WASHINGTON-The Federal Communications Commission is expected this week to consider rules for the deployment of enhanced 911 automatic location identification technologies.
The rules will come at an FCC Open Meeting on Wednesday, when the commissioners also will vote on whether or not to lift the spectrum cap and which unbundled network elements incumbent local exchange carriers must offer to their competitors per the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
E911 Phase II
The E911 rules will delay Phase II deployment and allow carriers to implement various solutions to comply with the rules.
Carriers were supposed to be Phase II compliant on Oct. 1, 2001, but since carriers by and large missed the compliance date for Phase I, many carriers asked for waivers from the Phase II deadline. Waivers also were requested to implement a handset rather than network-based solution to provide ALI.
Phase I required carriers to give public safety answering points a call-back number and the cell site location of the mobile phone caller when 911 was dialed. The deadline for compliance was April 1, 1998.
Phase II required carriers to give PSAPs the location within 125 meters, or 410 feet, 67 percent of the time.
Both phases only have to be implemented in an area when a carrier receives a request from the PSAP that it is capable of receiving and utilizing the data and a method of cost recovery has been put in place.
When the rules were developed in 1996, it was expected carriers would use network-based technologies, such as those developed by TruePosition Inc. Since then, however, handset-technologies using global positioning system satellite technology, such as those used by SnapTrack Inc., have been developed.
The Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International (APCO) presented a plan to the FCC on May 25, detailing a schedule for carriers implementing handset technologies. The schedule called for carriers to begin offering ALI-capable handsets on Jan. 1, 2001, and that 80 percent of handsets being deployed be ALI-capable by the end of that year. By the end of 2005, all handsets in a carrier’s system would need to be ALI-capable.
It is expected the FCC will adopt a variation of the APCO proposal but also will require carriers to declare by a date certain whether they are choosing handset or network-based technologies.
Additionally, the rules may require more strict accuracy requirements that would include the methodology used to determine accuracy.
There is concern among some of the ALI equipment/technology vendors that the expected guidelines will be too strict. A plan presented by FCC staff to the commissioners reportedly could require greater accuracy more often than is currently feasible. These vendors lobbied the FCC just prior to the sunshine restriction period hoping to loosen these rules.
Neither the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association nor the Personal Communications Industry Association actively lobbied the FCC on this issue except to urge the agency to remain technology-neutral, said Michael Altschul, CTIA vice president and general counsel.
PCIA also urged the FCC to set deadlines that will allow carriers to choose among the varying technologies, said Todd Lantor, PCIA director of government relations.
Spectrum caps
An issue on which both CTIA and PCIA did heavily lobby was whether the FCC should lift the spectrum cap, the restriction that a carrier control no more than 45 megahertz of spectrum in a geographic area.
CTIA asked the FCC to forbear from enforcing the spectrum cap on Sept. 30, 1998.
Congress established procedures in the telecom act that allow entities to ask the FCC to “forbear” from enforcing rules that have become moot due to competition.
PCIA has been fighting the CTIA request in a split indicative of small guys represented by PCIA versus big guys represented by CTIA. PCIA believes the spectrum cap should be lifted at some point in the future just not now.
As an example of the intense lobbying, presidents of both organizations have held recent meetings about the spectrum cap issue with the commissioners.
A staff proposal suggests modifying the cap in rural service areas to 55 megahertz and allowing carriers in larger markets to ask the FCC to waive the cap if they can prove it is in the public interest. The FCC should also re-evaluate the spectrum cap in another two years, the staff reportedly suggested.
Unbundled network elements
The FCC also will say what unbundled network elements ILECs must offer to their competitors.
When the Supreme Court ruled mostly in favor the FCC in January, it also told the FCC it must defend the reasons why each and every element is considered necessary.
This remand decision could impact both calling-party-pays and fixed wireless providers.
There is a dispute over whether billing and collection is considered a necessary element to offer service or a separate service. Wireless operators that have sister-LEC companies would not have to worry about access to billing and collection but other wireless carriers may find it difficult to offer CPP if they cannot get access to billing and collection.
Fixed wireless providers will be watching to see whether insider wiring is considered a necessary element. Such a ruling could make it easier for these competitive local exchange carriers to get access to ILEC facilities located in office and apartment buildings.
Where is the resale policy?
It had been widely expected the FCC would dispose of reconsideration petitions regarding the requirement that personal communications services carriers offer resale services until Nov. 24, 2002. If the petitions are granted it could effectively change this policy.
The agenda released last week, however, did not have the resale policy as an agenda item.
It is now expected the issue will be voted on circulation rather than at an open meeting. The results of the vote could be made public as early as this week.
The proposal the staff reportedly sent for the commissioners to approve would make clear that wireless carriers do not have to offer customer premises equipment even if they offer bundled packages which include CPE to end users.
Additionally, PCS carriers holding C-, D-, E- and F-block licenses may be exempted from the resale policy. This issue reportedly is being hotly contested among the commissioners and could be made on a split vote.
