WASHINGTON-In the midst of such weighty issues as antenna siting, taxes and digital wiretap implementation, the cellular lobby has chosen to lock onto a lesser-known-albeit important-matter involving a proposal to steer 911 calls from analog phones to the strongest signal.
The cellular industry, backed by two major public-safety organizations, claims a so-called strongest-signal proposal before the Federal Communications Commission has technical deficiencies that would hinder emergency wireless calls and the development of E911 position-location technology. As a result, cellular carriers say they could face increased legal liability from 911 glitches if the proposal is approved.
Strongest signal’s vocal proponent-the Ad Hoc Alliance for Public Access to 911-asserts the cellular industry overstates potential problems and understates would-be benefits of a strongest signal rule.
The FCC is considering a proposal that would require cellular carriers to program cellular phones to send 911 calls to the A- or B-side system that offers the best signal regardless of which carrier provides service to the caller.
The issue has a highly-charged emotional component that has been magnified with national media scrutiny of injuries and deaths due to 911 cellular calls that were not answered.
In addition to alleged technical shortcomings, the cellular industry has suggested strongest-signal advocates may be motivated not by consumer altruism but by money-money for an inventor who would stand to profit handsomely from an FCC strongest-signal mandate and trial lawyers who want the freedom to sue cellular operators for 911 glitches.
The latter charge stems in part from Ad Hoc lawyer Carl Hilliard’s successful effort to kill a California bill that would have exempted cellular carriers in that state from 911 liability. Hilliard said he is not a member of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.
The Ad Hoc Alliance believes wireless carriers should not have carte blanche 911 liability protection because they do not shoulder obligations, like universal service coverage, imposed on local wireline telephone companies, which are exempt from 911 liability.
Indeed, the cellular industry suspects trial lawyers and a strong-signal technology inventor are conspiring behind the scenes to push strongest signal through.
“These guys are desperate and lying,” said Jim Conran, chairman of the Ad Hoc Alliance. “We take no money from trial lawyers.”
Conran, accompanied by a former MGM lawyer who was shot in the face by a carjacker after repeated 911 wireless calls were not connected, plans to make rounds this week at the FCC.
The FCC, for its part, appears to be under immense pressure from consumer activists and the cellular industry. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau has yet to send recommendations on the strongest-signal proposal to the five commissioners.
Wireless 911 access proponents embrace the theory that strongest-signal and antenna-siting issues are one in the same.
A strongest-signal rule, according to the alliance, would remove the compelling public-safety argument wireless carriers make when seeking antenna-siting approvals. A strongest-signal ruling also could undermine E911 legislation introduced by House telecommunications subcommittee Chairman Billy Tauzin (R-La).
“They [the cellular industry] use public safety as a fear mechanism,” said Conran.
The Tauzin bill, which is a top legislative priority of industry this year, would use revenue from fees paid by wireless carriers to site antennas on federal land to help underwrite upgrades to 911 dispatch centers and government development of automatic crash-notification systems. In addition, the measure would make 911 the uniform wireless emergency number throughout the country and free wireless carriers from 911 liability.
“It’s a malarkey issue. It’s a phony issue,” said Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association President Thomas Wheeler, regarding the allegation that a strongest-signal ruling would undermine wireless carriers’ efforts to get antenna sites approved.
Wheeler said strongest signal will hurt more people than it will help.
While the technical and operational feasibility of strongest signal remains subject to debate, industry suspicions about one inventor’s motivations appear unfounded.
“I haven’t given them [the Ad Hoc Alliance] a dime. Not one dime,” said Robert Zicker, director of intellectual property management at GTE Services Corp. Zicker holds patents on strongest-signal technology.
Zicker, who also created wireless voice mail, a cordless mobile phone and other devices, said his views are his own and not necessarily shared by GTE Wireless. Zicker said he has not lobbied for passage of the strongest-signal proposal.
A GTE Wireless spokeswoman said the firm has “real technical concerns with the [strongest-signal] proposal.”
Zicker ruffled industry feathers several years ago when he came to Washington-with GTE’s support-to lobby Rep. Anna Eschoo (D-Calif.) and former FCC chairman Reed Hundt for wireless 911 open access. The FCC agreed with GTE and ruled carriers must connect all wireless 911 calls. But the agency was silent on strongest signal.
Wheeler denied any friction with GTE Wireless, a member of CTIA, as a result of Zicker’s lobbying efforts on 911 open access in 1995 and 1996. GTE Wireless President Mark Feighner was not be available for comment.
Wheeler said CTIA this week will ask the Telecommunications Industry Association-a technical standards-setting body dominated by manufacturers-to find a solution by this fall that balances interests of consumers and public safety.
Doing so would get the FCC off the hook for now and buy time for CTIA to pursue passage of E911 legislation before Congress adjourns for midterm elections in early October.
