WASHINGTON-A hearing on an E911 bill backed by a cellular industry-public-safety coalition and championed by House telecom committee Chairman Billy Tauzin (R-La.) backfired last week when the measure’s supporters were forced to defend their opposition to independent cancer research and to a consumer-group proposal on access to 911 wireless signals.
The bill would make 911 calling uniform throughout the country, fund emergency communications system upgrades with fees wireless carriers pay to site towers on federal land and extend liability protection to wireless carriers. The measure is scheduled for subcommittee markup on Wednesday.
“Americans are dying today who don’t have to die,” said David Alyward, executive director of the ComCare Alliance. He said the measure “will dramatically reduce response time to emergencies and provide the information needed to deliver appropriate emergency response.” About 83,000 wireless emergency calls are made daily.
There is no companion bill in the Senate. Both houses are under pressure to wrap up legislative business by early October because of midterm elections.
“We take the `search’ out of search and rescue,” said Tauzin. The measure, which has limited bipartisan support, also would help fund federal research on automatic crash-notification technology.
But some lawmakers at last Tuesday’s hearing suggested the bill could end up benefiting carriers far more than public-safety interests, which the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association sought to help lobby the E911 measure.
While wireless carriers would gain leverage from the bill to site antennas in national parks and on other federal property, it is unclear whether the public-safety community would receive anything near the $1.5 billion promised to them by industry over the next five years.
“We don’t think there are billions of dollars out there to be raised,” said David Bibb, deputy associate administrator of the General Services Administration.
Bibb said GSA, which oversees the bulk of government property in urban areas, is pulling down only $1 million a year from siting fees. He said very few siting applications have been turned down.
One person with close ties to public safety last week said he is telling others not to expect a dime from the E911 legislation and that public-safety support for the Tauzin bill is passive and more gratuitous than anything else.
The bill came under toughest scrutiny from Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), ranking minority member of the telecom panel, and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.)
Eshoo, who successfully fought to end the practice by some carriers of blocking 911 cellular calls, said she is not convinced the industry is doing everything it can to ensure subscribers get access to the best signal possible in an emergency, regardless of carrier affiliation.
The cellular industry and some public-safety groups oppose a strongest-signal mandate on technical and operational grounds.
The Ad Hoc Alliance for Public Access to 911 says strongest-signal technology does not have the downside industry claims and that opposition is based on fears that a strongest-signal regulation would undermine the rationale for E911 legislation. CTIA has denied that motive.
Markey opposition
Markey, for his part, said he opposes giving liability protection to wireless carriers with coverage gaps in their systems.
In addition, Markey said a portion of fees from federal land antenna siting should go toward federal cancer research. The cellular industry and its health-care allies are vehemently opposed to the idea. But Markey is adamant about the proposal and is expected to try to get it amended to the Tauzin bill at markup this week.
“Isn’t there enough money that’s going to be generated that 5 percent of it could be set aside so that we could definitively answer the question that millions of Americans ask themselves on an ongoing basis, whether they’re doing themselves or some family member any harm by the constant use of the cell phone?” Markey asked. “Can’t we use part of the money for that purpose?”
ComCare representatives said such funding mechanisms are already in place and discounted the possibility that pocket phones pose a health risk to any of the 50 million mobile users in the United States.
Markey wasn’t dissuaded.
“The federal government licenses this product. The federal government certifies the equipment. The federal government allows the towers on federal land. The federal government, however, can’t say that they [pocket phones] are safe … We don’t know if they don’t cause cancer,” said Markey.
Alyward said various wireless-cancer studies are going on, none of which has indicated a health risk. Tauzin pointed to the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection’s conclusion there is no evidence to link mobile phones to cancer.
Markey replied the Department of Health and Human Services wrote him in January that more radio-frequency health-effects research is needed and that a concerted government effort would help shed more light on the issue.
“The point is all the studies that are being referred to are industry studies,” said Markey. “It’s not that I question the sincerity of these studies any more than the tobacco industry studies.”
When challenged some overseas studies are government-sponsored, Markey asked why the United States is not doing the same.
In one heated exchange, Markey told John Melcher, director of MIS Greater Harris County 911 in Texas, he should not so easily dismiss the wireless-cancer question.
In addition, Markey said the bill is crafted so wireless carriers as well as public safety response centers can tap into the wireless public-safety fund.
