FCC Will Be ‘Cattle Prod’ When Multistakeholder Process Fails, Wheeler tells CSRIC
The transition to IP technology shouldn’t change the FCC’s core values of ensuring security and public safety, Chairman Tom Wheeler told the Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council Wednesday. Voluntary agreements between stakeholders are to be encouraged, but it’s also important to collect data to ensure those agreements are being followed through, he said. “We would rather the multistakeholder process deliver results than us have to step in and use our imperfect wisdom,” but the FCC is “dedicated to being the cattle prod” when necessary, he 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!
"For a century there has been implicit and explicit values reflected in the relationship between those who build networks, those who operate networks and those who use networks,” Wheeler said. “We may have different ways of reaching the same value through different voluntary activity, through different regulatory activity, because of the different nature of the network, but the value remains unchanged. And front and center in those values are security and public safety.”
"The multistakeholder process makes a lot of sense,” Wheeler told the industry officials. “Getting the people who are involved around the table, reaching consensus on what needs to be done, is nimble, it’s fast, and it’s far preferable to the five of us sitting up there on the dais and banging a gavel and saying, ‘Thus shall it be.'” But it’s important to “inspect what you expect,” he said. Agreeing to multistakeholder values “is a great first step but it is not the end of the trip. Because discussing, agreeing and putting on paper is not implementation.”
Real implementation requires metric-driven measurement of how effectively ideas are put into practice, Wheeler said. He cited successes of CSRIC predecessor bodies, such as the SS7 standards developed in the 1990s that “defined the nature of our networks.” But there have also been failures in the voluntary approach, he said: That was demonstrated “when CSRIC came forward and said here’s the kinds of 911 backup that ought to be in place, and everybody said, ‘Yay and verily,’ and then it takes the 2012 derecho to prove that it wasn’t being reflected in actual behavior."
Jay Naillon, T-Mobile national director-operations, planning and support, seemed genuinely excited about a “Roaming During Disasters” guide under development, which will offer contact information for network operators to use during emergencies. Imagine an earthquake or a hurricane that devastates multiple states and knocks out commercial power for days, he said. Battery backup lasts only four to eight hours, after which a lot of cell sites fail. How will network operators learn whose networks are up, and figure out how to contact the right people? he asked. The “roaming matrix” identifies compatible networks and multiple contact numbers to quickly allow communication between carriers, he said.
The various working groups offered early updates on progress reports that generally aren’t due until spring. The next-generation 911 working group will study and report on the technical feasibility of wireless carriers to include enhanced location information in text messages sent to public safety answering points, said Brian Fontes, CEO of the National Emergency Number Association.
The Wireless Emergency Alerts working group is looking at technical issues and consumer responses to emergency alerts. The group is working to come up with recommendations on geographic targeting, message content and character limitations. It also wants to ensure consumers don’t have “alert fatigue” where they end up ignoring the alerts or opting out, said Brian Josef, CTIA director-regulatory affairs.
Tw telecom CEO Larissa Herda said she had personal experience with that. The CSRIC chair recalled getting a middle-of-the-night alert about a blizzard a full day after the blizzard started. It woke people up, she said. “We already knew there was a blizzard,” she told Josef. “It had been going on for 24 hours. To suddenly tell us at 3 o'clock in the morning that there was a blizzard, it was not timely and therefore it was not credible.”