FCC'S MARTIN STRESSES IMPLEMENTATION, ENFORCEMENT OF E911
FCC Comr. Martin stressed “critical importance” of Enhanced 911 rollout by wireless carriers, saying Wed. he wanted to see interim, measurable milestones backed up by automatic enforcement mechanisms such as fines. He spoke at regularly scheduled press breakfast in his office. His comments came one week after Deputy Wireless Bureau Chief James Schlichting said at CTIA Wireless 2002 that Commission conducting “serious examination” of information it had received from GSM carriers that they wouldn’t be able to meet all benchmark dates of E911 waiver requests granted by Commission. Martin emphasized that to extent carriers informed Commission they couldn’t meet milestones, they should provide specifics of what kinds of equipment could be delivered and when. Absent “extraordinary circumstances,” Martin said: “I'm not going to be inclined and I don’t think the Commission should be inclined to grant very many extensions, unless it is beyond their control, like the vendors’ not being able to deliver their products.”
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
“I would like to emphasize how critically important this is,” Martin told reporters. “It is one of the core things I would like to see happen.” He said there was “some concern about carriers’ being able to meet” all of E911 deadlines. Last fall, FCC adopted E911 compliance plans for all nationwide carriers with exception of VoiceStream, which had received earlier waiver. Schlichting had told CTIA show that it was “serious matter” that several GSM carriers had come back to Commission and proposed revised rollout dates for some interim deadlines for E911 Phase 2 rollout. Commission also named former Office of Engineering & Technology Chief Dale Hatfield to head technical inquiry on issues affecting rollout of Enhanced 911 services, such as equipment availability and ability of carriers to obtain required LEC facilities.
Commission needs to deal “soon” with partial remand issued by U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., in Aug. 2000 (CD Aug 16/2000 p1) concerning Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) order, Martin said. D.C. Circuit remanded part of CALEA order and vacated portions of punch- list that covered items such as custom calling and dialed digits. At that time, D.C. Circuit turned down challenges to packet-mode data requirements in CALEA order. Need for post- Sept. 11 clarity on what wireless carriers must do to meet demands of law enforcement under CALEA came up several times Tues. at James Quello Communication Policy & Law Symposium. Albert Gidari of law firm Perkins & Coie said number of subpoenas that communications services providers such as wireless carriers had received for information from law enforcement agencies had gone up significantly since Sept. 11. Noting that Patriot act broadened information that law enforcers could subpoena in times of emergency, Gidari said at conference: “The problem is everything is an emergency now.”
Martin said item on CALEA remand was now on 8th floor. “I think the Commission needs to deal with that soon to provide that kind of clarity of what is and isn’t required of the carriers,” he said. “In the wake of Sept. 11, there are increasing demands being made of the carriers by law enforcement and the carriers need clarification of what they are required to do under the law and what they're not. So the Commission does need to deal with that.”
Martin was asked about reports that Inspector Gen.’s office or other authorities had asked Commission staffers about unauthorized disclosure of information. “I just don’t think I should comment on ongoing Inspector General investigations at the agency,” he said. Martin said he wasn’t confirming or denying there was IG or any other investigation. “I don’t have any comment on any ongoing investigations one way or another.”
Martin tiptoed around question of whether Commission, by initiating NPRM on access regulations for common carriers, was acting as legislative body. Some critics have accused FCC of trying to enact Tauzin-Dingell without legislation actually passing in Congress by conducting parallel proceedings on cable and common carriers. Issue focuses on whether different companies should have to allow independent ISPs on their plant. Common carriers by law must allow ISPs, while cable isn’t subject to that regulation. Commission recently declared that cable modem service should be defined as interstate information service (CD March 15 p1), making it off limits to common carrier regulation. “I think that there have a lot of concerns that have been raised about the Commission’s actions in these broadband proceedings and I think the Commission is struggling with both the definitional aspects and the regulatory implications,” Martin said. He said Commission was only trying to classify services appropriately, putting them in proper “silos.” From that point, he said, Commission could “regulate up” or “regulate down.” Several consumer groups and companies have filed lawsuits against FCC to have its declaration set aside. Martin said he was “not ever afraid of judicial review.”
While he said he was concerned that so many TV stations had asked for waivers on DTV transition deadline, he said many had legitimate reasons for delay, such as tower siting and permitting issues. Nevertheless, commissioners “need to see progress,” he said.