WASHINGTON-Federal agency head William Kennard said he is not backing off from support of the strongest-signal proposal to ensure emergency 911 calls are completed, and indeed, is interested in a new proposal that calls for an adequate signal to place 911 calls.
Kennard “is still very interested in the strongest signal [proposal]. [He] thinks that the adequate signal [proposal] has a lot of merit,” said Ari Fitzgerald, Kennard’s legal adviser for wireless issues.
Fitzgerald’s comments comport closely with comments Kennard made in an exclusive interview earlier this month with RCR. “I am encouraged there is today a lot of active discussion going on that will hopefully result in coalescing around a proposal which will serve the needs of strongest signal … I’m impatient … If we can’t come to an agreement with the industry on an alternative, we will have no choice but to go ahead with strongest signal,” Kennard said.
Kennard reinforced that statement last week in response to report in another trade industry magazine that he was backing off by saying, “We will do whatever we have to do to guarantee 911 emergency calls from cellular phones are connected.”
The industry has opposed the strongest-signal proposal because it believes the best way to accomplish its call-completion goals is to site enough antennas so calls are not dropped. In this regard, the industry received a big boost late Thursday when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Commerce Committee, introduced an E911/antenna-siting bill that is essentially the same as a bill introduced earlier this year by Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.), chairman of the House telecom subcommittee.
The House bill is headed to the House Floor after the Commerce Committee passed it by voice vote Aug. 5.
The FCC last week asked for comment on a proposal by the Ad Hoc Alliance for Public Access to 911, which would require a test on calls placed to 911. The test would determine whether there was adequate signal strength using the caller’s carrier’s system. If so, then the call would be placed. If not, the call would be sent to another carrier’s system with the stronger signal.
In a Sept. 17 submission, the ad hoc alliance provided the FCC with an engineering report regarding the minimum level of signal strength necessary for an adequate signal. The adequate-signal proposal attempts to answer questions by the wireless industry and public safety, which were concerned that a strongest-signal proposal would mean the strongest signal would be selected even if there was adequate signal strength available from the user’s provider.
The ad hoc alliance believes the adequate-signal proposal addresses all of these concerns and believes it is the compromise Kennard is seeking.
“We continue to appreciate and recognize Chairman Kennard’s leadership in this very important public-safety matter. We are very hopeful that the [FCC] in short order will put this issue to rest so the public can have confidence that the promises of the cellular industry are actually being met by putting in place standards, procedures, and technologies that will benefit public protection. This includes strongest signal,” said Jim Conran, chairman of the alliance.
The alliance may have overstepped its bounds , however, when it implied in its Sept. 17 letter that the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International Inc. (APCO) would support the adequate-signal proposal. APCO said in a Sept. 21 letter the alliance “inappropriately attempts to characterize our position … We are not prepared to support the specifics of the modified alliance proposal, which still contains some significant technical problems.”
The wireless industry has relied on the public-safety community to bolster its arguments that strongest signal is not the way to go. The industry does not seem to be budging from this position with the introduction of adequate signal into the debate, insisting again that the technical specifications submitted by the alliance may be faulty. “I wouldn’t take [the technical specifications] as gospel,” said Tim Ayers, CTIA vice president for communications.
Relations between CTIA and the alliance are strained. The alliance claims it can’t win the fight because the other side has millions of dollars to spend while the industry believes the alliance is not the volunteer organization that it claims to be, but rather is funded by lawyers and the patent holder for strongest signal, who would benefit financially from the strongest-signal mandate.
In addition to the wireless industry, the location tracking industry also is opposed to both strongest and adequate signal, saying such a requirement would not have the same benefits as early implementation of location tracking devices. The FCC has mandated that carriers implement location tracking into 911 systems by October 2001. Companies such as TruePosition Inc., which markets such devices, are afraid an FCC mandate to implement strongest or adequate signal would deter carriers from buying location tracking products before the October 2001 deadline.
Strongest signal “significantly diminished the incentive to install location technology … We want the [FCC] to make a cost-benefit analysis examining how often calls to 911 are dropped because of signal strength and what is the most cost effective way to protect the public in emergency situations,” said Philip L. Verveer, an attorney representing TruePosition.
