As the FCC awkwardly confronts one challenge after another with respect to Phase I and Phase II
E911 implementation and the ‘dead zone’ issue, one gets a faint sense that regulators have become
mesmerized.
Listen carefully, and you almost can hear a collective “Oh, it’s all so confusing.” It is. But
so what.
Worse, and a tad more cynical, one wonders where the political will is to take control of unresolved issues
of life and death import that are the core of the FCC’s mandate under the Communications Act of 1934.
It’s not clear
whether the FCC is up to the task. The rhetoric is there, but there’s a sharp drop-off after that. Political splitting-the-
baby deals don’t cut it where lives are on the line.
To be sure, side issues of E911 (funding, liability, technology,
interconnection) and dead zones are tough-some are out of the FCC’s control. Some aren’t. Congress last week filled in
where the wireless industry believes the FCC failed by making 911 the universal emergency telephone number and
granting limited liability protection to carriers.
Then there are the lobbyists. Wireless, public safety and consumer
advocates have put in as many hours at the FCC as dedicated civil servants and political appointees. They roll in, armed
with persuasive arguments, technical data and cryptic warnings.
So here we are. Phase I E911 last April 1 triggered
the kick-in of automatic call-back and cell-site location identification. Could have fooled me. Compliance is around 5
percent or so.
Phase II E911, requiring that emergency wireless callers be located within 410 feet much of the time,
appeared all set for takeoff on Oct. 1, 2001. But the FCC, in a legally questionable move, is contemplating granting
waivers of that compliance date to carriers with second thoughts about deploying network-based automatic location
identification technology.
Seems some carriers believe they might need a wee bit more time to decide whether a
precision GPS-handset solution works better. Here, too, questions involving uncertain technological and policy trade-
offs are vexing.
And there is the dead-zone problem, the new politically correct term for strongest signal, adequate
signal and A/B roaming.
After reporting last week the FCC’s apparent decision to set “policy goals” in
lieu of mandating a technology solution for dead zones, RCR learned of some peculiarities-if not irregularities-with the
FCC’s decision-making process on dead zones.
The FCC insists no final decision has been made. Consumer
advocates believe they’ve been had and that regulators are on the verge of approving a solution to dead zones that is no
solution.
Meanwhile, Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association President Tom Wheeler has been spotted
around town with a Cheshire Cat-like smile on his face.
