Congress Must Address E-911 Issues, Panelists Say
Momentum continues to build in Congress to ensure that E-911 services are delivered to all VoIP users, speakers said Thurs. at an Information Technology Assn. of America VoIP briefing. Congress needs to ensure that the FCC has authority to resolve outstanding issues related to full deployment of emergency services, said Dana Lichtenberg, legislative asst. to Rep. Gordon (D-Tenn.). A key concern is that VoIP providers get non- discriminatory access to the 911 infrastructure, she said.
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!
“Clearly, Congress is the only entity that has the authority to look at the issue from end to end,” Lichtenberg said. Gordon introduced a bipartisan bill in May with a companion Senate version led by Sen. Burns (R- Mont.). Both would mandate E-911 access for VoIP providers (CD May 19 p1). The Burns bill, the subject of a Sept. 1 field hearing in Mont., is expected to be a blueprint for E-911 provisions in draft telecom update bills in the House and Senate, she said.
But while lawmakers agree the E-911 issue is critical, they differ on how to resolve it. For instance, Gordon’s bill would permit taxes on VoIP providers to ensure provision of services, an element Sen. Sununu (R- Nev.) doesn’t support. “I don’t think it’s a productive approach,” he said. “It starts us down the road of 30,000 taxing jurisdictions that will discriminate against innovation and deployment of new technology at a time when we want to encourage new technology,” he said. New technological solutions are far likelier to overcome technical problems quickly than regulatory approaches, he said.
Sununu said the Senate bill likely will include language dealing with “network neutrality” -- ensuring unbiased access for users of networks. But it might be confined to an “area of study,” such as refining definitions of what an IP network is versus a broadband network. He said the Commerce Committee would take up the telecom bill and probably pass something out of committee by mid- to late Oct., after it passes a DTV bill. “The bills will not move in tandem,” he said. “We will move the DTV bill as part of the reconciliation and that will get done,” he said, but he and his colleagues need to be “very cautious, very deliberate, very methodical.” Sununu also said he doesn’t think the Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process will “encumber” the work of the committee. “I don’t see anything there that would sap our strength.”
The FCC mistakenly has separated regulation of voice and data services, which has caused some of the confusion around the E-911 regulatory issue, said Gregory Rohde, exec. dir.-E-911 Institute. “The FCC has created an artificial distinction between voice and data” he said. This was not the intent of the ‘96 Telecom Act, which didn’t seek a separate regulatory structure. But a number of FCC orders have deviated from that model, and Sen. Stevens (R-Alaska) began pressing the agency to address the issue in the mid-90s. This is why a telecom law update is so important, Rohde said. “We need a certain environment to know what the rules are,” he said.