Wireless carriers asked FCC Tues. to clarify that LEC delays in providing network upgrades for Enhanced 911 services “constitute a defense to any enforcement actions taken against a wireless carrier for failure to meet Phase 2 deadlines.” In filing, wireless carriers and CTIA reiterated concerns that many LECs who provided automatic location information (ALI) databases still weren’t ready to provide Phase 2 services. ALI consists of more-specific latitude and longitude information under Phase 2 that’s handed off to emergency dispatchers when wireless subscriber dials 911. Among other concerns, CTIA said, some LECs now want to charge wireless carriers for ALI services, which it said violated FCC’s order in King County (Wash.) case. That decision had affirmed that 911 selective router maintained by ILECs was dividing line for E911 implementation costs between wireless carriers and public safety answering points (PSAPs). Carriers want FCC to issue directive that ALI database costs are to be allocated to PSAPs and requires LECs to finish upgrading databases “without delay.” Presentation at FCC was made by AT&T Wireless, Cingular Wireless, CTIA, Dobson Cellular, Intrada, Nextel, Sprint PCS, T-Mobile USA, Verizon Wireless, Western Wireless. Carriers said they wanted FCC to change rules to spell out that wireless carriers would begin delivering Phase 2 information within 6 months of PSAP request or within 120 days after PSAP was capable of receiving or using Phase 2 data, whichever was later. Presentation said LEC delays were affecting carriers’ ability to meet upcoming Phase 2 deadlines. “Although wireless carriers have spent countless hours and spent millions of dollars in an effort to meet the Phase 2 deadlines, LEC delays and charges will likely cause many wireless carriers to miss Phase 2 implementation deadlines,” filing said.

FCC Wireless Bureau sought comment on petitions for reconsideration filed by Alltel, American Cellular and Dobson Cellular Systems on order setting Enhanced 911 deployment deadlines for medium-sized (Tier 2) and smallest (Tier 3) wireless carriers. Comments are due Oct. 16, replies Oct. 30. In their petitions, carriers had raised concerns that if revised deployment schedules for E911 Phase 2 rollouts weren’t met, they would be deemed noncompliant and face automatic enforcement action. Petitions contended that FCC improperly decided that it would take enforcement action on any potential Phase 2 waiver request without carrier’s having chance to challenge decision. Carriers said Commission shouldn’t hold them to strict liability standard for Phase 2 deadlines that depended, at least in part, on factors out of their control, such as when equipment vendors couldn’t supply compliant products. FCC has delayed E911 Phase 2 interim handset and network upgrade deadlines for small and medium- sized carriers such as Alltel and Leap Wireless (CD July 29 p4).

Public safety groups urged FCC Wed. to refer to Enforcement Bureau waivers for Enhanced 911 Phase 2 filed by small wireless carriers that weren’t covered in July 26 order that applied to 110 operators that already had sought relief. National Emergency Number Assn., Assn. of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO) and National Assn. of State 911 Administrators said that among largest wireless carriers, AT&T Wireless and Cingular previously were referred to Enforcement Bureau to explain their tardy waiver requests. “We see no reason to avoid similar referrals of smaller carriers, particularly those whose late-filed requests are devoid of specific reasons for not acting earlier,” public safety groups said. FCC last month pushed back Phase 2 deadlines 7 months for medium (Tier 2) carriers and 13 months for smallest (Tier 3) carriers for rolling out Phase 2 E911, keeping final implementation date of Dec. 31, 2005, intact. Last fall, Commission adopted compliance plans for extended E911 implementation timelines for 6 national wireless carriers. Staying of compliance dates on interim basis for smaller carriers applied only to 110 carriers whose requests for more time already were on file, groups said. They said that since July 26 order was issued, 8 additional small carriers had filed waiver requests and more were expected. “Absent an effort to build specific records on these pending waiver requests, it will look as if either the carriers or the FCC don’t care about noncompliance by smaller carriers,” public safety filing said. “The public safety organizations are sure that is not the case.”

N.J. Gov. James McGreevey (D) said he would give high priority in this fall’s state legislature session to winning passage of bill to ban use of handheld mobile phones while driving. If effort is successful, N.J. would become 2nd state after N.Y. to enact statewide carphone safety law. McGreevey said he had directed state Transportation Dept. to analyze proposed ban and said he would convene 12-member task force to study carphone safety issue. McGreevey said requiring use of hands-free car phones would address one controllable factor that contributed to auto accidents. Ban wouldn’t apply on cellphone calls to 911 or other emergency numbers. N.Y. law has minimum $100 fine, which McGreevey said he wanted in N.J. Several bills have been attempted in legislature ranging from carphone restrictions on certain classes of driver to flat ban on using any kind of carphone, even hands-free models, while driving. None have been successful.

Sprint PCS told FCC that recent round of filings on providing Enhanced 911 Phase 2 capability showed LECs hadn’t completed required network upgrades by June 30, delay that has disrupted E911 deployment schedules for wireless operators. “The Commission should act expeditiously to correct this situation,” Sprint said. Carrier said Commission had ordered Sprint and other operators to complete installation of all valid Phase 2 requests that were issued by June 30 by year-end. Delay by LECs in upgrading their automatic location information (ALI) databases needed to support Phase 2 “has negatively impacted Sprint Phase 2 deployment activity and continues to do so,” filing said. LECs late last month had responded to request by FCC Wireless Bureau Chief Thomas Sugrue to provide update on progress they had made on interconnections needed for E911 deployment. Public safety groups and some wireless carriers have pointed to readiness of LECs to provide their piece of E911 Phase 2 implementation as missing link in deployment lags, although LECs last month described extent to which they had put network and cost recovery components in place. Sprint said it agreed with most of Verizon Wireless plan floated to FCC recently on proposed change in that area. Verizon proposal would have FCC stipulate that carrier wouldn’t be in violation of Phase 2 deadlines in cases in which public safety answering point couldn’t yet receive and use more detailed location information because LEC or PSAP hadn’t completed necessary network upgrades. Sprint suggested several changes in Verizon’s plan. “This rule modification does not address the current scheduling crisis created by the LEC delay in deployment of Phase 2 systems,” Sprint said. If LECs complete proposed tariff filings and deployment schedules for database changes in Sept.-Oct. time frame, wireless carriers will be hit by glut of new, valid Phase 2 requests on which to act, Sprint said. Under Verizon proposal, those requests, which had been scheduled to roll out over 14-month period, could need to be deployed in as little as 90 days, carrier said. “Sprint’s deployment schedule cannot be compressed to this extent,” it said. “Accordingly, the new rule should be applied prospectively.”

Popularity of cellphones in Cal. prompted transportation agency for San Francisco Bay area to move forward with plan for removing 1/3 of the 3,500 emergency call boxes along 1,100 miles of freeways in and around city. Agency cited declining use of call boxes due to proliferation of cellphones, and cost savings, as reasons. Past efforts by Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission to remove roadside call boxes had to be abandoned due to outcry from upset public, but transport agency hopes opposition this time will be minimal. Three-year plan calls for removal of least- used call boxes and spacing remaining boxes farther apart. They now are about 1,700 feet apart, but later would be about half-mile apart. Agency said move would free up $14 million annually for other roadside emergency programs. Agency said over last 5 years roadside assistance requests from call boxes have fallen 60%, to 80,000 per year from 200,000, while requests from cellphone users had climbed by similar percentage. Cal. has 17,000 emergency call boxes along 6,000 miles of freeways around state, more than in all other 49 states combined. Call boxes automatically connect to local 911 dispatching center. Call box movement started in Southern Cal. in 1960s due to series of tragedies that might have been averted with roadside phones. Call box system spread statewide in 1980s after legislature authorized $1 surcharge on vehicle registrations to finance system. Some consumer groups say many drivers don’t own cellphones or may not have phone with them, so call box system should be retained. But transport agency says declining use indicates call boxes no longer may be best use for roadside program funds. Other Cal. cities and state transportation officials say they will be watching results of San Francisco’s call box removal attempt.

SBC/Ameritech said it must ask Mich. PSC for authority to charge local 911 dispatching centers for each 911 emergency call placed from a cellphone, but some local govts. say they will oppose fee. Ameritech was to file its request at PSC Tues. In most of Mich., 911 centers for rural areas are run by Mich. State Police and those in urban areas by local sheriff’s department or police department Ameritech said it needed to charge fee to recoup its costs of implementing wireless E911 location capability and that it’s entitled under federal Telecom Act to cost recovery. Ameritech said it would propose specific fee in its cost testimony. In neighboring Ill., Ameritech last year won state regulatory approval for fee of $1.36 per wireless 911 call, and Mich. localities are upset by prospect of similar- sized Mich. fee. Oakland County Sheriff’s Dept., which handles 911 calls for city of Pontiac and 13 other metro Detroit suburbs, said it handled 123,000 wireless 911 calls last year, and fee like that approved in Ill. would add expense of more than $165,000 for county that’s already looking at $12 million budget shortfall in 2004. Deputy County Executive Robert Daddow said he would ask county commission at its Sept. 16 meeting to adopt resolution opposing fee.

SBC told FCC it had invested “tens of millions of dollars” to be able to provide Enhanced 911 Phase 2 capability. Similar filings outlining progress on interconnections needed for E911 deployment also were made by Alltel, BellSouth, Qwest, Sprint and Verizon in response to request by Wireless Bureau Chief Thomas Sugrue last month that they make that information publicly available. Public safety groups and several wireless carriers have cited LEC cooperation as “missing link” in some E911 deployment situations, which also depend on public safety readiness and wireless carrier deployments. Some concerns have centered on progress of LECs in upgrading automatic location information (ALI) databases needed to support Phase 2. ALI consists of more specific latitude and longitude information under Phase 2 that’s provided to emergency dispatchers when wireless caller dials 911. LECs outlined range of methods to recover costs of Phase 2 upgrades from public safety agencies and wireless carriers, including tariffs, interconnection agreements and existing contracts.

Three wireless carriers petitioned FCC for reconsideration of recent Enhanced 911 order, arguing Commission shouldn’t hold them to “strict liability” standard for Phase 2 deadlines that depend at least partly on factors such as vendors’ supplying compliant products. FCC last month delayed E911 Phase 2 interim handset and network upgrade deadlines for small and medium-sized carriers such as Alltel and Leap Wireless (CD July 29 p4). Dobson Cellular and American Cellular filed petition for reconsideration Mon., challenging what they called “strict liability” determination of order that stipulated small and medium-sized carriers would be deemed noncompliant for failure to meet interim performance benchmarks “without regard to a vendor, manufacturer or other entity’s inability to supply compliant products.” Alltel challenged order on similar grounds, contending that “both as a legal and as a practical matter,” carriers should have chance to show why noncompliance should be excused if deadlines were missed due to reasons beyond their control. Alltel said large carriers had raised similar “extraordinary” circumstances, such as role of LECs in Phase 2 deployment. Today (Wed.) marks FCC Wireless Bureau deadline for certain large LECs to provide information on interconnections needed for E911 deployment.

Financial turmoil and accounting problems afflicting telecom and other utility industries are causing state regulators and lawmakers around country to take action designed to spot financial trouble early and are putting policies in place to deal with consequences of telecom bankruptcy and other finance-related disruptions.