WASHINGTON-In the world of wireless enhanced 911, the Fourth of July fireworks were not just up in the sky. Carriers, public-safety officials and government spent the holiday week reacting to a strongly worded letter from Thomas Wheeler, president of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, that places the blame on public safety and government for what appears to be an almost universal failure to meet the fast-approaching Oct. 1 E911 Phase II deadline.
At least three of the four largest carriers-Sprint PCS, Cingular Wireless Inc. and AT&T Wireless Services Inc.-either have sent letters or indicated they were preparing letters to distance themselves from the Wheeler letter they say they never approved.
On a related front, Cingular Wireless late Friday said it planned to file a waiver from Phase II rules as RCR Wireless News went to press.
“Regardless of the outcome, the FCC required a year or more to resolve each disputed issue, thus freezing the parties’ positions, impacting technology decisions by carriers and their suppliers, and delaying deployment planning while the FCC deliberated. … We must work together to avoid that potential for massive confusion and dissatisfaction that could result if customers who believe they have purchased a phone (or wireless service) with 911 capabilities discover that their phone (or service) does not deliver on its promise because the [public-safety answering point] involved cannot deliver on its promise,” said Wheeler in a letter to the National Emergency Number Association and the Association of Public-safety Communications Officers International Inc. on June 24.
“Sprint PCS did not review the CTIA letter prior to its release and the company does not agree with certain statements contained therein. … Wheeler appears to suggest that preparedness by the PSAP community may be a primary obstacle to Phase II deployment. … Wheeler also appears to indicate that FCC actions have caused Phase II delays. While we have not always agreed with public safety and the FCC on Phase II matters, we do not agree with this assessment,” said Luisa L. Lancetti, Sprint PCS vice president for regulatory affairs.
Verizon Wireless said it is not preparing a letter, but stressed it did not see the Wheeler letter before it was sent. “We didn’t see the Wheeler letter before it was sent. We are not in the process of drafting a response to a letter between Wheeler and the public-safety agencies. Frankly, we are focused on putting all of our resources into putting a fix in place. We feel that is the most productive way to go,” said Verizon Wireless spokeswoman Andrea Linskey.
In a response sent July 2, public-safety agencies defended themselves and stressed they were offended by the tone of the Wheeler letter.
“We would very much have preferred to send you a letter congratulating CTIA on its devotion to wireless E911 deployment and thanking you for a cooperative spirit in getting the job done. We do not wish to be seen as extending our differences with CTIA, and are therefore disturbed that we found it necessary to send this letter to set the record straight. While we are troubled and offended by portions of your letter, we strongly agree with your call for cooperation,” said APCO President Lyle Gallagher, NENA President Sharon Counterman and Evelyn Bailey, president of the National Association of State Nine One One Administrators.
The FCC said it was upset, too. “The FCC has consistently encouraged all parties to work together on the rollout of Phase II. We understand there are ongoing discussions in this area between public safety and the major wireless carriers. Unfortunately, by pointing fingers at other parties, the CTIA letter is not a constructive addition to that process. It also inaccurately characterizes what the commission has done in this area,” said the FCC’s Thomas J. Sugrue.
The commission said one inaccuracy in the letter was the supposed delay caused by FCC action in changing the rules regarding how close carriers must locate callers who dial 911.
The FCC changed these rules in 1999 to reflect carrier concerns of non-compliance if a call was dropped and/or not located. It also allowed carriers to implement automatic location information using global positioning systems included in handsets.
CTIA said Wheeler was only following the direction of the board of directors. A copy of a proposal to the board, obtained by RCR Wireless News, shows that CTIA staff wanted to mount an aggressive lobbying effort to focus the blame for the lack of E911 service on public safety and the FCC. The proposal was presented at the June board meeting, but was modified, according to carrier participants. Deleted from the proposal-but not the letter-was a suggestion that public safety enter into binding agreements on Phase II buildout.
“The wireless industry is entering into binding agreements with the FCC that will specify the rollout of E911 technology and attach penalties thereto. How can the PSAP community make a similar binding and enforceable commitment? We recognize that you are not regulated by the FCC (nor by any federal body), however, as the wireless industry commits to an enforceable delivery of E911 capabilities, should not the 6,800 PSAPs embrace a similar level of commitment?” asked Wheeler.
“Sprint PCS is unaware of specific national carrier agreements with the FCC that outline binding deployment schedules nationwide,” said Lancetti in her letter.
“We disagree with, and are frankly offended by, CTIA’s apparent effort to deflect criticism of carriers by suggesting that there needs to be a `binding and enforceable commitment’ by the PSAP community to make wireless E911 a reality. PSAPs are driven by one factor, and one factor alone: saving lives. … In short, the PSAPs do not need `binding and enforceable commitments’ as incentives to implement wireless E911,” said APCO, NENA and NASNA.
E911 service is being deployed in two phases. Phase I deployment is only new being seriously deployed, even though the government deadline for carriers to meet those requirements was April 1, 1998. Phase II requires more precise location information. The deadline is Oct. 1.
Late Friday, Cingular Wireless joined a growing list of carriers that have said they plan to ask for deadline extensions.
“Cingular Wireless is committed to public safety and to meeting the requirements of the new phase of E911 services. However, the technology available today doesn’t produce the level of accuracy hoped for five years ago when the rules were written. We-along with other wireless carriers- are asking for more time until adequate location equipment is made available by our vendors. At that time, we can then begin implementing location technology in our networks. Cingular also is requesting relaxation of the FCC’s accuracy requirements for an interim period. With the right equipment, and an interim period for the technology’s further development, Cingular believes that it will ultimately meet the FCC’s Phase II requirements,” according to a statement from the company.
In a related matter, U.S. Cellular Corp. said it is preparing to appeal a June 29 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court rejected U.S. Cellular’s appeal of the FCC’s rule change regarding whether a cost-recovery mechanism needed to be in place before a carrier was required to deploy E911 services.
“Petitioners apparently think that, if governmental entities are not obliged to cover the costs of the public benefits they impart, they may order safety services that wireless customers do not really want, or at least do not want at the price they must pay. This potential `inefficiency,’ petitioners claim, violated the cost causation principle. This argument is breathtaking. If petitioners were correct, the Federal Aviation Administration could not require airlines to install safety equipment without reimbursing them for their costs … and the Department of Transportat
ion would have to pay automobile manufacturers to install safety belts and air bags. Each of these agencies has `caused’ the cost of regulatory safety requirements in the same way the [FCC] has caused the cost of wireless E911 implementation. Yet it is ludicrous to suggest that government cannot pass these costs along to regulated entities,” said Judge David S. Tatel.
After the FCC rejected the request of rural carriers to review its rules removing the cost-recovery mechanism, U.S. Cellular, the Rural Cellular Association and Corr Wireless Communications L.L.C. appealed to the D.C. Circuit.
Initially, the FCC established rules that called for E911 services to be phased in, but carriers were only required to deploy E911 as long as states put in place a way for carriers to recover their costs.
In 1999, only a few places had the initial phase of wireless 911 service, in part because few states had cost-recovery systems in place. In order to spur more E911 deployments, the FCC in late 1999 dropped the requirement that states had to have a cost-recovery system in place before carriers would be forced to deploy service.
