WASHINGTON-The House telecom subcommittee heard testimony last Thursday on what Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) called “the most compelling issue to come before it this year: ” enhanced 911 deployment. But instead of a status report, the committee was treated to finger pointing and unanswered questions.
The finger pointing started when Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), ranking member on the subcommittee, said wireless carriers are more interested in deploying third-generation wireless than E911 solutions.
“The industry should not seek nor should the commission grant such waivers merely for corporate convenience. We should not allow such an important policy effort to be undermined by a `manana’ syndrome. I have no doubt that carriers would not want to expend resources now if they can postpone it for another quarter. That is understandable from a corporate perspective … While some in industry seem to wring their hands over cost and technological impediments to the deployment of E911 systems, they seemingly have no such concerns when it comes to the cost or technological impediments of the mass market. The wireless industry does not want the government to wait for `manana.’ They want spectrum today … I am supportive of such efforts; I would simply like to see the same aggressiveness in the deployment of public-safety enhancing technology as I see in their 3G efforts,” said Markey.
The sentiment that carriers are dragging their feet was echoed by Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), who said she wanted the carriers to detail exactly where they were on meeting the Oct. 1 deadline. This was a bit ironic since the only major carrier on the panel-VoiceStream Wireless Corp.-is also the only major carrier to have received a waiver from the Federal Communications Commission. AT&T Wireless Services Inc. and Nextel Communications Inc. have applied for waivers and Cingular Wireless Inc. has indicated it will file a waiver application. The other carrier on the panel, U.S. Cellular Corp., represented rural carriers.
“Every major carrier was invited but for their own reasons declined,” said Michael Waldron, Upton’s spokesman.
Representatives of Verizon Wireless and Nextel said they had not been invited. Cingular had a different view. “There were a number of carriers invited to testify,” said Brian Fontes, Cingular’s vice president for federal relations. “There are just a lot of things that are not appropriate for public hearing at this time.”
In the end, the status of E911 Phase II was not all that encouraging.
VoiceStream said the date for E911 Phase II implementation should be delayed nationwide to allow time for real world testing. “While great strides in technology have been made, especially over the last two years, the technology is not yet ready for full national commercial deployment, and the vast majority of public-safety agencies and their 911 networks are not close to being ready to receive and use wireless E911 information. A rushed deployment could waste hundreds of millions of dollars, without actually delivering a workable wireless E911 system. What is needed are `real world’ carrier-public safety trials of the various location technologies under development. Assuming these trials are successful, commercial deployment may be able to begin in late 2002 or early 2003. A thoughtfully planned national implementation schedule, then, will be needed to deploy E911 successfully,” said James A. Nixon, senior manager of 911 regulatory affairs for Voice-Stream Wireless Corp.
“It is simply not realistic to expect that far more sophisticated wireless location technologies can be deployed ubiquitously within the 12-month schedule mandated by the FCC,” added Nixon, noting it took 20 years for wireline E911 to reach 50 percent of the American population.
U.S. Cellular said the reason they are not ready is that network-based solutions are not suitable for rural areas and handset-based solutions are not commercially available. But most of all, Steve Clark, U.S. Cellular vice president of network operations, said the reason both phases of E911 deployment are being delayed is because the FCC removed the carrier cost-recovery mechanism in 1999.
Clark’s sentiment repeated long-held beliefs by U.S. Cellular. In fact, the company was so upset about the elimination of the cost-recovery mechanism that it sued the FCC. Oral argument in that case was heard May 15 and a decision is expected soon.
The public-safety representative, Steve Souder, administrator of the Arlington County, Va., 911 Emergency Communications Center, was unhappy with carrier comments.
“Admittedly, providing accurate location information for a wireless call is not a simple matter, and it is not without substantial costs. I note, however, that in the five-year period since 1996, a plethora of other new wireless telephone enhancements have been developed and marketed to the public. … I only wish the wireless industry and equipment manufacturers had developed E911 at the same pace as these convenience features,” said Souder.
Thomas J. Sugrue, chief of the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, testified that since neither Verizon Wireless nor Sprint PCS had indicated a need for a waiver, he expects them to be ready to comply with PSAP requests on Oct. 1. Verizon has indicated it will use a network-based solution, while Sprint PCS is going with a handset solution.
Speaking to reporters after the hearing, Sugrue said the wireless bureau most likely will wait for a complaint to be filed before it investigates whether carriers are complying with the deadline. He said he expects the bureau to track the status of the deployment of E911 Phase II in those areas that have already filed requests. He gave one caveat; however, noting the commission is still considering a declaratory ruling petition by Richardson City, Texas, on what constitutes a valid PSAP request. PSAPs claim the request is valid if it will be ready to accept E911 information on the deadline, carriers say PSAPs must be ready to accept the data when they file their E911 Phase II request. Sugrue said he expects the FCC will settle this issue well before the Oct. 1 deadline.
