FCC Wireless Bureau Chief Thomas Sugrue directed ILECs to make publicly available certain information related to interconnections needed for Enhanced 911 deployment by Aug. 28. Assn. of Public-Safety Communications Officials and other public safety groups have referred to LEC cooperation as “missing link” in some E911 deployment situations. ILECs’ provision of facilities and equipment needed to receive and use E911 data elements also is part of E911 technical inquiry being led by former Office of Engineering & Technology Chief Dale Hatfield. Sprint PCS also has raised concerns at Commission on what it has characterized as lack of progress among LECs in upgrading automatic location information databases needed to support Phase 2. “The Commission has found that ILECs have an obligation to provide nondiscriminatory access to and interconnection with their networks for the provision of 911 and E911 services to wireless callers,” Sugrue said in July 29 letter. Letter was sent to Sprint, BellSouth, Qwest, Verizon, SBC, Alltel. “To date, the Commission has not imposed on any ILECs any special obligations in connection with wireless E911, but has committed to monitoring their role in E911 implementation to determine whether additional obligations are necessary,” Sugrue said. He said ILECs were “integrally involved” in provision of E911 capability, with upgrades to ILEC services and facilities often required to enable LEC to pass E911 information from wireless carrier to public safety answering point (PSAP). “In light of the role played by ILECs in E911 deployment, we have concluded that certain information from ILECs should be made publicly available,” Sugrue said. He asked ILECs to provide information including location of each automatic location information (ALI) database, all PSAPs that it served, type of interface that had been or would be installed to pass along E911 Phase 2 information. Bureau also is seeking information on dates by which necessary database upgrades will be completed, interface that will be available for testing with wireless carriers, PSAPs or 3rd party vendors and interface that will be available for launch of live E911 Phase 2 service to subscribers. Bureau wants information on type of data that each ALI database will be able to receive and format in which company expects to receive data. “Identify the manner in which your company expects wireless carriers, public safety entities and/or 3rd party vendors to interconnect with the ALI databases and selective routers your company operates,” Sugrue said. He requested ILEC information explaining how costs of facility upgrades needed to support wireless E911 would be recovered, such as whether it would be through contracts or tariffs.

WHP Wireless and Pulver.com will run 12-month trial in Princeton, Mass., to assess potential of cellphones to replace wireline telephones. Test will attempt to determine maximum percentage of customers likely to use wireless as primary telephone by sorting out temporary from fundamental obstacles to conversion, Pulver.com research firm said. Marketing obstacles to wireline replacement that include user awareness, charges for incoming calls, reception problems, local number portability and enhanced 911 are expected to diminish over time, firm said: “It remains unknown whether there exist fundamental usability or other issues that will ultimately limit wireless conversions.” Trial will start in Sept. with goal of converting as many of 1,700 households in town to wireless as possible -- companies expect to convert at least 50%. In trial, WHP Wireless will provide each participant with CellSocket docking station, product that allows users to answer and place cellphone calls with existing wireline phones. Trial will attempt to reduce barriers to switching to wireless such as maintaining familiar home number, 911 lifeline service, reception problems and pricing plans, Pulver.com said.

Telecom bills advanced in Cal., N.C., Del., N.Y. and Mass. In Cal., Gov. Gray Davis (D) signed bill requiring all telecom service providers to conduct background checks on prospective employees to determine whether they posed threat to security of carriers’ networks. Under AB-1934, background check requirement applies not only to direct hires by carriers but also to contractors, vendors and their employees who have access to or contact with network equipment or customer premises. N.C. Gov. Mike Easley (D) signed bill to make Internet access service eligible for state universal service support. Measure (SB-641) also directs N.C. Utilities Commission to consider future evolution of telecom when considering what services should be eligible for universal service subsidies. Easley also signed HB-1521, which conforms state’s wireless taxation laws to federal Mobile Telecom Sourcing Act by making wireless services taxable at subscriber’s place of primary use, typically home or workplace, regardless of where call actually occurred. Del. Gov. Ruthann Miner (D) signed similar wireless taxation bill to conform Del. law to federal act (HB-492). N.Y. Gov. George Pataki (R) signed 2 telecom bills. First (SB-5027) allows state to extend right-of-way leases along N.Y. Thruway to 30 years. Previously, leases could run only 20 years. Second (SB-1607) directs Dept. of Public Service to study telecom services available to rural residents and make recommendations for legislation by Feb. 1. Study will look at whether status of communications systems is hindering small towns’ ability to attract and retain businesses. N.Y. legislature passed bill (SB-5207) to quintuple maximum fine for slamming. Under bill sent to Pataki, maximum fine would rise to $5,000 per slam, up from current $1,000. Measure would take effect 60 days after enactment. Legislature also passed AB-11669, which would authorize Nassau County to implement wireless E911 surcharge of up to 90 cents monthly on mobile phones of persons who live or work in county. Measure sent to Pataki would authorize fee but would requires the N.Y.C. suburb to pass its own enabling ordinance to put charge into effect. Mass. legislature passed bill (SB-2349) that would allow municipalities to modify telephone company equipment used for 911 service so their fire depts. could monitor 911 emergency calls. Under bill sent to Gov. Jane Swift (R), monitoring would be done only by trained fire dept. personnel at secure location. Another Mass. telecom bill, to create state no-call list (HB-5225), passed House and was sent to Senate. Bill would authorize state attorney gen. to maintain and enforce list and would set $5,000 fine per offending call. Victims would be able to file civil suits for damages. Mass. bill to extend contractor licensing to include telecom installers passed Senate Way & Means Committee. Bill (SB-2375) would require that telecom installers who perform work on commercial properties obtain state license by demonstrating competence before they could perform work on commercial properties. Requirement is similar to that imposed on electricians and alarm installers.

FCC “reluctantly and temporarily” delayed Enhanced 911 Phase 2 interim handset and network upgrade deadlines for small and medium-sized carriers, granting temporary stay of timelines for carriers such as Qwest and Leap Wireless. It delayed Phase 2 deadlines 7 months for medium (Tier 2) carriers, and 13 months for smallest (Tier 3) carriers. Ultimate implementation deadline of Dec. 31, 2005, for E911 Phase 2 caller location ability remains for all carriers, FCC said in order adopted July 11 but not released until Fri. Last fall, FCC created compliance plans with extended E911 implementation schedule for 6 national commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) carriers. Order released Fri. addressed similar relief for smaller, nonnationwide carriers for additional time to comply with E911 Phase 2 rules. “Because the record demonstrates that nonnationwide CMRS carriers have much less ability than the nationwide CMRS carriers to obtain the specific vendor commitments necessary to deploy E911 immediately, we grant these carriers temporary, limited relief from the E911 Phase 2 implementation rules,” FCC said. It said handset vendors and suppliers of network-based location technology “give priority to the larger, nationwide carriers.” Deployment schedules of those national carriers “have created downstream delays for Tier 2 and Tier 3 carriers,” Commission said. Nonnationwide carriers have told FCC they have been unable to focus vendors as group on needs of their networks, especially as those suppliers’ worked to fill orders from national companies. “We do not pass judgment on any particular manufacturer’s relationships with any particular smaller carrier,” agency said. “However, we find that the delays in overall nationwide carriers’ E911 rollout plans have resulted in an overall delay that has affected Tier 2 and 3 carriers.” Temporary stay of deadlines is in line with public interest “because it allows for a more efficient rollout of E911,” it said. “We note, however, that a continuing set of delays could seriously delay E911 deployment and therefore could reduce safety-of-life services for all Americans. While we are allowing a delay here, further delays could undermine the entire E911 rollout.” Benefits of interim delays allowed in order would be “outweighed” if further delays led to missing ultimate implementation deadline of 2005, FCC warned. It said it still believed full compliance by that date was achievable. By allowing each set of wireless carriers to launch Phase 2 rollout on different schedule, FCC may help to offload deployment problems faced by carriers that are traceable to 3rd party vendors, it said. “By focusing first on nationwide carriers, followed by Tier 2 carriers and then Tier 3 carriers, equipment manufacturers and location technology providers will be able to prioritize their responsibilities to serve carriers with the most immediate need first,” agency said. Tier 2 carriers include those with more than 500,000 subscribers at end of 2001 and include Alltel, CenturyTel, Leap Wireless, Qwest, U.S. Cellular, Triton PCS, Western Wireless.

CTIA refiled petition last week calling on FCC to eliminate “unnecessary regulations” in variety of wireless policy areas. CTIA said filing still was relevant even though U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., had backed off on issue that arose in Fox TV Stations v. FCC decision (CD Feb 20 p1). Last month, D.C. Circuit said it was “better to leave unresolved” interpretation of phrase “necessary in the public interest” that it used in original decision to ascertain whether FCC rules on national media ownership caps should be retained (CD June 24 p1). Some had interpreted that language to mean higher standard for retaining FCC rules under biennial review proceedings. Citing original D.C. Circuit decision in Fox, CTIA had made filing at FCC in May that sought elimination of “unnecessary” regulations in areas ranging from wireless local number portability to Enhanced 911. CTIA had included policies it said didn’t meet strict test of original Fox ruling of being necessary to meet public interest. “It is important to note that the D.C. Circuit did not repudiate the panel’s original analysis,” CTIA said in July 25 filing. “Rather it simply refrained from addressing the issue. Indeed, the panel’s original interpretation remains consistent with the statutory language contained in Section 11,” which covers public interest considerations. Citing extent to which Sec. 11 of Communications Act covered regulations “no longer necessary in the public interest,” CTIA said that language must be interpreted as against keeping regulations it wanted FCC to review. “Even if the Commission rejects the position that Section 11 heightens the standard for retention of rules, it must concede that imposing unnecessary burdens on carriers and introducing market efficiencies without corresponding social benefits does not serve the public interest,” CTIA said. It reiterated call that FCC “act quickly” to review all regulations affecting wireless carriers and to meet its statutory mandate to “repeal or modify” rules that aren’t “necessary in the public interest.”

FCC affirmed Wireless Bureau decision that pinpointed 911 selective router as demarcation point for dividing Enhanced 911 implementation costs between wireless carriers and public safety answering points (PSAPs). In letter last year to King County, Wash., bureau clarified that proper line for funding between carriers and PSAPs was input to 911 selective routers that ILECs maintained. Those routers receive 911 calls from LEC central offices and send them to specific PSAP that serves area of emergency caller. Nextel, Qwest Wireless, Verizon Wireless and VoiceStream asked full Commission to reconsider bureau decision. Order, adopted May 14 but not released until Thurs., said said drawing line for E911 cost allocations would speed “rollout of wireless E911 services by helping to eliminate a major source of disagreement between the parties so as to facilitate the negotiation process.” Bureau decision responded to inquiry from King County whether carrier or PSAP had responsibility for funding E911 Phase 1 network and database components and interface of those elements with existing E911 system. Bureau stressed it favored negotiation between parties as best way to resolve cost-allocation disputes. In petition for reconsideration, carriers argued better demarcation point was wireless carrier’s mobile switching center. They said bureau decision deviated from cost allocation for wireline E911 and discriminated against wireless carriers. Carriers said original decision constituted new bureau-created policy at odds with existing orders and exceeded bureau’s delegated authority. Decision by full FCC rejected carrier arguments that demarcation point went against existing regulatory language but said majority couldn’t be reached on delegated authority question, meaning issue was moot because FCC addressed merits of petitioners’ claims. FCC Comr. Copps said in separate statement he agreed with underlying bureau decision: “However, I believe that the bureau acted in violation of our delegated authority rules. Because the Commission was not able to reach majority on whether the bureau violated our delegated authority rules, that portion of the order was not adopted. The resulting order, which holds that the delegated-authority question is moot, but does not address whether the rule was violated, allows me to support this item.” Copps didn’t disclose which other commissioner prevented majority ruling on delegated authority question. In other areas, Commission said its E911 rules were ambiguous as to specific duties of parties in rolling out wireless E911. They didn’t pinpoint at what point in 911 network carrier must bring required data or at what point in network PSAP must be able to receive and use that data, agency said. It said bureau correctly interpreted regulatory provisions in light of existing network configurations. Analysis of Phase 1 information to ascertain which PSAP should respond to call was “central to a wireless carrier’s obligation to ‘provide’ emergency wireless E911 services,” FCC said. “Because it is the 911 selective router that performs these functions, the bureau rightly determined that a wireless carrier must deliver the Phase 1 data to the 911 selective router” to meet regulatory obligations, it said. Router is most appropriate cost-allocation point because “until the proper PSAP has been identified, no PSAP can ‘receive’ and ‘utilize’ the location data” under E911 rules, Commission ruled.

FCC turned down CTIA request to adopt wireless location information privacy rules that would cover notice, consent, security and integrity of consumer data, provoking dissent from Comr. Copps. So-called 911 Act passed by Congress in 1999 imposed clear legal obligations and protections for consumers, said order, adopted July 8 and released Wed. Agency said law was adequate and additional rules weren’t needed for now. “Because we do not wish to artificially constrain the still-developing market for location-based services, we determine that the better course is to vigorously enforce the law as written, without further clarification of the statutory provisions by rule,” order said. Commission said it would monitor those “important issues” and would launch rulemaking “only when the need to do so has been clearly demonstrated.” While Copps said he agreed with majority that legislation clearly outlined “opt- in” requirement to protect consumers, he said he disagreed that “this clarity of purpose renders Commission rules unnecessary.”

W.Va. PSC will consider proposal for new rules to improve communications between CLECs and county E911 centers. PSC opened investigation into CLEC-911 relationship (Case 02- 0705-T-PC) in response to concerns raised by W.Va. Enhanced 911 Council that CLECs were proliferating but often began operating without informing a county’s 911 system. That could cause problems when dispatchers tried to discuss wrong phone numbers or incorrect database information and would create potential for delay in sending emergency assistance, group said. Counties have urged PSC to adopt rule to require that CLECs notify county’s 911 dir. at least 30 days before starting service in that county, and to designate primary and backup contact persons available at toll-free number to handle 911 inquiries from system managers. PSC procedural schedule will be set later.

Members of Emergency Services Interconnection Forum (ESIF) on Fri. touted technical solution designed to stem increasing problem of crank or harassing 911 calls fielded by public safety answering points (PSAPs) from 911-only phones. FCC in April issued order requiring wireless carriers to use new code to alert PSAPs when 911 calls was made from handset that lacked callback capability, known as nonservice initialized phone. Typically, carriers assign dialable number to handset after customer signs service contract. Noninitialized phones, including 911-only units donated to domestic abuse programs, lack that number for PSAPs to call back for more information when 911 is dialed. Order requires carriers to program noninitialized phones with 123-456-7890 as “phone number” that will be used to notify PSAP that emergency call is coming from phone without callback capability. ESIF has been working on what it believes to be better solution than 123-456-7890 system set out by FCC, said Robert Gojanovich, manager of 911 service for Verizon and leader of ESIF study group on issue. Main strength of ESIF solution is ability to uniquely identify handset making call and help to pinpoint repeat callers, for isolating cases of harassment and highlighting legitimate calls that come in more than once, Gojanovich said in Fri. conference call sponsored by Alliance for Telecom Industry Solutions. In areas where Enhanced 911 Phase 1 or 2 isn’t yet in place, 911 calls can be made anonymously, particularly on phones that don’t have callback capability, Gojanovich said. National Emergency Number Assn. and Assn. of Public-Safety Communications Officials have been tracking problem, he said. “We are hearing more and more stories where hundreds of calls are placed from a person or handset into a 911 center,” he said. For TDMA and CDMA networks, solution on which public safety and industry have been working would transmit “911” in place of area code and last 7 digits of electronic serial number (ESN) of handset to PSAP, Gojanovich said. Equivalent to ESN also could be used for GSM networks, he said. Among benefits of that system is that information on handsets making bogus 911 calls could be used to prosecute offenders, he said. Wireless carrier network will capture that number, for example, and it can be printed out at PSAP as it’s received, he said. Once Phase 2 of E911 is more widely in place to provide location information on wireless callers, that information could be used to locate caller.

National Emergency Number Assn. (NENA) told FCC this week that several “open issues” on role that LECs played in supplying 911 services to public safety authorities could slow wireless Enhanced 911 rollout. NENA cited issues such as: (1) How LECs recover costs of 911 services supplied to public safety answering points (PSAPs). (2) Extent to which LECs are authorized to offer E911 Phase 2 refinements of such services. (3) “Regulatory interface” between FCC authority over wireless 911 implementation and state PUC authority over rates, terms and conditions of LEC intrastate service. “NENA representatives expressed concern that these and other open issues threatened to slow the pace of wireless E911 implementation,” group said in ex parte filing Tues. Filing said “wireless E911 cannot become ubiquitous until the wire facilities essential to its offering, such as selective routing switches, are available throughout the country.” NENA plans to develop proposal for early fall on how to make wireline network infrastructure more available for providing wireless E911 to less populated areas. LEC-related 911 issue is among those under examination as part of FCC technical inquiry led by former Office of Engineering & Technology Chief Dale Hatfield on E911 implementation issues. Wireless carriers, in some cases, have contended they have had difficulty obtaining necessary LEC facility upgrades for E911 Phase 1 deployment and fear issue also could emerge under Phase 2 rollouts. Wireless carriers such as Sprint PCS have stressed role of LECs in closing E911 connection among wireless subscribers, carriers, databases and public safety answering points. NENA said it had requests pending at FCC for clarification of identification of nonservice initialized phones, which include phones donated to domestic abuse programs. While requests cover how to treat harassing calls from such phones, “the issue also extends to the matter of ‘congestion control’ when, for example, large numbers of wireless calls to 911 report the same emergent incident at the same time.” NENA also expressed concern that development of wireless location technology for E911 called Enhanced Observed Time Difference (E-OTD) equipment for GSM networks “seemed to have stalled.” It said “predictions for its superior accuracy, relative to network location solutions, had retrenched.” Group said: “At some point, the holders of GSM Phase 2 waivers must be called on their promises to look at alternative location solutions if their initial E-OTD choice is not viable under the applicable waiver deadlines.”