WASHINGTON-The Federal Communications Commission appears to be attempting to develop
policy goals to solve the “dead zone” problem.
The FCC then would leave it to the cellular industry to
come up with technical solutions that meet its policy goals. “We [the Federal Communications Commission] are
at our best when we decide what should be done and then leave it [to industry to develop standards.] We are at our
worst when we define standards,” said Ari Fitzgerald, wireless legal adviser to FCC Chairman William
Kennard.
The dead-zone problem refers to the lack of coverage in some areas where only the A or B side of cellular
systems offer service. If you are an A-side customer traveling in a B-only area, you cannot receive or place calls in
areas known as dead zones. The dead-zone problem becomes particularly acute if the call being placed is a 911 call.
There have been at least two examples where people have died because a 911 call could not be placed. In another
example, Marcia Spielholz was critically injured in Los Angeles and her persistent calls to 911 could not be placed
because she was in a dead zone.
The Ad Hoc Alliance for Access to 911 petitioned the FCC on Oct. 15, 1995, to
require carriers to install a chip in handsets that would search for and place 911 calls using the strongest control
channel-regardless of which carrier, A or B, serves the customer.
The Cellular Telecommunications Industry
Association, which objects to the strongest/adequate signal proposal, urged the FCC last year to adopt A over B
roaming. This would first search the preferred side-the subscriber’s carrier’s side-and only place the call on the
unpreferred side if a signal could not be achieved.
Neither proposal would solve the problem of dead zones where
neither carrier offers service.
Both proposals offer engineering data to prove their superiority over the other. The
FCC has been evaluating this data to come up with a solution to the dead zone problem. There have been no
independent engineering studies submitted to the FCC. “Everything in the record has been presented on behalf of
one of the parties in the debate,” said an FCC official that declined to be named. The official did say there was a
“big engineering emphasis” being placed on this project and that it is difficult to “draw the line
between technical and policy decisions.”
The idea of policy objectives, which would be technically achieved
by industry by using the good points of both A over B roaming and strongest/adequate signal proposals, seems laudable
but in political reality may not work. Representatives of both sides last week still stressed that their solution is the only
one that can achieve the objectives. It would seem a solution that tries to “split the baby” would make no
one happy.
This prognosis did not please Fitzgerald who said the issue should not be one of winners or losers but of
solving the problem for consumers. “People are so involved in this battle that they have forgotten what this is all
about,” he said.
It is unclear exactly when the FCC will release its proposal. The buzz earlier this month at
Wireless ’99 was that it would be released at the FCC Open Meeting on March 18. FCC officials would not confirm this
date but one said “it was a front burner issue. It is always difficult to predict timing.”
In the meantime
the lobbying is expected to increase ever more. The Ad Hoc Alliance now has been joined in the fight by the Wireless
Consumers Alliance. WCA is a new group formed in support of the Ad Hoc Alliance but also is fighting the issue in
the judicial system. WCA works “hand-in-hand” with the Ad Hoc Alliance, said Carl Hilliard of the
group.
It is Hilliard who will be pressing the FCC to see things his way-in favor of strongest/adequate signal-during
the coming weeks. Last week he presented the FCC with “A Review and Comparison of Automatic A/B
Roaming and Strongest Signal” which he said proves Strongest/Adequate signal better achieves the stated goals
of both the FCC and CTIA. He also expects to bring to town a new “worst case scenario” involving the
Bloom family of Kansas.
The father of the Bloom family was burned to death when a call placed to 911 went to the
wrong public safety answering point and help didn’t arrive in time. Denise Bloom is expected to come with Hilliard to
plead her case before the FCC, Hilliard said.
