WASHINGTON-Consumer advocates are opposed to the “policy goals” approach
government appears to have embraced to solve the wireless 911 dead-zone problem and have raised concerns about the
decision-making process associated with the emotionally charged issue.
The Wireless Consumers Alliance, which
advocates the strongest-signal approach to solving the dead-zone problem, told the Federal Communications
Commission Feb. 18 that policy goals were not sufficient. Indeed, WCA’s Carl Hilliard said he asserted to FCC staff
that policy goals would mean that “strongest signal would not see the light of day.”
The dead-zone
problem refers to the lack of coverage in some areas where only an A- or B-side cellular carrier offers service. An A-
side customer traveling in a B-only area cannot receive or place calls in areas known as dead zones. The dead-zone
problem becomes particularly acute if the call being placed is 911.
At least two people have died because a 911 call
could not be properly placed. In another case, Marcia Spielholz was critically injured in Los Angeles when her
persistent calls to 911 could not get through to emergency dispatchers because she was in a dead zone.
The Ad Hoc
Alliance for Access to 911 petitioned the FCC in 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 serves the customer. The
proposal has since been modified to “adequate signal.”
WCA-formed to support the Ad Hoc Alliance-
also is fighting the issue in the courts. WCA works hand-in-hand with the Ad Hoc Alliance, Hilliard said.
The
Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association last year submitted its own proposal, known as “A over
B” or “Automatic A/B Roaming.” This would send the call to the customer’s carrier first and only if a
connection could not be established would the call be sent to the competing carrier.
The policy goals would allow
the industry to implement A/B rather than strongest signal, said Karen Rackley, of the FCC’s Office of Engineering and
Technology. “Yes, they could choose the A/B option, strongest signal or they could come up with a different way
… [It would be] a marketplace choice at that point,” Rackley said. Rackley attended at least one of the meetings
WCA had with the FCC on Feb. 18.
Last May, CTIA said it believed the FCC would choose strongest signal. But
now, following intense months of lobbying, CTIA may be declaring victory. At least one wireless carrier said CTIA
reported to it on Feb. 1 that the FCC would choose A/B.
CTIA vehemently denies any such communication with its
members occurred. “We don’t even feel we have victory. If we had victory we wouldn’t be getting these …
questions from the FCC. We are certainly not [declaring victory]. I think we are finally getting a reasonable audience
from the FCC and we are very, very happy about that,” said Tim Ayers, CTIA vice president for
communications.
The FCC said it wants the two sides to submit proposed language on what the rules should look
like, according to parties to the debate.
Neither side has submitted its proposal, but the timing of the requests raises
questions whether a final decision has, in fact, already been made. FCC officials last week insisted they had not made
up their minds on how to address the dead-zone challenge. CTIA said it is trying to deal with this “unusual”
request, while Hilliard said Friday that he would be submitting his language within the next 10 days.
Ari Fitzgerald,
wireless adviser to FCC Chairman William Kennard, quashed speculation the FCC would rule on the matter at its
March 18 open meeting.
According to Hilliard, it was late in the Feb. 18 meeting when Rackley said the agency was
waiting for CTIA to submit proposed rule language. Hilliard said he was stunned at the revelation, given that the FCC
had not made a similar request of WCA or the Ad Hoc Alliance. However, once the matter came into the open, the
FCC said it would welcome proposed rule language from Hilliard, he said.
WCA should not feel it is being slighted
in its access to policy makers, the FCC said. “The alliance has and continues to have considerable access. I had a
lengthy meeting with them. I have not had a comparable meeting with CTIA. They [The alliance] are very much
involved in the process. I would assure Carl of that,” said Thomas Sugrue, chief of the FCC’s Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau.
WCA continues to press its views before the FCC. In a letter submitted on Friday,
WCA maintained the industry will do everything to thwart 911 call completion.
“The wireless industry wants
to handle the fewest number of non-revenue 911 calls possible and limit such calls to those from their subscribers. This
has been CTIA’s position from the outset of this proceeding when it proposed to block calls to 911 unless they were
placed by a paid-up customer on the subscribed to system. The [FCC] had no difficulty in finding that CTIA’s position
was contrary to the public interest then and it should have no difficulty now reaching the same conclusion concerning
Automatic A/B Roaming because the very same rationale applies,” Hilliard said in his letter.
