Verizon Wireless protested BellSouth request that wireless carrier sign “first office application” agreement for Phase 2 Enhanced 911 systems in S.C. In FCC filing last week, Verizon Wireless said agreement for Phase 2 E911 systems in Spartanburg and Greenville, S.C. “is entirely unnecessary and is one-sided in BellSouth’s favor.” It asked FCC to take broad look at not just short-term S.C. agreement but at “serious obstacle” presented by BellSouth’s “misconception” of E911 obligations of wireless carriers vs. ILECs. Role of ILECs in providing database upgrades to provide E911 Phase 2 service has remained point of contention at FCC on E911 deployment. BellSouth told Commission last month it concluded that certain costs involving network upgrades to let wireless carriers deliver latitude and longitude of E911 caller should be recovered from mobile operators. BS defended its allocation of upgrade costs among wireless carriers, operators of mobile position centers and public safety answering points (PSAPs). In S.C. case, Verizon told FCC that PSAP in Spartanburg had requested that Verizon Wireless provide Phase 2 service. PSAP must obtain Phase 2 service through BellSouth, which has asked that Verizon Wireless and Sprint PCS sign first office agreement before BS will test service on behalf of PSAP. “BellSouth’s unjustified requirement has succeeded in delaying the provision of E911 Phase 2 in South Carolina,” Verizon Wireless told FCC. Verizon said it already provided Phase 2 service to PSAPs served by other ILECs, which had tested and turned on live automatic location information capabilities without such agreements. Verizon Wireless also disputed BS contention that ILEC was providing services to wireless carriers. While BellSouth agreed to remove charges for those services for now, Verizon Wireless said that having established customer-vendor relationship, “BellSouth would be positioned to seek payments from Verizon Wireless later or refuse to allow Phase 2 E911 to proceed.” Wireless carrier told Commission that BS hadn’t committed to not charging wireless carriers for Phase 2 once testing was completed. It also took issue with BellSouth position that mobile operators must pay for its database upgrades. Verizon Wireless said FCC concluded in previous order that such database upgrades were responsibility of LEC. Carrier said FCC had directed that when LECs sought reimbursement for such upgrades, they should turn to PSAPs.

After Cingular and AT&T Wireless recently shifted to alternative location technologies for Enhanced 911, Cambridge Positioning Systems (CPS) CEO Chris Wade Thurs. defended readiness of Enhanced Observed Time Difference of Arrival (E- OTD) technology his company developed. Cingular told FCC last week it suspended shipments of E-OTD infrastructure equipment. E-OTD is hybrid handset-network solution for locating wireless 911 callers. Readiness of technology has come under fire from public safety groups concerned about ability of GSM carriers to meet benchmark dates with E-OTD. In latest defection, AT&T Wireless said this week it planned to use same kind of time difference on arrival (TDOA) location technology it’s using for TDMA portion of its network on its GSM network. AT&T said it would continue some E-OTD tests. Wade was in Washington this week meeting with FCC officials. “E-OTD is a brand new technology that has the same accuracy as GPS, however at a fraction of the cost of GPS,” he said. Wade told us one of dynamics of new “core technology” such as E-OTD was that sufficient lead time was needed to roll it out in debugged version for live networks. “The other competing force is the FCC is saying, ‘you've had time, you actually have to get on now and do this,'” he said: “What AT&T essentially declared is they had run out of time.” FCC adopted consent decree with AT&T Wireless this week to resolve possible E911 violations. Agreement doesn’t require E-OTD but simply network-based location technology, freeing AT&T Wireless to use GSM version of technology it is already using for TDMA, he said: “They have chosen a technology which by their own admission they haven’t tested yet, which must be a very scary proposition to be in.” London-based CPS supplies E-OTD technology to Ericsson, Siemens, Nortel and Nokia, who recently pooled resources to do joint testing and share data. AT&T’s decision “does speak to the incredible political pressure that must exist to have that kind of decision make sense,” Wade said. AT&T Wireless spokeswoman said carrier “was confident that we have made the appropriate decision.” Wade stressed company has made significant progress since Aug. in testing E-OTD. As of Aug., company hadn’t completed testing and networks were still being brought up. “Today we have networks as per the T-Mobile filing that are operational within the specifications and therefore Cingular has a great deal more positive information to make a final decision on,” Wade said. Wade said his message to FCC over last several days has been that “despite what the popular perception is about E-OTD it is meeting 2003 [accuracy] requirements.”

FCC approved $2 million consent decree with AT&T Wireless to resolve possible violation of Enhanced 911 Phase 2 rules in largest E911-related fine to date. Consent decree set timeline for carrier to deploy network-based location technology within its GSM network. Agreement doesn’t require Enhanced Observed Time Difference of Arrival (E-OTD) technology and carrier said Wed. it was setting its sights on another caller-location system. E-OTD has come under fire from public safety groups and others recently as beset with problems that were slowing E911 rollouts. AT&T Wireless spokeswoman said carrier planned to use same kind of time difference on arrival (TDOA) location technology in its GSM network as it used for its TDMA infrastructure. AT&T said it would continue to test E-OTD in some markets, but consent decree doesn’t stipulate particular network-based location technology, freeing carrier to use other systems to meet deployment deadlines.

In 17 states, phone call to “211” can help troubled persons in need of social assistance find shortcut through bewildering maze of public- and private-sector health and human service agencies to reach ones that can offer assistance. Many other states are considering establishing 211 referral service. But valuable as that service has proved to be in places where it’s available, economic woes afflicting states, municipalities, businesses and charities may affect pace at which it spreads, observers said.

SBC/Ameritech told FCC last week that state court in Mich. had issued temporary restraining order (TRO) that barred carrier from filing wireless 911 tariff. Ameritech planned to file tariff in Mich. that would allow it to recover costs from public safety answering points (PSAPs) for Phase 2 of Enhanced 911. Ameritech had told FCC earlier that it had to ask Mich. PSC for authority to charge local 911 dispatching centers for every 911 call placed from cellphone. Company planned to charge fee to recoup costs of implementing wireless E911 location capability, contending it was entitled under Telecom Act to obtain such cost recovery. But on Aug. 30, Mich. Communications Directors Assn. and Barry County Central Dispatch Authority filed complaint and motion for TRO against Ameritech and Emergency Telephone Service Committee’s CMRS Committee in 5th Judicial Circuit Court in Mich. seeking to enjoin Ameritech from filing wireless E911 tariff, which court granted. They cited state statute that lets commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers recover costs for E911 service from state fund. Ameritech told FCC in ex parte filing last week that it wasn’t CMRS provider and, as result, that statute didn’t apply to it. Hearing is set for Oct. 14 on whether TRO should be lifted or continued as preliminary injunction. Ameritech said it planned to meet with county, PSC and state legislative staffers to discuss best way to implement Phase 2 of wireless E911 without disrupting service. SBC told FCC earlier that main form of cost recovery it planned for E911 was through interconnection agreements, although many states give wireless carriers ability to purchase that service from tariffs.

Cingular Wireless told FCC this week it had suspended shipments of Enhanced 911 infrastructure equipment (E-OTD), technology whose readiness had been target of public safety concerns. Cingular said it was conducting field trial of alternative, network-based technology for GSM part of its network. E-OTD -- Enhanced Observed Time Difference of Arrival -- is hybrid handset network solution for locating wireless 911 callers. While public safety groups have questioned deployment track record of GSM carriers planning to use E-OTD for upcoming E911 deadlines, T-Mobile USA told FCC this week it was selling E-OTD capable handsets in its stores in R.I., St. Louis, Houston and Dallas, with plans to make it available soon on its Web site. T-Mobile, formerly VoiceStream Wireless, told FCC that results showed accuracy of E-OTD deployments was “very encouraging,” although it said some performance issues still needed to be addressed. “What you may have is 2 companies looking at uncertainty differently,” industry source said.

At request of Emergency Services Interconnection Forum (ESIF), FCC Wireless Bureau agreed to stay implementation deadline for programming new 911-only wireless handsets and donated handsets that weren’t service-initialized. Bureau stayed Oct. 1 date for programming phones with identification number 123-456-7890 after ESIF presented information about new technology solution it said was more effective. Requirement for programmable code as phone number/mobile identification number is intended to solve lack of callback capability of handsets when 911 calls are dialed. Other mobile phones provide callback number for public safety answering points (PSAPs) when 911 is dialed. FCC had required manufacturers of 911-only wireless handsets to program each device with same code starting Oct. 1 but ESIF requested stay and filed petition for reconsideration outlining proposal based on technical standard developed by Telecommunications Industry Assn. (TIA) and Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS). Solution proposes use of wireless handset’s electronic serial number or international mobile station equipment ID to create “surrogate number” for callback purposes. ESIF said numbering system would allow PSAP to prevent misuse of 911 system as result of repeat, harassment calls made on noninitialized phones and to identify legitimate emergency callers making multiple 911 calls. Another issue ESIF raised was that required 123-456-7890 number also was valid international roaming mobile ID number (MIN). Using it for callback purposes could remove one million numbers from international roaming MIN assignment pool, ESIF said. Verizon Wireless had told FCC it already had required vendors to deliver equipment based on solution developed by TIA and ATIS. To comply with existing requirement, Verizon said, it would have to ask its equipment suppliers to disable function that would allow transmission of 911 calls under ATIS solution in favor of FCC requirement. Bureau said it would act on ESIF petition quickly. “We find that somewhat delayed implementation of one requirement better serves the public interest than the potentially disruptive sequential implementation of 2 different requirements over a short period of time,” bureau said.

Sprint PCS told FCC that while it didn’t believe Commission meant to impose “strict liability” standard on wireless carriers for Enhanced 911 Phase 2 service, it still should “remove any uncertainty.” Alltel, American Cellular and Dobson Cellular petitioned FCC last month for reconsideration of E911 order that granted small and medium- sized carriers additional time to implement interim Phase 2 deadlines. Carriers challenged what they viewed as “strict liability” component of order, which they said would deem operators noncompliant for failing to meet benchmarks without regard to vendor’s or manufacturer’s inability to supply compliant equipment. Concern of Alltel and others had been that they would be subject to automatic enforcement actions if they missed requirements, even if it was due to circumstances outside of their control. Sprint: (1) Questioned whether FCC had legal authority to adopt strict liability standard. Communications Act allows agency to penalize carrier for failing to comply with rule, but in most cases penalty is appropriate only if action is willful violation, it said. “Clearly a wireless carrier’s failure to meet a certain Phase 2 deadline because of circumstances beyond its control… cannot be a ‘willful’ act or omission - - regardless of how the term willful may be defined.” (2) Said that even if FCC had statutory backing to carry out strict liability standard, “it appears reasonably clear that the Commission did not intend to do so in the Phase 2 stay order.” That would create “entirely new waiver standard and a radical change in Commission precedent,” filing said. Sprint urged FCC to focus on removing obstacles to Phase 2 deployment instead of enforcement threats. “If wireless carriers are unable to deploy Phase 2 services as a result of conditions beyond their control, and the Commission attempts to enforce a strict liability standard, carriers will be forced to focus on legal actions to protect themselves rather than deployment of 911 systems,” it said. It said “technical obstacles” many LECs had imposed on processing requests for Phase 2 service from public safety answering points were likely to be resolved by year-end. But Sprint said “newest ILEC obstacle” involved efforts by certain LECs to recover upgrade costs for automatic location identification systems from wireless carriers instead of PSAPs, as FCC had stipulated. “Unless the Commission acts expeditiously, Phase 2 service will be further delayed,” Sprint said.

FCC Comr. Copps Tues. dissented from portion of cellular service changes that he said would repeal guarantees that potential cellular wireless subscribers would be informed of their service coverage areas. Also reacting to FCC order, Comr. Martin issued separate statement approving agency’s rule changes in part and concurring in part on issue of legal standard used as part of Commission’s biennial review under Sec. 11 of Communications Act. Order modified certain cellular wireless mandates that had become outdated or unnecessary as result of technological changes or increased competition. Order is designed to eliminate certain requirements that no longer were necessary because they dated back to duopoly era of cellphone service. “I believe that understanding a carrier’s service area is critical information for consumers,” said Copps, who approved in part and dissented in part: “I also disagree with the majority’s apparent belief that competition alone can obviate the need for consumer protection laws.” Service area of given cellular plan is “critical information” for subscribers, Copps said. That information allows customers to pinpoint where they can use their wireless phones, and in rural areas, to ascertain where 911 calls can be made, he said. Martin said he was concerned by failure of order to discuss legal standard of Sec. 11 under which FCC determined in biennial reviews whether regulation no longer was “necessary in the public interest” as result of meaningful competition between service providers. “As I have argued elsewhere, I believe the term ‘necessary’ should be read in accordance with its plain meaning, to mean something closer to ‘essential.'” He also stressed importance of FCC not ending analog requirement in 5 years if digital phones weren’t available for consumers with hearing disabilities. Order would delete requirement that cellular licensees provide cellular service upon request to “all cellular subscribers in good standing.” Competitive state of wireless market made that mandate unnecessary, it said. It does away with language that implies that analog is principal technology in use and adds “technologically neutral” statement. In eliminating requirement that cellular carriers provide information about service area, Commission said that information already was being furnished at retail outlets and on Internet. “We note that PCS and digital SMR [specialized mobile radio] providers are doing so without any comparable regulatory requirement, presumably because consumers demand this information,” agency said. Under FCC action, cellular carriers no longer have to notify Commission if subscriber request for service is turned down due to lack of capacity. FCC said it wasn’t aware that cellular operator had filed such notifications. Commission said: (1) Carriers should provide sufficient capacity for analog service in cases where it’s required. (2) Requirements on analog availability should ensure analog subscribers would continue to receive service even without notification requirement. (3) Provision that carrier could terminate service to subscriber who operated cellular phone on airborne aircraft was eliminated. Other FCC rules already bar operation of cellular phones in such cases, it said.

Public safety groups told FCC that some clarification or change in existing Enhanced 911 rules might be needed but certain modifications shouldn’t be retroactive. Verizon Wireless recently asked Commission to stipulate that wireless carrier wouldn’t be in violation of E911 Phase 2 deadline when public safety answering point (PSAP) couldn’t yet receive and use more detailed location information because either PSAP or LEC hadn’t completed necessary network upgrades. Sprint PCS endorsed modified approach to one that Verizon outlined. Verizon had said its clarification could be carried out while keeping in place previous FCC decision that required licensees to start Phase 2 deployment in advance of actual PSAP readiness. Under existing rules, PSAP request for more-detailed Phase 2 information is deemed valid if PSAP can show it has ordered necessary equipment and has vendor commitments to have it installed and operational within 6 months. National Emergency Number Assn., Assn. of Public-Safety Communications Officials and National Assn. of State 911 Administrators told FCC that some changes might be needed to address LEC and PSAP readiness issues raised by Sprint and Verizon: “However, in the end, as we have said previously, implementation will depend more on common-sense accommodations reached in good faith among the parties than on rule changes. Nevertheless, removal of lingering uncertainties remains a worthy objective.” Groups said any relief from 6-month requirement should hinge on there being agreement between carrier and relevant PSAP on need to extend implementation deadline. Such agreement could take form of letter from PSAP agreeing to revised schedule, groups said. “Submission of that letter to the FCC would relieve the carrier of its 6-month requirement and avoid the need for enforcement action,” filing said. But public safety groups stressed that carriers shouldn’t have right to “unilaterally” extend compliance date because they perceived that PSAP wasn’t ready, whether because of equipment installation delays or because LEC hadn’t done necessary database upgrades. Filing raised concerns that Verizon and Sprint proposals would involve rule changes that would be applied retroactively. “Retroactive rulemaking is usually not a good idea and we cannot accept it here,” filing said. Although there may be more valid PSAP requests than carrier facing Dec. 2002 deadline can handle, “these need not be summarily invalidated,” filing said.