FCC, Providers, PSAPs, Vendors Rumble on E-911

Cooperation was the critical word at the July Wireless Location Systems & Applications conference. After two days of arguments and counter arguments, cooperation still beckons as the October E-911 Phase II deadline approaches. Like Ping-Pong in a shoebox, arguments came back as fast as they were hit forward. While vendors and providers pointed fingers at one another, public-safety officials pleaded for rapid implementation, and the FCC lurked on the sidelines.

Wireless providers admittedly haven't focused on E-911 as much as some might like. Jim Nixon, VoiceStream senior manager of regulatory affairs, noted that 98% of providers' efforts are devoted to build-out. Vendors, however, stressed that they're more than ready for Phase II. Representatives from Cell-Loc, Grayson Wireless, SigmaOne, SnapTrack, TruePosition and U.S. Wireless all expressed confidence in their solutions.

But Andrew Clegg, BellSouth Cellular senior manager of strategic technology, held a starkly different opinion: "Vendor claims showing compliance with FCC requirements are based on grossly inadequate and overly favorable testing procedures." Clegg believes that vendors have enchanted the FCC with such claims and that the commission has passed the mandate burden on to providers.

Mark Furnari, SigmaOne senior director of carrier business development, believes in the stringency of his company's testing procedures. SigmaOne tests whatever conditions providers ask for, in addition to its own unique situations, and Furnari said that SigmaOne has "no interest in spending millions to put technology on the carrier's network if it won't be accepted by the FCC." SnapTrack said it welcomes any testing challenge.

Clegg called it a certifiable fact that providers won't be able to meet the FCC's deadlines. His confidence in vendor technology is low: He argued that "no location technology meets the FCC accuracy requirements," nor will any future solutions "meet the accuracy requirement in time to meet the deadline." (Furnari responded that he was "quite offended" by this claim.) Clegg also called the accuracy requirements "fundamentally unachievable" and brought a rude awakening to providers' dreams of billions in revenue from location technology: "There has yet to be any commercial service proven to be profitable. Most of the market claims are from the vendors of location equipment, who draw enormous benefits from such claims." In the end, Clegg argued, providers will be able to recover only a "small portion" of their implementation costs.

Whether the vendor technology is truly ready or not, the chicken-egg dilemma begins when vendors resist producing the technology without a provider order, and providers balk at paying for the solution without seeing it proven and produced. Public-safety officials, meanwhile, shout from the sidelines to remind the industry of location technology's raison d'etre: saving lives. Joe Hanna, Association of Public-Safety Communications International president, reminded providers that wireless advertising uses safety as its leading message.

"It is time to deliver on that promise," he said.

Hanna also described E-911 implementation as a basic cost of business.

"It is a crime, a sin, that we're sitting here, scratching our heads, (wondering) how are we going to pay for this," he said.

John Melcher, Greater Harris County (Texas) 911 emergency network deputy director, acknowledged public safety's and the wireless industry's Phase I mistakes but urged everyone to cooperate and contribute to the work that remains. Rather than debate the validity of the FCC's accuracy requirements, Melcher wants the wireless industry to move forward before the inability to locate 911 callers becomes a public-safety crisis. "We won't hit unless we try," he said. "If they (the FCC) are wrong, then let's show them."

Though the industry now appears far from ready for Phase II, the FCC isn't backing down.

"The FCC expects carriers to undertake all steps necessary to achieve full compliance," said Kris Monteith, WTB policy-division chief. She said that the commission believes the original 5-year implementation period remains appropriate; extension requests, though, will be examined carefully. Murmurs that some providers prefer an indefinite period of time to complete E-911 compliance are "a very serious concern to us," she said.

Monteith fears that a mandate without a deadline would never produce Phase II systems, and she hopes the FCC will act on deadline-reconsideration petitions within August. Providers might have to stick to the original deadlines, but there will be room for flexibility: Even after Oct. 1, 2000, providers will be allowed to change their solution choices as long as they notify the FCC within 30 days of the change.

After two days of presentations, the tug-of-war rope remained taut. Whether the conference will impel cooperative efforts or only drive the respective parties further apart will become clear in the coming months. Hanna, though, fears the future is bleak. "You have built an impossible situation by not complying," he told Clegg.