High Noon for E-911?

Like two gunfighters in the wild West, wireless providers and PSAPs are facing off for a high-stakes duel.

Wireless providers and public safety answering points (PSAPs) are firing off comments and reply comments in a proceeding in which the FCC could decide to increase providers' economic burden for providing E-911 service.

The gunfight at the FCC corral was initiated by King County, WA, E-911 Program Office seeking the bureau's determination that wireless providers, rather than PSAPs, would have to foot the bill for numerous facilities upgrades required for the provision of E-911. King County and other counties in Washington state, which are attempting to implement Phase I E-911 services, realize that their equipment will be unable to decipher E-911 information if it is to be provided by wireless providers. Rather than pick up the tab for upgrading its 911 network and databases, King County has turned to the FCC for a ruling that would obligate providers for the costs of the upgrade beyond the wireless switch to the ILECs' selective router. When the FCC released a public notice requesting comment, the other gunslinger - wireless-service providers - appeared. They urged the FCC to find that for regulatory purposes, the economic burden should fall on PSAPs, who in the wireline context have supported 911 network upgrades under ILEC tariffs. As the gunslingers pepper each other with pleadings, it has become clear that this is not an isolated dispute, but rather a duel that could be played out in every state if the underlying issues are not clearly resolved by the FCC.

Some would say that this show- down was a long time coming. In a 1996 Report & Order, the commission took a major step to bring E-911 to the public by requiring providers to offer Phase I service - i.e., providing PSAPs with the telephone number of the originator of a 911 call and the location of the cell site or base station receiving a 911 call from any mobile handset accessing their systems. However, the FCC declared that providers would only have to meet this requirement if two preconditions were met. First, the PSAP requesting the E-911 services had to be capable of receiving and using the data elements associated with the services. Second, the PSAP had to have a mechanism for recovering the cost of the service offered by the provider.

In December 1999, the FCC significantly altered course by eliminating the precondition of a cost-recovery mechanism be in place before the provider's E-911 obligation arises. The commission made the change because it was convinced that this requirement "had become a significant impediment to implementation of (the first phase of E-911 deployment)." The unintended consequence, however, may have been to introduce additional uncertainty into already issue-laden discussions between providers and PSAPs.

On Aug. 16, 2000, the commission issued a public notice at the behest of King County seeking comment on three Phase I E-911 issues: whether a demarcation point exists that separates the responsibilities of providers and PSAPs; whether the demarcation point will vary with the technology used; and whether the implementation of wireline E-911 networks provides a rationale or precedent for a particular division of costs. The initial comments, which were filed Sept.18, revealed a schism between wireless providers who do not want to pay and PSAPs who do not think that PSAPs should have to.

The Wireless Posse Commenters from the wireless camp included AT&T Wireless, Nextel, Qwest, SBC, Sprint PCS, Verizon and VoiceStream, as well as CTIA, Powertel and U.S. Cellular. With few exceptions, the members of the wireless posse would put the demarcation point at their own wireless switch. SBC and Nextel went a step further in encouraging the commission to place the demarcation point at the LEC selective router. AT&T, for its part, argued that due to circumstances unique to Washington state, it is willing to bring E-911 calls to the selective router in Washington, but still favors a wireless-switch demarcation point as a general rule. Powertel, SBC and U.S. Cellular argued in their comments that once a demarcation point has been established, the technology employed should not impact the division of costs.

On the final issue, whether the wireline E-911 experience should be instructive in the wireless E-911 context, U.S. Cellular and others argued that PSAPs have always paid LECs for facilities used in the provision of 911 services and, therefore, the FCC should impose an analogous regime for the provision of wireless E-911. SBC stated that, as a general proposition, "no provider should be responsible for network interconnections over which that provider has no control." Moreover, Sprint PCS argued, imposing E-911 costs on wireless, but not wireline, providers would be unreasonably discriminatory under the commission's rules and policies, as well as the Wireless Communications & Public Safety Act of 1999.

The PSAP Camp The PSAP camp declared that the providers' responsibilities should extend further than the wireless switch. Several state and national groups supported King County, including the Texas Commission on State Emergency Communications and the National Emergency Number Association (NENA), the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International (APCO), and the National Association of State Nine One One Administrators (NASNA), filing jointly.

In general, the PSAP camp argued in favor of a demarcation point just before the LEC selective router, while a few would include the LEC selective router as a wireless-provider-cost responsibility. King County contends that the selective router is the appropriate demarcation point and "has already been established as the demarcation point between the existing E-911 system and other telecommunications services," including CLEC services and private telephone systems.

The PSAP camp decried the precedential value of the wireline treatment of E-911 costs to the extent that precedent imposed any upgrade costs on PSAPs. In their comments, several in the PSAP camp asserted that providers, whose rates are not regulated, could pass the cost of Phase I E-911 implementation on to their customers thereby relieving PSAPs from the need to foot the bill.

Reinforcements In the reply period, Southern Linc encouraged the FCC to act as a gap filler in states without cost-recovery laws.

Qwest, U.S. Cellular, Verizon and VoiceStream reasserted their support for wireless-switch demarcation and wireless/wireline cost parity.

Then APCO, NASNA, NENA and King County reaffirmed their opposition to the wireless position. APCO, NASNA and NENA asserted that PSAPs purchase special networks from LECs for their wireline 911 service, but no such networks are needed for wireless E-911. Consequently, PSAPs should not be obligated to fund the E-911 network beyond the LEC's selective router.

Now that the shooting is over, the FCC is expected to take action. Unfortunately for the bureau, this does not appear to be a case in which a middle ground is readily apparent. With significant dollars at stake, and the potential for a FCC decision with nationwide applicability, this issue bears close scrutiny by the wireless industry. Unless the commission can strike an artful balance, the wireless posse and the PSAP camp may well find themselves back at the FCC corral or even a judicial corral.