “disappointment” Tues. with waiver request filed last week by AT&T Wireless at FCC seeking permission to deploy hybrid network and handset solution for E911 Phase 2. “While APCO will review carefully the details of the AT&T Wireless request, we are troubled not only because yet another carrier has decided to seek a waiver, but also in terms of what it means for the safety of our nation’s citizens,” APCO Pres. Lyle Gallagher said. APCO is holding news conference today (Wed.) in Washington to present letters to FCC from public safety answering points in U.S. cities requesting wireless E911 services from wireless carriers.
AT&T Wireless became latest carrier last week to seek waiver of FCC’s location accuracy requirements for Enhanced 911 Phase 2, seeking time to deploy handset-based technology through its GSM network and network-based solution for its TDMA customers. AT&T said its request was similar to conditional waiver for hybrid handset- and network-based solutions that agency granted to VoiceStream last fall. Request came at time that Cingular Wireless also appeared to be entertaining similar waiver request at FCC, although spokesman said Fri. that carrier hadn’t yet made decision. Groups representing public safety answering points that field 911 calls have objected to such waivers, raising concerns whether Commission’s upcoming deadline for E911 Phase 2 would be met.
FCC denied petition for reconsideration by FocuSystems on wireless Enhanced 911 order. FocuSystems had argued that interim benchmarks for activating automatic location identification- capable handsets were “overly burdensome” and shouldn’t apply to carriers that didn’t yet have to meet public safety answering point (PSAP) request for E911 Phase 2 service. Commission said petition didn’t offer basis for reopening issues in E911 proceeding. FocuSystems said interim benchmarks for activating handsets would force carriers relying on handset-based approach for meeting E911 Phase 2 requirements to make sizeable investments before any PSAP in their operating territory could use specific location data. It also asked agency to reconsider part of order that required carriers to reveal technology choice for meeting Phase 2 requirements. Assn. of Public-Safety Communications Officials had opposed petition, saying E911 deployment schedules shouldn’t be pushed back because some technology improvements still were in offing. Agency said it denied petition as “untimely, directed to the wrong decision and without merit.”