YOU ARE AT:Archived ArticlesReport advocates not punishing carriers for missing E911 handset deadline

Report advocates not punishing carriers for missing E911 handset deadline

WASHINGTON-The Federal Communications Commission should avoid forcing carriers who have chosen to deploy a handset-based solution to comply with the wireless enhanced 911 Phase II mandates to switch out handsets if they have not reached the 95 percent threshold by the end of next year, said a report commissioned by the National Emergency Number Association’s Strategic Wireless Action Team.

“Performance requirements for wireless service providers are best focused on near-term handset and network cell site activation targets, and efficiently resolving readiness disputes. Enforcement actions should guard against unintended consequences, which are not in the public good; such as forced handset replacement, and should allow for legitimate factors outside of providers’ control, provided that good-faith efforts have been demonstrated,” reads the report written by the Monitor Group.

The report was released at a NENA SWAT press conference on Thursday morning.

While the report claimed to be a consensus view and there was agreement by rural carriers for a delay of the Dec. 31, 2005 implementation deadline – advocated by Nextel Communications Inc., there was also disagreement. Representatives of Cingular Wireless L.L.C. were on hand to pass out a press release dissenting on this point from the NENA SWAT report.

“Cingular opposes any delay in the FCC mandate for wireless service providers who are using E911 handset solution. The FCC wants those carriers to have E911 capable phones in the hands of at least 95 percent of their customers by Dec. 31, 2005. A delay in E911 deployment runs counter to the SWAT objectives,” said Brian Fontes, Cingular vice president for federal relations. “NENA’s suggestion runs counter to its own goal. NENA should be encouraging deployment of these life-saving services. The FCC already has procedures for entertaining any individual carrier’s request for delay.”

ABOUT AUTHOR