FCC affirmed Wireless Bureau decision that pinpointed 911 selective router as demarcation point for dividing Enhanced 911 implementation costs between wireless carriers and public safety answering points (PSAPs). In letter last year to King County, Wash., bureau clarified that proper line for funding between carriers and PSAPs was input to 911 selective routers that ILECs maintained. Those routers receive 911 calls from LEC central offices and send them to specific PSAP that serves area of emergency caller. Nextel, Qwest Wireless, Verizon Wireless and VoiceStream asked full Commission to reconsider bureau decision. Order, adopted May 14 but not released until Thurs., said said drawing line for E911 cost allocations would speed “rollout of wireless E911 services by helping to eliminate a major source of disagreement between the parties so as to facilitate the negotiation process.” Bureau decision responded to inquiry from King County whether carrier or PSAP had responsibility for funding E911 Phase 1 network and database components and interface of those elements with existing E911 system. Bureau stressed it favored negotiation between parties as best way to resolve cost-allocation disputes. In petition for reconsideration, carriers argued better demarcation point was wireless carrier’s mobile switching center. They said bureau decision deviated from cost allocation for wireline E911 and discriminated against wireless carriers. Carriers said original decision constituted new bureau-created policy at odds with existing orders and exceeded bureau’s delegated authority. Decision by full FCC rejected carrier arguments that demarcation point went against existing regulatory language but said majority couldn’t be reached on delegated authority question, meaning issue was moot because FCC addressed merits of petitioners’ claims. FCC Comr. Copps said in separate statement he agreed with underlying bureau decision: “However, I believe that the bureau acted in violation of our delegated authority rules. Because the Commission was not able to reach majority on whether the bureau violated our delegated authority rules, that portion of the order was not adopted. The resulting order, which holds that the delegated-authority question is moot, but does not address whether the rule was violated, allows me to support this item.” Copps didn’t disclose which other commissioner prevented majority ruling on delegated authority question. In other areas, Commission said its E911 rules were ambiguous as to specific duties of parties in rolling out wireless E911. They didn’t pinpoint at what point in 911 network carrier must bring required data or at what point in network PSAP must be able to receive and use that data, agency said. It said bureau correctly interpreted regulatory provisions in light of existing network configurations. Analysis of Phase 1 information to ascertain which PSAP should respond to call was “central to a wireless carrier’s obligation to ‘provide’ emergency wireless E911 services,” FCC said. “Because it is the 911 selective router that performs these functions, the bureau rightly determined that a wireless carrier must deliver the Phase 1 data to the 911 selective router” to meet regulatory obligations, it said. Router is most appropriate cost-allocation point because “until the proper PSAP has been identified, no PSAP can ‘receive’ and ‘utilize’ the location data” under E911 rules, Commission ruled.
Members of Emergency Services Interconnection Forum (ESIF) on Fri. touted technical solution designed to stem increasing problem of crank or harassing 911 calls fielded by public safety answering points (PSAPs) from 911-only phones. FCC in April issued order requiring wireless carriers to use new code to alert PSAPs when 911 calls was made from handset that lacked callback capability, known as nonservice initialized phone. Typically, carriers assign dialable number to handset after customer signs service contract. Noninitialized phones, including 911-only units donated to domestic abuse programs, lack that number for PSAPs to call back for more information when 911 is dialed. Order requires carriers to program noninitialized phones with 123-456-7890 as “phone number” that will be used to notify PSAP that emergency call is coming from phone without callback capability. ESIF has been working on what it believes to be better solution than 123-456-7890 system set out by FCC, said Robert Gojanovich, manager of 911 service for Verizon and leader of ESIF study group on issue. Main strength of ESIF solution is ability to uniquely identify handset making call and help to pinpoint repeat callers, for isolating cases of harassment and highlighting legitimate calls that come in more than once, Gojanovich said in Fri. conference call sponsored by Alliance for Telecom Industry Solutions. In areas where Enhanced 911 Phase 1 or 2 isn’t yet in place, 911 calls can be made anonymously, particularly on phones that don’t have callback capability, Gojanovich said. National Emergency Number Assn. and Assn. of Public-Safety Communications Officials have been tracking problem, he said. “We are hearing more and more stories where hundreds of calls are placed from a person or handset into a 911 center,” he said. For TDMA and CDMA networks, solution on which public safety and industry have been working would transmit “911” in place of area code and last 7 digits of electronic serial number (ESN) of handset to PSAP, Gojanovich said. Equivalent to ESN also could be used for GSM networks, he said. Among benefits of that system is that information on handsets making bogus 911 calls could be used to prosecute offenders, he said. Wireless carrier network will capture that number, for example, and it can be printed out at PSAP as it’s received, he said. Once Phase 2 of E911 is more widely in place to provide location information on wireless callers, that information could be used to locate caller.
National Emergency Number Assn. (NENA) told FCC this week that several “open issues” on role that LECs played in supplying 911 services to public safety authorities could slow wireless Enhanced 911 rollout. NENA cited issues such as: (1) How LECs recover costs of 911 services supplied to public safety answering points (PSAPs). (2) Extent to which LECs are authorized to offer E911 Phase 2 refinements of such services. (3) “Regulatory interface” between FCC authority over wireless 911 implementation and state PUC authority over rates, terms and conditions of LEC intrastate service. “NENA representatives expressed concern that these and other open issues threatened to slow the pace of wireless E911 implementation,” group said in ex parte filing Tues. Filing said “wireless E911 cannot become ubiquitous until the wire facilities essential to its offering, such as selective routing switches, are available throughout the country.” NENA plans to develop proposal for early fall on how to make wireline network infrastructure more available for providing wireless E911 to less populated areas. LEC-related 911 issue is among those under examination as part of FCC technical inquiry led by former Office of Engineering & Technology Chief Dale Hatfield on E911 implementation issues. Wireless carriers, in some cases, have contended they have had difficulty obtaining necessary LEC facility upgrades for E911 Phase 1 deployment and fear issue also could emerge under Phase 2 rollouts. Wireless carriers such as Sprint PCS have stressed role of LECs in closing E911 connection among wireless subscribers, carriers, databases and public safety answering points. NENA said it had requests pending at FCC for clarification of identification of nonservice initialized phones, which include phones donated to domestic abuse programs. While requests cover how to treat harassing calls from such phones, “the issue also extends to the matter of ‘congestion control’ when, for example, large numbers of wireless calls to 911 report the same emergent incident at the same time.” NENA also expressed concern that development of wireless location technology for E911 called Enhanced Observed Time Difference (E-OTD) equipment for GSM networks “seemed to have stalled.” It said “predictions for its superior accuracy, relative to network location solutions, had retrenched.” Group said: “At some point, the holders of GSM Phase 2 waivers must be called on their promises to look at alternative location solutions if their initial E-OTD choice is not viable under the applicable waiver deadlines.”
FCC at its agenda meeting Tues. gave wireless industry one-year extension to provide local number portability (LNP) in 100 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas, turning down request by Verizon Wireless for forbearance on Nov. 24 deadline. Adoption of order came despite differences among commissioners over how much additional time was warranted, with Comr. Abernathy dissenting in part, saying she believed delay until 2004 was justified. Comr. Copps voted for item, but said he would have preferred shorter delay than one year as providing “ample time to solve all LNP, pooling and public safety concerns.” If Commission hadn’t acted by July 26, forbearance petition would have been granted automatically. Comr. Martin backed decision to give wireless industry extra year, but said he disagreed with legal standard that FCC used to assess Verizon’s forbearance petition. One-year delay marked compromise between arguments of state PUCs and others that little or no extension was warranted and requests by carriers for longer time.
AT&T Wireless (AWS) asked FCC to reduce “significantly” proposed forfeiture of $2.2 million for alleged violations of Commission’s Enhanced 911 Phase 2 requirements on carrier’s GSM network. In response to notice of apparent liability last month, AT&T Wireless said that when it realized that Enhanced Observed Time Difference (E-OTD) equipment would lag behind its limited GSM launches in 2001, “it did not identify this disparity as a development that rendered its waiver application substantially incomplete or inaccurate” in violation of FCC rules. Like other mobile carriers, AT&T Wireless and Cingular Wireless sought waivers last year from Commission for E911 Phase 2 location capability requirements that took effect Oct. 1. In case of GSM portions of Cingular and AT&T networks, agency said it received information on waiver requests too close to regulatory deadline to act on them. In response filed last week, AT&T said penalties proposed for its alleged violations of E-911 rules were “unjustified.” It said any violation of section of rules that required sale of at least one E-OTD handset starting in Oct. was minor. “Compliance with this rule was and is technically infeasible and the proposed forfeiture for this alleged violation should be eliminated entirely,” AT&T said. Carrier said that when it first submitted request to use E- OTD solution for Phase 2 for GSM part of its network it “reasonably believed” equipment would be available by deadline. “From the beginning, however, AWS viewed its waiver application as a statement of intent and plan of action, rather than a binding commitment to delay GSM deployment until E-OTD equipment became available,” AT&T said. Carrier told Commission it now was clear that agency expected it to disclose vendor delays in equipment availability “even before it knew the full scope of the problem or when and how it could be fixed.” AT&T said it needed to gather relevant data and develop solution before returning to FCC with presentation. In case of proposed forfeiture for alleged violation of deploying Phase 2 service within 6 months of request from public safety answering point, AT&T Wireless said that portion of fine should be reduced significantly “because the factual basis for the allegation is incorrect and any violation that did occur was minor.” Company argued it couldn’t have done anything to get E-OTD installed on its GSM network faster and that any delay in filing altered waiver request didn’t delay equipment rollout or harm public safety. Carrier took exception to notice that characterized its decision to not file modified waiver request earlier as “egregious misconduct.” Notice of apparent liability said that contrary to AT&T’s statement in original waiver petition, it had started to roll out its GSM network without location-capable handsets. FCC notice, which proposed $1.2 million fine for that portion of alleged violations, also said carrier had failed to make supplementary filing that informed Commission it would miss that part of Phase 2 deployment schedule.
Verizon Wireless signed 5-year agreement with TeleCommunication Systems (TCS), terms not disclosed, for Phase 1 and Phase 2 Enhanced 911 location service. Verizon said service would be delivered to 50% of its cell sites nationwide. Verizon said that as of April 15, it had rolled out Phase 1 E-911 service to 1,350 public safety answering points. Agreement brings together TCS’s existing contracts with several carriers that merged to create Verizon Wireless, including AirTouch, PrimeCo, GTE Wireless.
FCC Tues. released terms of $100,000 consent decree reached with AT&T Wireless on Enhanced 911 compliance of its TDMA network. Last month, Commission proposed to fine carrier $2.2 million for apparent violations of E911 Phase 2 rules for its GSM network. In case of its TDMA network, AT&T agreed to make $100,000 voluntary contribution under consent decree and to commit to timeline for deployment of network- based location technology in its TDMA network. In April, AT&T filed request for waiver of Phase 2 rules, proposing to roll out switch-based location technology for its TDMA network. In Sept., carrier modified waiver request, seeking instead to deploy network-based solution for its TDMA network. Commission said at time that because amended proposal didn’t leave agency enough time to consider filing before Oct. 1 deadline for deployment of network-based E911 Phase 2 technologies, it referred matter to Enforcement Bureau for possible action. Under consent decree, AT&T agreed to deploy Phase 2-compliant technology at minimum of 1,000 cell sites by Nov. 15 and to: (1) Deploy Phase 2- compliant technology at minimum of 2,000 cell sites and to provide Phase 2 service at all those sites by Dec. 31. (2) Roll out Phase 2 technology for at least 4,000 cell sites and provide Phase 2 service for them by June 30, 2003. (3) Roll out technology for at least 6,000 cell sites by Dec. 31, 2003, if needed to meet request of public safety answering point that had been pending for more than 6 months at that time. (4) Deploy Phase 2 E911 technology for at least 8,000 cell sites by June 30, 2004, if needed to meet PSAP request that had been pending for more than 6 months. Under agreement, carrier also agreed that for any valid PSAP request for Phase 2 service on its TDMA network received on or before Feb. 28, 2002, AT&T would provide Phase 2 solution to all of that PSAP’s coverage area by April 1, 2003. Agreement also calls for automatic fines if any benchmarks are missed. For first missed benchmark, AT&T Wireless would pay $300,000 to U.S. Treasury, $600,000 for 2nd missed benchmark, $1.2 million for 3rd and any subsequently missed target. Agreement also requires AT&T Wireless to make detailed quarterly reports to FCC.
AT&T Wireless said it planned to contest FCC’s proposal to fine company $2.2 million for apparent violations of Commission’s Enhanced 911 Phase 2 rules for its GSM network. Agency released notice of apparent liability Mon. following FCC Enforcement Bureau investigation into whether AT&T Wireless had violated Phase 2 rules. In April 2001, AT&T Wireless had filed Phase 2 waiver request, proposing to construct new GSM network and put in place hybrid handset- and network-based location technology for that portion of its network. It had outlined plan to provide location-capable handsets to all GSM subscribers so GSM network could provide Phase 2 location service from time of its deployment. Carrier had sought limited waiver of certain Phase 2 accuracy requirements, request that Commission granted on temporary, conditional basis in Oct. 2001. FCC said Enforcement Bureau began probe after “receiving reports that AT&T Wireless had, contrary to its statements in connection with its waiver request, already begun to deploy its GSM network without location-capable handsets,” Commission said. It said it concluded AT&T Wireless had violated its E911 rules by: (1) Failing to begin selling and activating location-capable handsets by Oct. 1, 2001, “without requesting a waiver and after telling the Commission that it did not need such a waiver.” (2) Failing to implement, without seeking waiver, any network or infrastructure upgrades needed to provide E911 Phase 2 service and to begin providing Phase 2 service within 6 months of valid request by public safety answering point or by Oct. 1. Carrier didn’t seek waiver and told FCC that it didn’t need one, Commission said. (3) Not notifying FCC within 30 days that information in its E911 waiver request no longer was “substantially accurate and complete.” Agency said: “Specifically, AT&T Wireless never informed the Commission that, contrary to statements in connection with its pending waiver request, it had in fact begun deploying its GSM network without location-capable handsets.” It said carrier appeared to have violated Oct. 2, 2001, order granting it E911 waiver for its GSM network by failing to make supplementary filing telling FCC it wasn’t going to comply with Phase 2 rollout schedule requirements. FCC proposed $500,000 fine apiece for first 2 apparent violations and $1.2 million fine for final set. AT&T Wireless spokeswoman said: “We are firmly committed to bringing the next phase of E911 service to our customers and we have pledged to beat the FCC’s deadline for full compliance with its Phase 2 mandate by one year for our GSM network.” She said that meant that carrier had told FCC it would meet Phase 2 requirements by Dec. 31, 2004, instead of required date of Dec. 31, 2005. “We have devoted significant resources toward deploying E911. It’s not just technically complex. It’s also made challenging because there are circumstances beyond our control -- namely, vendors.” In some cases, vendors haven’t lived up to their commitments to supply E911 Phase 2- compliant handsets by particular date, she said. In Oct., FCC had approved E911 Phase 2 waiver requests for most national carriers and GSM portions of AT&T and Cingular Wireless plans. Agency had said Cingular and AT&T had submitted compliance plans for TDMA parts of their networks too late for FCC to act on them. It has yet to release order on pending E911 issues on TDMA portion of AT&T Wireless network.
FCC and Cingular Wireless entered consent decree that ends Commission probe into whether carrier violated Enhanced 911 Phase 2 rules. Under agreement, Cingular will pay $100,000 to U.S. Treasury and agreed to make automatic payment of $300,000 if it missed first benchmark in consent decree, and up to $1.2 million starting at 3rd missed benchmark. In Oct., FCC approved E911 Phase 2 waiver requests for Nextel, Sprint PCS, Verizon Wireless and GSM network portions of AT&T’s and Cingular’s plans. But at that time, agency said Cingular and AT&T had submitted compliance plans for existing TDMA portions of their networks too late for Commission to act on them and issue was referred to Enforcement Bureau. FCC hasn’t released order on pending AT&T Wireless issues. Under Cingular consent decree, carrier agreed to deploy technology that complied with Phase 2 at minimum of: (1) 1,000 cell sites by Nov. 15. (2) 2,000 cell sites with provision of Phase 2 service at all these sites by Dec. 31. (3) 4,000 cell sites with provision of Phase 2 service at all these sites by June 30, 2003. (4) 6,000 cell sites by Dec. 31, 2003, “if necessary to meet a PSAP [public safety answering point] request pending more than 6 months as of that date.” (5) 8,000 sites by June 30, 2004, if needed to meet PSAP request pending more than 6 months at that time. Cingular agreed “its classification of a PSAP request as invalid will not insulate it from enforcement action if the Commission determines that the request was valid.” Starting Aug. 1, Cingular agreed that when it submitted quarterly E911 progress reports to FCC it would outline how it would prioritize PSAP requests for E911 service and deploy Phase 2 compliant service in TDMA, AMPS (Advanced Mobile Phone Service Networks) and TDMA/AMPS markets. “It is critically important that all the participants in our quest for full Phase 2 E911 compliance do their part to move forward in protecting American consumers,” FCC Chmn. Powell and Comrs. Abernathy, Copps and Martin said in joint statement. “For carriers, this means meeting the benchmarks and deadlines set by the Commission. For public safety answering points, this means equipping facilities so that they are prepared to receive Phase 2 information as quickly as possible. For the Commission, this means enforcing our mandates.” In July 2001, Cingular filed waiver request at FCC for E911 Phase 2 rules in which it proposed to use switch-based location technology for TDMA network. In July, Cingular withdrew part of waiver request that applied to TDMA network, resubmitting that portion in Aug., as well as compliance plan for its TDMA network. Carriers, before waiver requests, had faced Oct. 1, 2001, deadline for deploying E911 network-based technologies. Consent decree between Cingular and FCC also entails deadlines by which Cingular must provide E911 Phase 2 service to PSAPs that submit requests. For example, for valid PSAP requests received after Sept. 30, Cingular must provide Phase 2 compliant service to 50% of coverage area of those PSAPS within 6 months of receiving request and to 100% of those coverage areas within 15 months.
In latest E911 quarterly reports at FCC, carriers cited progress as well as array of continuing challenges to meeting waiver conditions, including slow installation of LEC upgrades for automatic location identification (ALI). In report filed last week, Sprint PCS said pace of LEC upgrades was “major remaining obstacle to completion of Phase 2 deployment.” It said: “While the majority of LECs appear to have now agreed that such upgrades are necessary, details of how, when and where these upgrades will occur have still not been supplied.” Sprint said deployments scheduled for first half of this year now had been delayed until fall as result of LEC delays and “Sprint’s entire Phase 2 deployment schedule is now threatened.” Sprint PCS urged FCC to require LECs to disclose publicly Phase 2 ALI update schedules so public safety answering points (PSAPs) and wireless carriers could provide that information. Under that scenario, Sprint said, carriers could focus their E911 conversion efforts on areas that had ALI databases that were Phase 2 capable. In other areas, Sprint PCS said that in first quarter of this year it: (1) Completed installation of Phase 2 switch modifications in all Lucent markets in U.S., nearly 3 months ahead of schedule. (2) Sold more than 500,000 GPS-enabled handsets, up from 200,000 in 4th quarter of 2001. (3) Installed more than 240 Phase 1 systems in 3 months and trimmed number of Phase 1 PSAP requests pending more than 6 months by almost one-third. Nextel told FCC in report filed last week that it hadn’t received documentation from PSAPs required by FCC order issued in Oct. on validation of Phase 2 request’s validity. In response to request for clarification by city of Richardson, Tex., FCC in Oct. outlined what constituted valid PSAP request for E911 service. Order said such requests were valid if any upgrades needed on PSAP network would be completed within 6 months of request and if PSAP had made “timely request” to LEC for trunking and other facilities needed for E911 data to be transmitted. (Sprint PCS and Cingular Wireless filed petitions for reconsideration of Richardson order last year). In its E911 report, Nextel said it had requested that PSAPs that had submitted Phase 2 requests provide information required by Richardson order. “But to date only a very few have even attempted to fulfill the Richardson order’s validation requirements,” Nextel said. It said that in next 30 days, it again would contact each PSAP requesting Phase 2 service and “again attempt to elicit information regarding its readiness for Phase 2 E911 service.” Once validity of those requests is determined, carrier said, it would prioritize them for deployment by Oct. 1 or, for those received after April 1, within 6 months of receiving valid request. Nextel also said it had been continuing tests with Motorola of prototype handset with Assisted GPS (A-GPS) capability at Motorola lab in Fla. In March, Nextel said it and Motorola used preliminary versions of A-GPS handset in live network in Baltimore-Washington area. Although network assistance data weren’t yet available for test, Nextel said Motorola could generate “important information about the handset’s functionality in existing networks as well as performance in a nonassisted environment.” When FCC issued E911 Phase 2 orders last fall, it said it was referring to Enforcement Bureau waiver requests by AT&T Wireless and Cingular on GSM portions of their network. Commission is expected to release order on that decision as early as this week, source said.