WASHINGTON-The FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau on Thursday denied a request from AT&T Wireless Services Inc. to keep confidential test results showing some enhanced 911 Phase II technologies won’t work for the carrier.
“We find that the public interest requires that these materials be made available for public inspection. … AT&T asserts-without explanation-that the materials `contain proprietary and confidential trade secret and commercial information that would not otherwise be available to the public.’ Although some trade secrets and commercial or financial information are automatically accepted by the [Federal Communications Commission] on a confidential basis, the materials in question do not fall under these exceptions,” said an order signed by Kris A. Monteith, chief of the WTB policy division.
AT&T did not seem upset about the order. “If people want to see it, that’s fine,” said Ritch Blasi, AT&T spokesman.
Blasi said the only reason AT&T asked for confidentiality was because the information was technical. “We just file it that way so as to not confuse people,” he said. He stressed, however, that due to nondisclosure agreements-the reason AT&T gave the FCC when it requested confidentiality-he would be unable to explain the difference between the filing made public and the confidential version. AT&T lobbyists will be able to discuss the information with the FCC, he said.
AT&T filed a waiver from the Phase II Oct. 1 deadline on April 4. Last week, before the WTB action, the industry commented on the waiver request. Not surprisingly, industry supported the waiver, while public-safety advocates were against it.
“The AT&T request for waiver illustrates why [the Association of Public-safety Communications Officials International Inc. and the National Emergency Number Association], as public-safety organizations, fear that the waiver process, unless strictly administered, threatens to push the commission farther down a slippery slope toward indefinite delay in the deployment of Phase II E911 capability,” said APCO and NENA in joint comments.
E911 is being deployed in two phases.
Phase I required carriers to supply a callback number and cell-site location information to public-safety answering points. Phase II requires more precise location information with the extent determined by whether a carrier chooses a handset- or network-based solution. Handset-based solutions must be able to locate the caller within 50 meters 67 percent of the time and within 150 meters 95 percent of the time. Network-based solutions must be able to locate the caller within 100 meters 67 percent of the time and within 300 meters 95 percent of the time. Carriers using a handset-based solution have until Oct. 1 to start selling handsets with automatic location information. The new schedule calls for 25 percent of all new handsets activated by Dec. 31 to be capable of delivering automatic location information. This number rises to 50 percent on June 30, 2002, and 100 percent on Dec. 31, 2002. Carriers who choose network-based must deploy the solution within six months of a PSAP request.
AT&T asked for a waiver that will allow it to implement two different Phase II technologies. The first, known as the mobile-assisted network location system (MNLS), would be implemented by April 2002 but would not meet the FCC’s accuracy requirements. The second, enhanced observed time difference of arrival, would be deployed as AT&T Wireless overlays its TDMA network with GSM technology.
“To determine the most viable Phase II location solution for its TDMA network, AT&T devoted lengthy, focused efforts to identifying, investigating, analyzing and in some cases conducting field trials of multiple potential location service technologies, including network overlay solutions … radio-frequency pattern matching technology; handset-based solutions, and hybrid solutions. … Because it uses functionality already present in the wireless network, these efforts … demonstrate that MNLS is overwhelmingly the most beneficial solution for its TDMA customers and the public-safety community,” said AT&T in its public filing.
In a related action, the wireless bureau also requested that Nextel Communications Inc. make certain information available as part of its waiver request.
Nextel said it needed more time to develop and deploy a handset-based assisted global positioning system technology. Nextel, however, did not file the results of the tests that it said proved the technology was not yet available.
The enhanced SMR operator has until May 20 to provide information about its E911 Phase II testing and how its expected conversion from iDEN to CDMA technology will impact its rollout of Phase II implementation.
Finally, in other 911 action last week, the FCC said that wireless carriers are responsible for the costs of delivering E911 information to the 911 system maintained by the wireline phone companies.
“While the costs of installing, maintaining, and upgrading components necessary to deliver Phase I information to the 911 Selective Router are not insubstantial, we believe that these costs properly repose with the wireless carrier rather than with the PSAP. … As telecommunications carriers whose rates are not regulated, wireless carriers have the option of covering these Phase I costs through their charges to customers, either through their prices for service or through surcharges on customer bills,” said Thomas J. Sugrue, WTB chief.
Public-safety advocates were pleased with the decision, while the industry wasn’t.
“The wireless bureau’s letter on cost recovery in King County was certainly interesting. We disagree with the county’s interpretation and are frankly concerned with how this might impact our already significant level of Phase I deployment throughout the nation. What’s a carrier to do? The development sure won’t help speed future deployment, and now we need to spend time and effort considering what legal steps we may need to take,” said Jeffrey Nelson, spokesman for Verizon Wireless.
King County, Washington last year asked the wireless bureau to declare whether the county, as the PSAP, or the carrier was responsible for costs associated with deploying E911 Phase I service.
Who has to pay for E911 costs became an issue when the FCC eliminated the requirement that a cost-recovery mechanism for both PSAPs and carriers be in place before E911 service was required to be deployed. This rule change, implemented in 1999, is the subject of a court case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that will be argued on Tuesday.
Carriers have been required to deploy E911 Phase I since April 1, 1998, once they receive a PSAP request. Some say that 50 percent of the PSAPs have made such requests. Others claim the number is much lower.
