[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENSURING COMPATIBILITY WITH ENHANCED 911 EMERGENCY CALLING SYSTEMS: A
PROGRESS REPORT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET
of the
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 14, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-31
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-728PS WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
JOE BARTON, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
FRED UPTON, Michigan EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida RALPH M. HALL, Texas
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHRISTOPHER COX, California FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma BART GORDON, Tennessee
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
GREG GANSKE, Iowa ANNA G. ESHOO, California
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia BART STUPAK, Michigan
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois TOM SAWYER, Ohio
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona GENE GREEN, Texas
CHARLES ``CHIP'' PICKERING, KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
Mississippi TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
VITO FOSSELLA, New York DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ROY BLUNT, Missouri THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
TOM DAVIS, Virginia BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
ED BRYANT, Tennessee LOIS CAPPS, California
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
STEVE BUYER, Indiana CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California JANE HARMAN, California
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
MARY BONO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
David V. Marventano, Staff Director
James D. Barnette, General Counsel
Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOE BARTON, Texas BART GORDON, Tennessee
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Vice Chairman ANNA G. ESHOO, California
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
CHRISTOPHER COX, California GENE GREEN, Texas
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BART STUPAK, Michigan
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico JANE HARMAN, California
CHARLES ``CHIP'' PICKERING, RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
Mississippi SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
VITO FOSSELLA, New York TOM SAWYER, Ohio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
ROY BLUNT, Missouri (Ex Officio)
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
(Ex Officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Testimony of:
Amarosa, Michael, Vice President, Public Affairs,
TruePosition............................................... 12
Clark, Steve, Vice President, Network Operations, U.S.
Cellular................................................... 18
Nixon, James A., Senior Manager, Regulatory Affairs,
VoiceStream Wireless....................................... 27
Rimkus, Andrew J., Vice President, Airbiquity, Inc........... 24
Souder, Steve, Administrator, Arlington County 9-1-1
Emergency Communications Center............................ 35
Sugrue, Thomas J., Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. 40
(iii)
ENSURING COMPATIBILITY WITH ENHANCED 911 EMERGENCY CALLING SYSTEMS: A
PROGRESS REPORT
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 2001
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Fred Upton
(chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Upton, Largent, Shimkus,
Pickering, Terry, Markey, Eshoo, Green, McCarthy, Luther,
Harman, and Sawyer.
Staff present: Howard Waltzman, majority counsel; Yong
Choe, legislative Clerk; and Brendan Kelsay, minority
professional staff.
Mr. Upton. Good morning, everyone. Welcome. Before we
proceed with opening statements I want to show a brief newsclip
from the Fox News which shows a real life example of a 911
emergency. Why don't you turn off the lights. It's about 2
minutes long.
[TV replay of newsclip.]
Mr. Upton. Again, good morning. As subcommittee chair, I've
made one of my top priorities finding ways to improve people's
lives through technology and E911 technology is certainly a
class example of this.
The topic of today's hearing is one of the most compelling
to come before the subcommittee this year. This is a topic that
certainly hits home as I've used my cell phone to call 911
three times, most recently in April. While traveling through a
rural part of my District, I witnessed a terrible car accident
involving seven people. Everyone did survive the crash,
although a number of them are still recovering, but I can tell
you one thing for sure. Because I knew exactly where I was the
County Emergency Services people were able to respond quickly,
thereby increasing the survival rate of those involved.
But what if I wasn't able to pinpoint the location of that
accident? There's a very dangerous false notion among many in
America that when you call 911 from your cell phone, the
operator on the other end of the line knows exactly where
you're calling from. With cellular technology becoming more and
more available, nearly 60 percent of the calls made to 911
centers are made from cell phones.
While preparing for today's hearing, I've come across many
sad stories from my State where people have died of heart
attacks, other accidents, while snowmobiling, even though they
called 911. And like many others, they assumed that because
they called 911, the operator, in fact, would be able to locate
them. Well, they were wrong. Tragically, there are hundreds of
stories just like this. The bright spot on the horizon is that
technology exists to pinpoint a caller's location, but unlike
wire line phones, automatic location identification is not yet
widely transmitted to the 911 dispatch center. But thanks to
the Wireless Communications and Public Service Act, we are
getting closer to the day when this will be the standard.
Today, we'll find out just how close we are to that day. We
know that the FCC has set October 1 of this year as the day
when wireless carriers are required to begin providing
automatic location identification as part of Phase 2 E911
implementation. What will all of this mean once it's up and
running? Based on the required Phase 2 accuracy standards,
handset solutions should be able to provide location
information within 50 meters for 67 percent of the calls and
150 meters for 95 percent of the calls. For network based
solutions it should be within 100 meters for 67 percent of
calls and 300 meters for 95 percent of the calls. To those
observing outside of Washington, at first blush today's hearing
may seem technical and abstract, but it's not. As we go forward
today I would like to put the panel's testimony in context. I
want to put a face on the issue. It's the face of the loved
ones who might be saved when E911 is there to assist emergency
services personnel in finding those in trouble.
I should note that this is an ambitious plan. The U.S. is a
leader in this area and it's absolutely the right thing to do.
Adding E911 to our arsenal of rescue capabilities will even
further distinguish our country in that regard. I understand
that there are financial burdens on both carriers and local
governments, not to mention significant long-term planning
which factors into all of this. For sure, the technology is
complex and evolving and the complexity is compounded by the
variety of options which wireless carriers are mulling over as
they plan for the next generation of services, making the
tangled web of decision all the more daunting with October
rapidly approaching.
We cannot ignore those realities and we cannot let the
realities take our eye off the ball either. We know that some
carriers have already requested waivers. Some have not. Some
still may and I would imagine that a number of our 911
emergency centers at home will be ready to roll much quicker
than perhaps some others. But today we want to get a status
check on all of that to find out where we are today and what,
if anything, needs to be done to ensure what we are doing to
reach the goal line and save lives in as timely a manner as
possible.
I look forward to the testimony today and I yield to the
ranking member, Mr. Markey.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to commend
you for holding this hearing today. The Federal Communications
Commission first adopted wireless E911 rules 5 years ago. This
government-driven effort was intended to spur the deployment of
life saving technology, technology that would help locate
wireless callers during emergencies.
In 1995, when the rules were first adopted, there were
roughly 30 million wireless consumers in the United States.
Today, there are well over 100 million wireless consumers.
While the Commission's rules are in place, the end of the first
5 year developmental period is coming to a close and the phase
in of E911 technology is due to commence on October 1, 2001.
The FCC and Congress have used these 5 years wisely, in my
view. The Commission adjusted its rules as technology evolved
to permit not only the use of network based location
technology, but also handset based technology which typically
employ use of global positioning system technology in the
wireless device.
Congress, meanwhile, moved to enact legislation that
designated 911 as the national number for wireless emergency
calls promoted limited liability protection for carriers and
establish privacy protection for consumers. Without question,
there are challenges involved in deploying any new technology
in a timely fashion across a market base of tens of millions of
consumes. A number of carriers have sought waivers from the
October 1 deadline and at least one carrier has received a
limited waiver. When there are truly compelling reasons to
grant such waivers, I am confident that the Commission will
give such requests all due consideration. I would suggest,
however, that the industry should not seek nor should the
Commission grant waivers to the rule merely for corporate
convenience. We should not allow such an important policy
effort to be undermined by a manana syndrome. I have no doubt
many carriers would prefer not to expend resources now if they
can postpone it to another quarter. That is understandable,
from a corporate perspective, yet we need to keep this issue in
context.
The wireless industry often markets their phones as safety
devices. Millions of consumes become subscribers with safety as
a leading rationale for their purpose. There are many cases
already where wireless phones have enhanced public safety and
saved lives. We've already heard about some of those instances
this morning. We want to build on that record. It is important
for the industry which every day endeavors to become an
indispensable agent of the new economy and a fungible
substitute for traditional wire line technology to deliver on
the promise of what this technology can do to save lives.
Second, the wireless technology requires to make location
of callers available to public safety officials already exists.
There are a number of companies that took the FCC's initiative
and deadlined seriously and began to develop products and to
innovate. These companies have already expended millions of
dollars to develop these products based upon the FCC's rules.
We have witnesses today from a couple of such companies to
testify to this fact this morning. In addition, while some in
the industry seem to wring their hands over costs and the
technological impediments to deployment of E911 systems, they
seemingly have no such concerns when it comes to the costs of
technological impediments to mass market deployment of new
technology when it comes to 3-G, a so-called third generation
wireless technology. The wireless industry doesn't want the
government to wait for manana when it comes to 3G. They want
spectrum today. They stipulate that it is a national priority.
It is such a priority that they want the government to take
spectrum allocated to other users away and move other users in
order to reallocate it for 3G services. That's some request and
the government is prepared to move on that request. I am
supportive of obtaining more spectrum for 3G. I would simply
like to see the same alacrity and aggressiveness in deployment
of public safety enhancing technology that I see in their 3G
efforts.
As a final point, I want to make two statements to commend
the FCC and the industry. First, the wireless industry needs to
commended for the way in which they have handled the thorny
issues surrounding privacy and the new wireless location
technology. I offer the amendment to the E911 legislation that
required carriers to obtain prior express authorization of the
consumer before location data on wireless consumers could be
collected used or disclosed. The wireless industry has embraced
this policy and has worked diligently, in my view to make it
work.
I look forward to the FCC's implementation of the statute
and my provision and to working with the wireless industry
subsequently at the Federal Trade Commission to ensure that all
marketplace participants operate under equitable and pro-
consumer privacy rules.
Finally, I would like to commend the FCC and the Wireless
Bureau, in particular, for their proactive efforts to make E911
a reality for the nation. Next Tuesday, this committee will be
holding a hearing on the Ford Explorer Firestone tire issues.
What became evident to many of us last year was that the
Federal agency responsible for this industry failed to
adequately protect the public and was woefully deficient in
proactively promoting public safety. Such has not been the case
at the Federal Communications Commission. There are few areas
in telecommunications policy where we can see a direct causal
connection between policy decisions we make and the benefit to
individual Americans. This is one of those areas. The FCC
initiative, without question will save lives. It will help
police and fire officials to do their job better. I encourage
the FCC to stay the course and to keep moving forward on this
issue. Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding
this hearing today.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Markey. Mr. Terry from Nebraska.
Mr. Terry. Thank you. I'll make my remarks succinct,
hopefully. I will start with a conclusion and that conclusion
is that cell phones have been adopted by our society as a basic
safety tool. I'll give two experiences to back that up. I come
from a City Council, Omaha, Nebraska City Council. I spent 8
years to help develop our 911 Center. As I was putting that
together, going to a unified approach, 800 megahertz and all of
that, one of the interesting things I found out is what happens
when an accident occurs in the city. We get about 30 calls all
at one time. What that means to me is that people travel with
their cell phones with the intention of using them as a safety
device. Fred, you mentioned the experience you had on three
occasions using it. Likewise, I had an experience coming from
our family cabin in Colorado. I'm on I-70 in the middle of
nowhere in the middle of the night and up ahead of me you have
that gut wrenching experience of all of a sudden seeing
headlights go up and then sideways in clouds of dust, right in
front of you. I didn't know exact location. This happened about
four summers ago, by the way. I had our cell phone. I dialed
911. It was a bizarre experience. Because what I got was a
county operator who grew frustrated that I didn't know where I
was other than saying I think I'm about 45 minutes outside of
Denver maybe an hour, traveling east. Well, that isn't our
jurisdiction. You have to either call this number, not a 911
number, but started reading a series of phone numbers that I
was supposed to call until I hit the right jurisdiction and
that was the best that they could do for me. In the meantime,
my cell phone battery is getting that little bleep in there and
I could not connect to the right jurisdiction at that time.
While there are bodies laying on the highway, literally, I'm
not exaggerating, people unconscious laying in the highway in
front of me and I had to go through a miserable process of
trying to get them help. Fortunately, someone else had a cell
phone at the same time and they were able to go through the
correct litany and finally help arrived, helicopters, the whole
nine yards. But it told me that not only again reinforcing that
cell phones are a basic tool and integral part of safety tool
in our society today, but that we have to encourage the
advancement of technology so that we can locate people, that we
can more helpful in making sure that in the middle of nowhere,
whether it's a car accident on I-70 in eastern Colorado or the
hills of Michigan when you're snowmobiling that you can get
help there in a timely manner and they know where to go.
In that regard, how we transition this technology, waivers,
whatever, I will always keep in mind that this is public safety
that we're looking at and the technology in order to improve
public safety. Sure, there can be give and take and yes, there
can be compromise, but you've always got to keep in mind those
people laying on the side of the road or by their snowmobile
tragically hurt that need help. So that will be my focal point
as we discuss this important issue today and I yield back.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Sawyer.
Mr. Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit my
opening statement for the record, but I would like to make a
couple of observations. I think it's important to recognize
that 911 has been with us for a relatively brief period of
time. It was marginally within the last 20 years that most of
this has been implemented across the United States. That
technology has improved markedly the ability to in many,
particularly urban jurisdictions to develop appropriate
jurisdictional identifiers, to transfer responsibility for
answering calls or implementing mutual assistance arrangements
among jurisdictions, all have been on the human side of going
toward making this technology a useful tool in public safety
and law enforcement for that matter.
The technology that we're talking about in terms of whether
it's triangulation of geopositioning technology, you have to
remember is an imperfect technology applied to an imperfect
technology. How many of us have had the frustration of sitting
there talking on the phone and someone on the other end saying
I simply can't hear you. The real concern that I have is that
in implementing the technology that people understand that the
simple dialing of a number may not make the connection that you
need and that if you are in a particularly dire circumstance,
that you may actually have to go through and make a personal
connection in order to carry out the kind of contact that the
technology suggests ought to be easy. That's not to argue
against timely implementation of this, but it is rather to
recognize that all of us have an obligation to make users of
cell phones who seek to implement 911 contact aware that it may
not have been a success and that they need to verify it's
completion.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. Ms. Eshoo.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and first I want to
thank you for having the hearing and second for the goals that
you set forth as Chairman of our subcommittee. It's refreshing
to hear that the applications of technology, as you stated them
for the betterment of the people of our country. I mean we say
we want that and today's hearing is really all about that, so I
want to thank you for both.
It's really of the utmost importance that we examine why
the American public may be forced to wait even longer for
access to the lifesaving technology that we've seen
demonstrated, both on the screen this morning, that's been
referenced by my colleagues.
Wire communications have been a boon for safety and to
safety and if there are two things that we're responsible for
in this country in the public sector it's public health and
public safety, certainly in Congress, the defense of our
nation, but these two principles we really need to make good
on. And I'm afraid that we're lagging on both fronts. Today, we
talk about minutes. We have made progress because it wasn't all
that long ago that we talked about hours. It's pretty clear
that wireless technologies can and do save lives.
By now, we've heard numerous stories about people's lives
that have been saved and I know that the Wireless Foundation
honored heroes from all over the country, all 50 States for
their use of cell phones and getting emergency service to those
in need very recently, so I want to point that out because I
think it's very important that they do it and that it
highlights both the technology and how people are using it.
However, with the significant increase in emergency calls
made from cell phones we also hear about the unfortunate people
and the unfortunate stories made from cell phones where they
didn't work or they didn't make the connection that they needed
to make in the time that was at hand. So oftentimes the
accident area is known, as my colleague just talked about, but
the specific location is not and that can mean life or death,
so the need for location technology is really immense.
The need is also not new. Five years ago, as a new member
of this committee, I introduced legislation to require location
monitoring in every cell phone. The FCC decided to act. They
established October of this year as the deadline when mobile
phone carriers must provide automatic location information to
at least 50 percent of the population served by the Emergency
Call Center, so goals were set, legislation was introduced that
nudged and the FCC picked up on that and I was thrilled. Every
time the FCC came before the committee, regardless of the
issue, I would ask them on an update in this effort.
So as we approach the deadline, I don't think we're seeing
compliance, but rather waivers and we know that waivers equal
delay. The FCC has received waiver requests from companies
asking for extensions of time. I think today we want to examine
why. Is it simply delay, not enough resources put into this? Is
it, as I would have said to my kids, is this an excuse? How far
along are we? If you put X number of dollars of resources into
this, how close do we come, by when to this 50 percent goal in
October 2001?
I think that my colleagues have stated the case very well
so far. I hope you think that I have. I want to hear back from
you how many of you are requesting waivers and why? how close
are you and by when? Do you think that we'll ever have to
hearing on this again, given what you tell us?
I think people in the country are awaiting the good news.
None of us know when we are the ones that will have to be
reliant on this and I dare say that women especially have
bought into the wireless industry so that they have that
security in their hand, to dial 911 and to receive the help
that they're looking for. So that's what I hope you'll address
today, and if you don't, I'm going to ask you, but I hope
you'll volunteer the information before the question is asked
and I thank the Chairman again for holding this hearing. It's
an all time important one.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Anna G. Eshoo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
Thank you Mr. Chairman for calling this essential hearing. It is of
the utmost importance that we examine why the American public may be
forced to wait even longer for access to important life saving
technology.
Wireless communications have been a boon to safety. Because of
wireless, the call for help comes far sooner than a decade ago. Today
we talk about minutes . . . we used to talk about hours. Its pretty
clear, wireless technologies can and do save lives.
By now we have heard numerous stories of people saved by the use of
their cell phones. In fact, just last week the Wireless Foundation
honored heroes from all fifty states for their use of cell phones in
getting emergency services to those in need. I applaud the wireless
industry for improving our nation's safety and I look forward to this
partnership continuing for years to come.
However, with the significant increase in emergency calls made from
cell phones we also hear about those unfortunate situations in which
someone calls for emergency personnel and is not reached in time,
mainly because he or she could not be located. Often times, the
accident area is known, but the specific location is not. Clearly, the
need for this location technology is immense.
The need is also not new. Five years ago, after I introduced
legislation to require location monitoring in every cell phone, the FCC
decided to act. They established October of 2001 as the deadline when
mobile phone carriers must provide automatic location information to at
least 50 percent of the population served by the emergency call center.
As we approach that deadline, we're not seeing compliance, but
rather waivers which equal delay.
The FCC has received waiver requests from companies asking for
extensions of time. To its credit, it's required the submission of
specific information such as timelines for compliance before granting
the request. But what we need to find out is why these waivers are
necessary in the first place. So today I'd like to hear from our
witnesses how much they've actually spent over five years for
deployment.
The response of some may be that the FCC established a deadline
that was too ambitious. When I hear that some technologies are simply
awaiting use by the carriers, I can only conclude that it may be the
carriers whose efforts haven't been ambitious enough. We've certainly
heard quite a bit about the resources devoted to upgrading mobile
systems to bring about the wonders of 3G devices, but for some reason
the idea that lives can be saved through technology has not been a
strong enough incentive.
We are here today because the future of our nation's public safety
and security systems are inevitably linked to wireless. And like
wireless, we know the call for help can come at anytime from anywhere.
There are 140,000 emergency wireless calls made every day. For the
individual caller, it is the single most important call they will make
and it is made with the expectation that it will be successful in
bringing help. With so much weighing on that call, we cannot fail.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Largent.
Mr. Largent. I yield.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly, the
E911 legislation we passed, I think was a significant piece of
legislation that promoted good public policy and I was really
pleased to be part of that. I've actually used 911 numerous, as
many times we're on the road and it's just been amazing how it
can help save life and limb.
My colleagues have gone over some of the FCC deadlines and
where we're at and we don't want to have another hearing to
keeping following up. We'd like to see how far we're
progressing and inquire about the Phase II standards.
I would also like to use this opportunity to thank the
cellular industry for the donate a phone program which I am
heavily involved in and encourage my colleagues, if they
haven't been involved with the donate a phone program. My
colleagues, Ms. Eshoo mentioned about women being invested in
life saving technology, well, the cellular industry helps us
recycle phones and I do that in my office and we do that during
our office hours and we collect, and you'd be shocked how many
old cellular phones are out there and they recondition them and
they give them back to abuse shelters and they reprogram about
maybe three numbers, they speed down 911, maybe the housing
shelter, maybe the local police, direct line call. I probably
in my office, have probably donated hundreds of phones through
my constituents back to the industry. I want to thank you. That
kind of ties into this whole 911 issue. If we get to Phase II
and we can do some location, then these women that are using
it, mostly women in the abuse shelter, not only have the
security of having something that they have from the time they
leave their work to the time they get home, but also they know
they can be easily identifiable in their location which is just
added protection.
So again, thank you all. I wanted to use that opportunity
to plug that program and E911 is a good piece of legislation.
Let's help us all get to Phase II as soon as possible and I
yield back my time.
Thank you.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. Ms. McCarthy.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to put my
formal remarks in the record and just reflect on a point or two
so we can get going and hearing from our panelists today and
I'm very grateful that they're here.
We, in Kansas City, have a unique challenge because we are
metropolitan in two States, Kansas and Missouri come together
there along the State line and road and a river. Neither of the
General Assemblies, not in Kansas nor Missouri, have stepped up
to the plate and been able to pass a bill to figure out how to
pay for this unfunded Federal mandate that we set down. I am a
big supporter of the bill and the effort. I think it's
essential, but the costs are daunting. In our metropolitan
area, we have 39 emergency dispatch centers in 8 counties that
make up the metropolitan area and I'm very concerned. We do
have a company in our metropolitan area, Sprint, that looks
like it's going to be ready to go on the deadline. They've
stepped up to the plate, but we haven't figured out how to
upgrade and make it possible to use this service and when the
Kansas City Star did an article reflecting on this dilemma, it
pointed out that wireless carriers fought legislation in both
States because they did not get the share of revenue that they
wanted from the tax, said Greg Balentine, E911 manager for the
Regional Planning Council. The FCC repeatedly has ruled to its
credit that wireless service providers are not entitled to
government cost recovery. ``Simply in both States, this is a
matter of corporate profits winning out against public
safety,'' Balentine said.
I commend the FCC for trying to enforce the law we passed.
If we need to give them more tools, Mr. Chairman, I hope we
will look into that. I do not want to delay implementation, but
I do think that this is a very serious issue and I'm so glad
you're having the hearing today.
Mr. Luther?
Mr. Luther. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and certainly
appreciate the comments that have been made by other committee
members. I'll be very brief as well. As has been stated this is
a very serious public safety issue. I think the entire country
is aware of the amount of resources the cell industry puts into
marketing and certainly we are very well aware of the resources
that are put into legislative efforts to get competitive
advantages against other players in this arena. I think the
Committee will want to be assured that the same level of
resources commitment is being made on this key public safety
issue and so I'll be looking forward to hearing and reviewing
testimony of the witnesses and the other evidence presented in
making this decision.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Ms. Harman.
Ms. Harman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a statement for
the record, too, but would only make several points.
First of all, I was not a member of this subcommittee or
even a Member of Congress when the underlying legislation
passed, although I think it was, is a very valuable piece of
legislation.
Second of all, I have two young daughters myself, and I
believe that most of the people sitting before us have young
daughters or mothers or whomever who need access to this 911
service and I would just point out that these emergencies can't
wait and that there is no excuse, as far as I'm concerned, good
enough to justify letting these emergencies wait. And if it
were your daughter or your mother or someone who could not get
relief, you would be very upset. Apply that to all of our
constituents and to the whole country out there that we are
trying to serve.
I come to this with the basic attitude that you have to
make this work. There are issues about unfunded mandates. There
are issues about competitive advantage. There are bureaucratic
issues at the FCC. There are one hundred excuses, but I don't
think as a basic point of view that any excuse is good enough
to make this wait and I, as one member of this committee, stand
ready to help you achieve the requirements in the law.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. I would just note for the record that there are
a number of subcommittees that are meeting all at the same
time, so by unanimous consent I will ask that all members of
the subcommittee will be able to put in the record their
opening statement.
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Chairman, Committee
on Energy and Commerce
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing today.
911 services in this country have saved many lives. And enhanced or
E911 services offered by wireless carriers present us with the
opportunity to save even more lives. So I commend you, Mr. Chairman,
for conducting this progress report on wireless carriers'
implementation of E911 requirements, especially so-called Phase II
requirements.
During the 106th Congress, this subcommittee and this committee
worked very hard to enact the Wireless Communications and Public Safety
Act. That legislation designated 911 as the universal emergency number
for wireline and wireless services in the United States for reporting
an emergency and requesting assistance. That legislation set the
framework for providing consumers with rapid access to emergency
personnel regardless of whether a consumer was in his or her home,
driving down the street, or on the other side of the country.
In addition, the FCC has been crafting E911 rules for the past five
years. E911 services are particularly important because such services
provide public safety answering points (PSAPs) with the telephone
number of an emergency caller as well as an idea of the caller's
location.
It is the rules governing how accurately and how reliably a
wireless carrier must pinpoint someone's location that bring us here
today. These rules are ambitious. Phase II location accuracy and
reliability rules require handset-based solutions to locate a caller
within 50 meters for 67 percent of all calls, and 150 meters for 95
percent of such calls. And, for network-based solutions, a wireless
carrier must locate a caller within 100 meters for 67 percent of the
calls, and within 300 meters for 95 percent of such calls.
While these requirements are phased in, they nonetheless present
carriers with a daunting task. The goal of these rules is to save as
many lives as possible by enabling PSAPs to pinpoint the location of
callers. But we need to make sure that these rules do not get ahead of
both technology and common sense.
We will hear today from several different sides whether the
technology exists to meet the FCC's ambitious accuracy and reliability
standards. But I also hope that today's testimony will shed light on
the costs and feasibility of meeting these standards. The wireless
industry has been one of the primary drivers of the growth of our
economy, and it continues to grow at a phenomenal pace.
But the wireless industry is also in the midst of significant
change. Carriers are beginning to focus on the next generation of
services, and the technology they will need to deploy the next
generation of services. We need to be cognizant of the fact that the
short-term goals of the FCC's E911 rules have an impact on the long-
term planning undertaken by carriers to prepare for advanced services.
We must ensure that the E911 rules are not implemented at the expense
of, but rather in conjunction with, potential upgrades of our nation's
wireless services and infrastructure.
I want to end my comments where I began: implementation of E911
services will save countless lives. I commend all of the parties, the
carriers, the PSAPs, the manufacturers, and the FCC, for years of
effort to make wireless E911 a reality. And I encourage you to continue
to work together to ensure that all Americans have access to E911
services as quickly as possible.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing. I look
forward to our witnesses' testimony and the light that they can shed on
our progress in implementing the FCC's E911 rules.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eliot Engel, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New York
Thank you Mr. Chairman: The wireless revolution never ceases to
amaze me. From the shrinking size of the phones to the rapidly
expanding areas of coverage of service, this is a great American
industry. It has a great deal to be of which to be proud.
I want to thank our witnesses for their time and efforts and look
forward to their testimony. I also look forward to speaking with Mr.
Amarosa, who spent more than two decades working for the New York City
911 center. I would like to work with him to bring his company to New
York, so that he can return to his true home!
Today we are looking into the development and deployment of the
E911 system. I do understand that there are concerns about the use of a
network system versus a handset based system. Though, the network
system is more readily available, I do know the handset equipment is
being manufactured. In reviewing the two systems, I think it is obvious
that the handset system is the better way to go--not that it is
technologically better, but it deals with one of this Congress' major
challenges--Privacy.
Many of my constituents have expressed concerns about having their
movements monitored at all times--yet we all recognize the great
benefits of this technology. Thus, as with many other parts of the
technology revolution we must figure out how to balance these competing
issues.
As I understand the present two systems, the network system tracks
a person's location at all times, whereas the handset system instead
only activates when 911 is dialed if the chip is on the cell phone
mother board, or if a button is pressed for units that are attached to
an older hand set. At first glance, from privacy point of view, I
believe the handset technology will be preferred by consumers.
I want to take a minute to acknowledge the efforts of the wireless
community. I have been very impressed by the Wireless Foundation's
Heroes Awards programs--recognizing the efforts of ordinary people who
used their cell phones to call for emergency medical aid, report a
crime, or just help a neighbor. When the E911 system is fully deployed,
these stories will become far more dramatic and far more numerous.
I think of my daughter, who attends a school in upstate New York,
driving back to the Bronx. What if she we to get lost and have a flat
tire--out in the middle of no where--well compared to the Bronx anyway.
With one simple call, she could get help from the police who would
instantly know where she is. As a parent, I know it would provide a
sense of comfort to me.
So Mr. Chairman, I am excited about this latest development in the
wireless industry. I can only say, we must deploy with all due haste!
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Michigan
Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding a hearing on an issue that
directly affects the health and safety of all Americans.
This Committee held its last hearing on the rollout of ``Enhanced
911'' (E-911) systems nearly two years ago. Since that time, public
safety agencies and wireless companies have made great progress toward
deploying this life-saving service. But we are now less than four
months away from the date wireless carriers are obligated to begin
providing this service, and there is still much work to be done.
Unfortunately, every day these systems are delayed, lives are
jeopardized.
Wireless phones have become an integral part of our lives. More
than 100 million Americans own a wireless phone, and a growing number
of those are actually giving up their wired phone entirely. While
convenience certainly plays a role, research shows that the reason most
often cited for purchasing a wireless phone is safety.
In fact, today, one-third of all emergency 911 calls are made from
wireless phones. Unlike traditional wireline 911 calls, these calls do
not include essential information such as the location of the caller
or, in many cases, a telephone number to call back in case of a hang-up
or dropped call. The absence of this critical information wastes time.
Wasted time costs lives.
Medical professionals refer to the hour immediately following an
accident as the ``golden hour.'' It is during this period that
emergency personnel are most able to prevent permanent injury or death.
Being able to pinpoint the location of a 911 call is, therefore,
absolutely vital.
I understand that many public safety agencies have expended a great
deal of effort and capital to complete system upgrades in anticipation
of the FCC's October 1st deadline, and many more are in the process of
doing so. These investments are certainly in the public interest, and I
commend them for their diligent work.
On the carrier side, however, the situation is a bit more
complicated. When the FCC issued its first E-911 order in 1996, the
agency assumed the only way to locate a wireless phone was through a
network-based system. But today, due to advances in Global Positioning
Systems, it is possible to gather location information through the
handset itself. The FCC has modified its compliance deadlines and
standards to account for these changes in technology.
While it certainly makes sense to adapt rules to conform to new
technology, there is an inherent danger that final action will
continually be postponed. In fact, the deadline for E-911
implementation was delayed once before, and additional waivers are
currently before the Commission.
A balance must be struck between the need for speed, which saves
lives, and the need for efficiency, which saves money. I urge the
industry and the Commission to redouble their efforts to find the point
at which both of these goals are properly maximized.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, and I also
express my appreciation to each of the witnesses for appearing today.
Mr. Upton. You heard the buzzer sound. We have a series of
votes, two of them, I understand, so we're going to take a
brief recess and we will begin then with your opening
statements on the panel and my guess is it will be about 5
minutes after 11 when we start that period. So we'll stand
adjourned until then.
[Brief recess.]
Mr. Upton. I suspect that we're going to have a vote in
another hour or so, but we've got a little time and I want to
say too from all of us on the dais, we appreciate you sending
up your testimony within the rules. It makes it a lot better
for all of us to take that testimony the night before and begin
to look at it.
Your full statements are made as part of the record. We'd
like to limit your remarks to 5 minutes so you can go through
your statement, summarize it, whatever you want to make your
case.
We're delighted to have as part of our panel Mr. Michael
Amarosa, Vice President, Public Affairs of TruePosition; Mr.
Steve Clark, Vice President of Network Operations, U.S.
Cellular; Mr. James Nixon, Senior Manager, Regulatory Affairs,
VoiceStream Wireless; Mr. Andrew Rimkus, Vice President of
Airbiquity; Mr. Steve Souder, Administrator of the 9-1-1
Emergency Communications Center in Arlington, Virginia; and Mr.
Thomas Sugrue, Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
of the FCC.
Mr. Amarosa, we'll start with you. And because of the
cameras and the folks that are close in the audience, if you
can make sure that that mike is close. That will be terrific.
Thank you.
STATEMENTS OF MICHAEL AMAROSA, VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLIC AFFAIRS,
TRUEPOSITION; STEVE CLARK, VICE PRESIDENT, NETWORK OPERATIONS,
U.S. CELLULAR; ANDREW J. RIMKUS, VICE PRESIDENT, AIRBIQUITY,
INC.; JAMES A. NIXON, SENIOR MANAGER, REGULATORY AFFAIRS,
VOICESTREAM WIRELESS; STEVE SOUDER, ADMINISTRATOR, ARLINGTON
COUNTY 9-1-1 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER; AND THOMAS J.
SUGRUE, CHIEF, WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU
Mr. Amarosa. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
good morning. I am Michael Amarosa, the Vice President of
Public Affairs for TruePosition. It is a privilege to appear
before you this morning. Everyone here would agree that
Enhanced 911 is a much needed and critical public safety tool.
It is the technology that ensures the expedited delivery of
emergency services to those in need.
Mr. Chairman, TruePosition has a wireless location system
for Enhanced 911 that has been developed and tested over many
years and I am proud to say it works. TruePosition is a company
that has committed its very existence to the wireless location
technology and E911 services. We have made a substantial
investment to develop and provide commercially available
location technology that meets the standards established by the
Federal Communications Commission.
After years of research, development and real world
testing, we stand ready to continue to work with public safety
communities and with the carriers, both large and small, to
make E911 a reality and to meet the FCC deadline for Phase II
implementation.
The core of TruePosition's business is providing location
information of a wireless phone to the public safety agencies.
TruePosition believes that 911 services already available on
the wireline side should be available to the growing number of
wireless phone users. TruePostition holds 14 United States
patents encompassing the methods, processes and apparatus for
calibrating a wireless location system that yields extremely
accurate measurements.
We've tested more than 400 cell sites in a variety of
environments. The substantial investment TruePosition has made
in developing and implementing our technology demonstrates that
accurate and reliable location information is not a future
dream, it's available now.
From a personal perspective, I spent 24 years in public
safety. As the Deputy Commissioner for Technological
Development in the New York City Police Department it was my
responsibility to deploy a range of technologies that helped
police officers, fire fighters and emergency service
technicians do their jobs. I can personally attest to the
critical role location information plays in saving a life and
stopping a crime. The child who knows only enough to dial 911,
the victim who is not sufficiently coherent to remain on the
line, or the traveler who does not know where he is at all, can
be found and help can be dispatched.
TruePosition's technology allows all existing cellular and
PCS phones to be located. No adjustment needs to be made to a
consumer's existing handset. TruePosition's architecture
supports technologies currently used by more than 95 percent of
the wireless phones worldwide. We developed and tested our
system in all types of geographic areas and RF environments.
Our technology encompasses the four major air interfaces.
TruePosition's wireless location system operates as an overlay
to the carrier's network. It requires minimal changes to the
existing network infrastructure and has a negligible effect on
the cell sites and does not create any additional traffic on
the network.
Rigorous testing has been a critical part of TruePosition's
development of its products and its service. Testing is an
integral part of every system, varied geography, innate
character of radio signals and other conditions require that
each system be adapted specifically for a carrier and to the
environment in which the carrier operates.
As early as 1997, we tested our system's integration with
the 911 call centers. A test was a cooperative effort with New
Jersey, several county governments and wireless carriers and at
that point it showed that our system was able to deliver
information to the public safety answering points and enabled
them to locate the wireless callers.
More recently, we've conducted extensive tests of our
system in Philadelphia, Wilmington, Delaware and in New York
City. The New York City involved the most challenging
environment for radio propagation. Almost half of the test
calls were made inside of multi-story buildings in midtown
Manhattan. Standard mobile phones were used to make more than
30,000 test calls in an area covered by 30 cell sites. The
system demonstrated sub-100 meter location results in a variety
of indoor, outdoor, pedestrian and moving vehicle scenarios.
The test results demonstrated compliance with the FCC
requirements.
Mr. Chairman, the technology is ready. TruePosition stands
ready to serve the industry and the public's need and I thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Michael Amarosa follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Amarosa, Vice President, TruePosition,
Inc.
On behalf of TruePosition, Inc., it is a privilege to appear before
the Subcommittee to discuss the implementation of E911 Emergency
Calling Systems. I believe and hope, that everyone in this committee
room today would agree that Enhanced 911 is a much needed and critical
public safety tool. It is a technology that ensures the expedited
delivery of emergency services to those in need.
Our company, TruePosition, is a company that has committed its very
existence to wireless location technology. We have made a substantial
investment to develop and provide commercially available location
technology that complies fully with standards established by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). After years of research,
development and real world testing, we stand ready to continue to work
with the public safety community and with carriers, both large and
small, to make E911 a reality and to meet the FCC deadline.
TruePosition commends the Subcommittee for holding this hearing and for
once again focusing public attention on this important public safety
issue.
The need for Enhanced 911 or E911 has been recognized for several
years. It originates from the dichotomy that when a person calls 911
from a traditional phone, public safety agencies can automatically
determine the individual's location; yet if the same person calls from
a wireless phone, a public safety agency must rely on the caller to
provide an accurate location. As more than 43 million wireless calls to
911 are made annually from existing wireless phones, the need to
implement E911 is critical. With the impending FCC deadline of October
1, 2001, the Nation is at the threshold of a tremendous upgrade in how
fast public safety agencies can respond to individuals in need. The
leadership of the Subcommittee, and of the FCC, has been a critical
part of the progress that has been made.
TruePosition, founded in 1992, and headquartered in King of
Prussia, Pennsylvania, is a leading provider of integrated wireless
location products and services to both U.S. and international wireless
carriers. Providing the location information of a wireless phone to
public safety agencies is the core of TruePosition. It is fundamental
to our investment and business plan.
TruePosition centers on the premise that information, readily
available on the wireline side, should be available to the growing
number of wireless phone users. TruePosition holds 14 U.S. patents in
the technology, encompassing methods, processes and apparatus for
calibrating a wireless location system that yields extremely accurate
measurements. We have completed system testing of more than 400 cell
sites in a variety of environments. The substantial investment
TruePosition has made in developing the technology and implementing it
demonstrates that accurate and reliable location information is not in
the future. It is now. The TruePosition system has been tested in a
range of areas and conditions and complies with the standards set by
the FCC.
From a personal perspective, I spent 24 years working in public
safety. It was my honor to manage the largest 911 center in the Nation,
that of the New York City Police Department, as Deputy Commissioner for
Technological Development. It was my responsibility to bring to public
safety a range of technologies that helped police officers, firemen and
emergency service workers do their job more effectively and
efficiently. I can attest to the tangible and critical role location
information has in saving lives. The child who knows enough, and
perhaps only enough, to dial 911, the victim who is not sufficiently
coherent to remain on the line, the traveler who does not know where he
is, can be located and police, fire or emergency services dispatched.
The precious time in obtaining information from the caller can now be
spent assisting the individual in need of help.
THE FCC'S OCTOBER 1, 2001 DEADLINE
Under FCC rules, wireless telephone carriers are required to
provide Automatic Location Identification (ALI) beginning October 1,
2001, as part of the Phase II E911 implementation schedule. Under the
FCC's rules there are separate accuracy requirements and deployment
schedules for network-based and handset-based technologies. Appendix A
sets forth the details of the FCC's rules.
Since 1996, the FCC has pursued diligently efforts that will
improve the quality and reliability of 911 emergency services for
wireless phone users. Throughout, it has demonstrated substantial
judgment, encompassing engineering, economics and law. It has examined
and analyzed technical information of various systems, including that
of TruePosition. It has comprehended the investment that must be made
and the evolving technology. It has resolved difficult issues and
struck a careful balance between the critical need for location
information by the American public, while affording carriers and
providers adequate time to come into compliance.
The FCC has made clear how critical its deadline is. Wireless
location information is more than a valuable addition to the large
investment already made to emergency response capability by state and
local public safety agencies throughout the Nation. It can literally be
the difference as to whether assistance can arrive in time.
TruePosition has committed substantial investment to develop and
implement a workable technology enabling public safety agencies to
locate and reach persons in danger. TruePosition's technology has been
tested in real life settings. Our commercially available technology
complies with the FCC's requirements.
TRUEPOSITION'S LOCATION TECHNOLOGY
TruePosition's 14 U.S. patents in location technology allow all
existing cellular and PCS phones to be located so that no adjustment
need be made to the consumer's handset. Our system performs within the
standards set by the FCC. TruePosition's architecture supports
technologies currently used by more than 95% of the 650,000,000
wireless phones worldwide. We developed and tested our system in all
types of geographic areas, RF environments and other conditions. Our
technology encompasses the four major air interfaces: automatic message
processing system (AMPS), code-division multiple access (CDMA), time-
division multiple access (TDMA) and most recently, Global System for
Mobile communications (GSM).
TruePosition's Wireless Location System (WLS) is an end-to-end
hardware, software, and services platform that offers a single system
for collecting, managing and distributing location data and an
integrated user interface to facilitate installing, managing, and
operating the system. The WLS operates as an overlay to a carrier's
network, requiring minimal changes to the existing network
infrastructure. The system has a negligible impact on cell sites and
does not create additional traffic for the network. The WLS is network-
based, and as stated, there is no modification necessary to consumer
handsets.
The TruePosition system determines a wireless phone's geographical
location by collecting and processing the RF signals transmitted by the
phone. When a signal is transmitted--when a phone call is placed--the
system gathers information about the signal from nearby mobile base
stations. The data are transmitted to a processor that analyzes the
information and computes the position of the caller by using
TruePosition's patented Time Difference of Arrival (TDOA) and Angle of
Arrival (AOA) algorithms. For a 911 call, the TruePosition system then
determines the appropriate public safety answering point (PSAP), and
routes the call to this 911-call center, which then can dispatch
assistance to the caller.
TESTING AND IMPLEMENTING THE TRUEPOSITION SYSTEM
Over many years, TruePosition's substantial investment in research
and development has been directed toward providing a commercially
available operational system that complies with the FCC's requirements.
It has been a lengthy process that has encompassed many environments,
which in turn have varied conditions. As noted, the TruePosition WLS is
compatible with all major interfaces used by wireless phones, AMPS,
CDMA, TDMA, and GSM.
Since its initial commitment to location technology, testing has
been a critical part of TruePosition's development of its product and
service. We have completed system testing of more than 400 cell sites
in a variety of environments.
Iterative testing is common with developing technologies and
allowed us to address learning curve issues that arose during the early
stages of development. Moreover, testing is an integral part of every
system installed as varied geography, the innate character of radio
signals and other conditions require that each system be adapted to the
carrier and the environment the carrier operates in. It is the rigor
and pervasiveness of our testing regime that underlies our confidence
in TruePosition's technology.
Beyond demonstrating compliance with the FCC's requirements, our
testing serves several purposes. It has taught us an understanding of
the logistics posed by installation, maintenance, and other
requirements of our system, including costs. Our testing regime allows
us to adjust the system. Our underlying premise is that each
environment where location technology operates must be examined and
adjustments made prior to the system becoming fully operational.
TruePosition's extensive testing and experience has allowed us to
improve substantially our pre-installation tools used to evaluate
designated areas as well as our ability to fine-tune the system once it
is deployed.
As early as 1997, we tested how our system integrated with the 911
call centers, the PSAPs. The test was a cooperative effort with the
State of New Jersey, several county governments and wireless carriers.
The test findings showed that the system was able to deliver location
information to the PSAPs and enable them to pinpoint the wireless
callers. New Jersey authorities characterized the test as having an
immediate impact on improving public safety and represented significant
progress in efforts to quickly locate emergencies.
Most recently, we have conducted extensive tests of our system in
the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Wilmington, Delaware and New York City
metropolitan areas.
The New York City test involved a challenging environment for radio
propagation as almost half of the test calls were made inside of multi-
story buildings in midtown Manhattan. Standard CDMA mobile phones were
used to make more than 30,000 test calls in an area covered by 30 cell
sites. A rigorous test plan published by the CDMA Development Group
(CDG) to determine the performance of TruePosition's technology was
employed. The system demonstrated sub-100 meter location results in a
variety of indoor, outdoor, pedestrian, and moving vehicle scenarios.
The test results demonstrated compliance with FCC requirements.
cooperative efforts with public safety agencies and wireless carriers
TruePosition has worked closely with large and small public safety
agencies and the dedicated associations and individuals that represent
them in developing our technology, particularly in how best to
integrate our system into the PSAPs, which receive the emergency calls.
These agencies and their representatives have also worked closely with
the FCC to advocate the need for wireless location information and to
convey the capabilities of their own system. In this latter regard,
public safety agencies have been forceful advocates in their own areas
to obtain the resources necessary to implement location information
into their own system.
Similarly, we have worked closely with wireless carriers in
understanding how to meet carrier needs and requirements. This has
entailed understanding a carrier's system and the environment it
operates in. The testing we have completed demonstrates a close working
relationship with the carriers. Our experience has shown a pervasive
commitment to bring E911 to reality. We believe that deployment of E911
will become an important element of the competitive marketplace,
leading to a broad and expedited deployment throughout the nation.
In summary, providing location information for wireless callers, so
important to the individual faced with an emergency, is upon us. The
Subcommittee's involvement in bringing the United States to the
threshold of effective nationwide Enhanced 911 systems is to be
commended. Just as the Subcommittee was the force behind Congress'
enactment of the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999,
which played a significant part in the continued effort to upgrade the
nation's emergency response systems, your interest and oversight of the
availability of location information for wireless callers, demonstrates
a similar commitment. Thank you.
Appendix A
HISTORY AND SUMMARY OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
Through several actions since 1996, the FCC's wireless 911 rules
have sought to improve the reliability of wireless 911services and to
provide emergency services personnel with location information. The
wireless 911 rules apply to all cellular licensees, broadband Personal
Communications Service (PCS) licensees, and certain Specialized Mobile
Radio (SMR) licensees.
PHASE I E911 REQUIREMENTS (FCC Order June 1996)
As of April 1, 1998, or within six months of a request by the
designated PSAP, whichever is later, covered carriers are required to
provide to the PSAP the telephone number of the originator of a 911
call and the location of the cell site or base station receiving a 911
call.
PHASE II E911 REQUIREMENTS (FCC Orders September 1999, minor
adjustments August 2000)
Wireless carriers are required to provide Automatic Location
Identification (ALI) as part of Phase II E911 implementation beginning
October 1, 2001. The FCC has established separate accuracy requirements
and deployment schedules for network-based and handset-based
technologies. The E911 Phase II requirements are as follows:
Handset-Based ALI Technology: Wireless carriers who employ a
Phase II location technology that requires new, modified or
upgraded handsets (such as GPS-based technology) may phase-in
deployment of Phase II subject to the following requirements:
Without respect to any PSAP request for Phase II deployment, the
carrier shall:
1. Begin selling and activating ALI-capable handsets no later than
October 1, 2001;
2. Ensure that at least 25 percent of all new handsets activated
are ALI-capable no later than December 31, 2001;
3. Ensure that at least 50 percent of all new handsets activated
are ALI-capable no later than June 30, 2002; and
4. Ensure that 100 percent of all new digital handset activated are
ALI-capable no later than December 31, 2002 and thereafter.
5. By December 31, 2005, achieve 95 percent penetration of ALI-
capable handsets among its subscribers.
Once a PSAP request is received, the carrier shall, in the area
served by the PSAP, within 6 months or by October 1, 2001,
whichever is later:
1. Install any hardware and/or software in the CMRS network and/or
other fixed infrastructure, as needed, to enable the
provision of Phase II E911 service; and
2. Begin delivering Phase II E911 service to the PSAP.
Network-Based ALI Technology: As of October 1, 2001, within 6
months of a PSAP request, carriers employing network-based
location technologies must provide Phase II information for at
least 50 percent of the PSAP's coverage area or population.
Within 18 months of a PSAP request, carriers must provide Phase II
information for 100 percent of the PSAP's coverage area or
population.
The FCC has adopted the following standards for Phase II location
accuracy and reliability:
For handset-based solutions: 50 meters for 67 percent of
calls, 150 meters for 95 percent of calls;
For network-based solutions: 100 meters for 67 percent of
calls, 300 meters for 95 percent of calls.
PUBLIC SAFETY ANSWERING POINT REQUIREMENTS (FCC Order November 1999)
The E911 Phase I requirements, and certain of the Phase II
requirements, are applicable to wireless carriers only if the
designated PSAP has requested the service and is capable of receiving
and using the information provided. There is no prerequisite that a
cost recovery mechanism for wireless carriers be in place before
carriers are obligated to provide E911 service in response to a PSAP
request. The PSAP, however, must have the means of covering the costs
of receiving and using the E911 information to make a valid request for
E911 service. The FCC's rules do not mandate any specific state action
nor specify any particular mechanism for funding the technology and
service capabilities necessary to enable the PSAP to make a valid
service request.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. Clark.
STATEMENT OF STEVE CLARK
Mr. Clark. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Steve
Clark, Vice President of Network Operations.
Mr. Upton. If you could just pull that mike a little closer
or speak a little louder, either way.
Mr. Clark. As I said, my name is Steve Clark, Vice
President of Network Operations for U.S. Cellular. Since the
record with respect to Phase II compliance on E911 is already
filled with comments addressing policy and economic issues as
such, I'm here as an engineer and ultimately the implementer to
make this happen. More specifically, I'll speak on the issues
of implementation and incremental challenges in rural America
with respect to the October 1 deadline.
U.S. Cellular is committed to public safety and the
nationwide rollout of E911. Our goal is to provide ubiquitous
availability of reliable, enhanced public safety to our rural
customers. U.S. Cellular wants to give E911 to our customers
and is committed to deliver it to them expeditiously,
accurately and cost effectively.
That is why U.S. Cellular contributed to and supported the
original consensus agreement between the public safety and
wireless industries in 1996 which set out challenging, yet what
we believed at the time to be achievable goals to meet the
expectations of our rural customers and their need for E911.
The original consensus agreement, however, is not what the
FCC is forcing us to implement today. Instead, we have seen a
virtual elimination of all the original mutual commitments
between public safety and wireless carriers beginning with the
elimination of cost recovery in 1999. Carrier cost recovery, as
the FCC noted, in its first report and order was a fundamental
prerequisite to E911 deployment. The fundamental prerequisite
was abandoned by the FCC despite the fact that all parties with
one exception advocated the necessity of keeping carrier cost
recovery.
Recently, the FCC took a further step and imposed a new
financial burden on wireless carriers that now requires us to
pay for a portion of the PSAP's E911 network in addition to the
cost to convert antiquated PSAP equipment to today's
technology. The FCC has also eliminated original PSAP
commitments with the exception of one and that one is now
pending before the FCC.
Given that the FCC since 1996 has never once ruled in favor
of the wireless carriers, we expect this one remaining PSAP
requirement will be removed as well.
The FCC has completely abandoned the original
acknowledgement that cost and complexities of meeting location
requirements would be higher in rural America. This causes
great concern, since it likely will have the effect of driving
rural implementation into the line. Until such time these
issues can be dealt with rationally, it effectively abandons
rural America in the short term.
U.S. Cellular and smaller rural carriers do not do their
own research and development on telecommunications equipment.
The bottom line is those wireless carriers which have the most
to spend drive development. With this in mind we begin the
engineering implementation which brings us to the current
debate over network versus handset and hybrid solutions.
The network based solution uses a cell site infrastructure
in concert with the supplemental location system, the most
widely discussed message will require a minimum of three sites
to be able to reach or see the mobile you want to locate.
Certainly in the more populated areas this will meet the
required performance level, however, in rural areas, there
simply are not enough cell sites to get the job done.
For rural carriers, this solution requires very large
numbers of sites to be built simply from a location capability.
Building this number of sites in this manner puts the rural
carriers in a predicament which threatens their very existence.
Further, switch software applications required for network
solution will not be available for either rural or urban
applications until late fourth quarter of 2001 with production
implementation in first quarter of 2002. This lack of switch
application software makes the network solution not possible to
meet the October deadline.
An alternative to network based solution is the handset
solution which is to locate a GPS transceiver in a handset
which will work independently of or in concert with the network
solution. Although the solution was not originally contemplated
in the 1996 order, it has recently grown in popularity.
Although it sounds good, the fact is rural carriers have yet to
get good solid dates from the handset manufacturers which
identify the timeline for availability, model supported or the
production quantities on which it will be a supported
capability.
And again, availability of the switch application software
to support the handset solution is not available until late
fourth quarter of this year. This is further complicated by
recent decisions by large carriers to abandon the growth in
TDMA markets. Current plans for evolution to 3G by other larger
carriers in the industry have effectively sunsetted TDMA as an
air interface.
In closing, we're concerned about what we're able to
provide to our customers. And I would say to those that would
say that we're dragging our feet on the implementation. If it
could be done, U.S. Cellular would have done it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to answering any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Steve Clark follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve Clark, Vice President of Network
Operations, United States Cellular Corporation
Mr. Chairman, I am Steve Clark, Vice President of Network
Operations for United States Cellular Corporation, and I am here today
to discuss the progress and problems in the implementation of wireless
enhanced 911 capabilities, particularly for carriers serving rural
communities. Rural carriers support the roll-out of E911 and improved
safety for our customers. What rural carriers object to, however, is
the method the FCC has chosen to roll-out wireless E911. Without action
by the FCC or Congress, rural wireless carriers face an October 1, 2001
deadline to provide so-called phase II location information without a
viable, cost effective solution. There are currently no phase II
compliant handsets available and the only other phase II solution--a
network based solution--will be so expensive that it will, at a
minimum, displace a large number of cost-sensitive rural wireless
customers who will be unable or unwilling to pay the per customer costs
of phase II E911 service.
My testimony today will highlight the problems specifically faced
by rural carriers that stem from the FCC's phase II deadlines and its
decision in 1999 to eliminate carrier cost recovery. In so doing, I
will briefly review the history of the FCC's wireless E911 proceeding
that created the problem referenced above and describe how wireline
E911 works. My testimony will then illustrate how the Commission's
decision to eliminate carrier cost recovery abandoned the sound
legislative and regulatory policy of competitive neutrality between
rural and urban telecommunications providers and completely undermined
the FCC's policy of promoting competitive parity between rural wireline
and wireless telephony providers. I will conclude my testimony by
urging this Committee to reinstate carrier cost recovery to ensure that
phase II E911 service becomes available to all areas and all ranges of
customers in the United States.
I. THE IMPACT OF THE FCC'S DEADLINES ON RURAL WIRELESS CARRIERS
Without action by the FCC or Congress to change the October 1, 2001
deadline to provide phase II E911 location information, rural wireless
carriers are literally stuck between a rock and a hard place. The costs
to deploy a network solution that satisfies the FCC's location accuracy
requirements are astronomical--costs that could easily double the
imbedded network investment of many rural carriers. The only other
solution--a handset based solution using a GPS (or equivalent) chip--is
not yet available. The unavailability of compliant, cost-effective
handsets will force carriers into a network solution that will displace
thousands of cost sensitive customers in many parts of rural America
and could well force some wireless carriers into bankruptcy.
By way of background, there are basically two technological options
to help locate wireless 911 callers--a network solution and a handset
solution. In the network solution, which is the only solution currently
available, the wireless carrier--and the corresponding LEC and PSAPs--
performs various upgrades to each cell site in its network. These cell
sites are then employed to triangulate an incoming signal from a
wireless phone--i.e., three cell sites receive the signal emitted by
the handset and allow the network to pinpoint the exact location of the
caller within that triangle. Using the so-called angle of arrival
method, only two cell sites are needed to determine the location of a
caller.
At best, the network solution is prohibitively expensive for rural
wireless carriers; at worst, it will not work at all. Besides requiring
upgrades at each cell site to provide accurate location data, the FCC
itself recognized that rural carriers will be required to build
additional, location-only cell sites in order to properly triangulate a
signal to meet the FCC's phase II location accuracy requirements. This
is because in rural areas, cell sites tend to be aligned in a straight
path along major interstates or through the populated areas--the so-
called ``string of pearls''--in order to maximize the coverage of each
cell site. This configuration, however, makes it impossible to
triangulate a signal to determine the location of the handset because
only one cell site actually receives a signal from the handset.
Western Wireless recently conducted a series of tests with a
network solution vendor that dramatically illustrated those problems.
While the vendor's network solution performed well in an urban
environment, where the average cell site density is between 5-6 miles,
the network solution failed when tested in rural areas where the
average cell site density is often 40 miles or more. Thus, in order to
employ a network based solution, rural carriers must build additional
location-only cell sites throughout their networks, at an estimated
cost of $500,000 per cell site. USCC's current network has
approximately 2500 cell sites. The costs to upgrade these sites alone
using True Position technology was recently estimated at $90 million.
The costs of doubling or tripling this number of sites are astronomical
and would inevitably require USCC to cut back on the area it serves in
order to preserve scarce resources.
In the handset solution, first accepted by the Commission as an
acceptable E911 location solution in 1999, special functionality is
built into the handset itself to allow, for example, GPS satellites to
track the precise location of the handset. While requiring some network
upgrades to accommodate the additional location information, this
solution appeared to be the economically rational alternative for the
majority of rural wireless carriers because the cost of the solution
would be tied proportionately to the number of customers served by the
wireless carrier.
The only problem with the handset-based solution is that it does
not exist yet. There are currently no vendors with the ability to
provide a GPS-equipped handset that would satisfy the Commission's
location accuracy requirements for any digital emission wireless phone.
Current estimates are that some type of GPS-equipped phone may be
available in the 4th quarter of 2001 for use in TDMA systems. GPS-
capable phones are not expected to be available until 4th quarter of
2002 for use in CDMA systems.
There are numerous other problems with a potential handset
solution. Only limited information is available on the cost per phone
of such a solution. The little information that is available suggests
that the incremental cost per phone of providing phase II service could
be as high as $100-$350. There appears to be a very limited selection
of phase II-compliant handsets and there is considerable uncertainty
whether these phones will provide other functionality demanded by
consumers (i.e., voice messaging, 3G services). It is also unclear
whether CDMA or TDMA E911 compliant phones will work if the user roams
to a system using a different technology.
The problems deploying phase II E911 compliant solutions are not
unique to rural wireless carriers. One major national cellular carrier
(VoiceStream) has already received a waiver, two more major, national
carriers (AT&T and Nextel) have waiver requests pending and at least
one more national carrier (Cingular) has indicated that a phase II
compliant waiver will be filed shortly. As demonstrated below, however,
the burdens of complying with phase II will disproportionately burden
rural wireless carriers.
II. THE FCC'S WIRELESS E911 PROCEEDING
My testimony now attempts to describe how rural carriers got into
this difficult predicament by reviewing the history of the FCC's
wireless E911 proceeding. In 1994, the FCC initiated a rulemaking
proceeding to explore ways to encourage the wireless industry, in
conjunction with the states and public safety organizations, to
implement E911 capabilities. The Commission sought to impose specific
caller location requirements on the wireless industry so that
ultimately the same information provided to a PSAP in a wireline 911
call would be provided to a PSAP in a wireless call.
In the wireline context, when a caller dials 911, the local
exchange carrier recognizes the emergency nature of the call and routes
that call to the Public Safety Answering Point (``PSAP''). A PSAP is
the state or local governmental agency responsible for coordinating a
given locality's response to emergency calls. In the United States,
PSAPs come in various shapes and sizes ranging from sophisticated,
modern emergency call centers in urban areas to a local sheriff or the
state police in rural areas.
Where enhanced 911 services are available to wireline telephone
users, detailed location information is transmitted to the PSAP to help
identify the location of the emergency caller. The LEC identifies the
telephone number from which the 911 call was made and queries a
database to determine the address associated with that number. This
information is then transmitted to the appropriate PSAP, which can
immediately dispatch the appropriate emergency response. The advantages
of this location technology are uncontroverted: the ability to locate
an emergency caller exists even if the caller does not know her
location, is unable to communicate with emergency personnel, or becomes
disconnected.
In the wireline context, the PSAP pays the LEC for the E911
services it provides. The costs paid for by the PSAP include the
upgraded hardware and software needed to transmit location information
as well as the cost of creating and maintaining the location database.
These upgrades are paid for by the PSAPs who are properly treated as
the wireline carrier's customers in this context because they order and
then utilize the new location information. The costs caused by the
PSAPs are typically paid for out of a state or local governmentally
administered fund that collects the proceeds of 911 surcharges imposed
on all wireline customers in the relevant jurisdiction.
Wireline 911 has taken many years to achieve widespread
accessibility. The first 911 call was made in 1968, and it took more
than 30 years after that for wireline 911 service to reach 93 percent
of the population. As of the middle of 1999, wireline 911 was available
in only 50 percent of the geographic area of this country.
The application of E911 to wireless telephones is no simple task.
In fact, wireless E911 service is far more challenging. Wireless
telephones by their very nature are mobile and therefore not associated
with a particular address or location. When an E911 call is received,
the carrier does not automatically know which PSAP is closest to the
emergency caller and thus cannot ensure that the call is appropriately
routed to the appropriate PSAP.
In 1996, the FCC issued its first order in its wireless E911
proceeding. While acknowledging that the implementation of E911 in the
wireless context faced enormous technological hurdles and that there
did not yet exist an efficient and workable system that could actually
perform the E911 functions required, the FCC nonetheless decided to
intervene in the market and mandate the implementation of E911
capabilities according to FCC-established deadlines. Before carriers'
obligations under these deadlines were triggered, however, two
conditions had to be met: (1) a PSAP had to request the services from
the carrier and be capable of receiving and utilizing the information
requested, and (2) a mechanism had to be in place to compensate
carriers for the costs of providing E911 capabilities to the PSAPs.
This cost recovery prerequisite--in addition to the other rules for
E911 implementation adopted by the FCC in the First Order--was drawn
from a broad-based consensus agreement between the wireless industry
and the various public safety entities and was unanimously supported by
commenting parties.
Following the release of the First E911 Report & Order, wireless
carriers, PSAPs and LECs made significant progress toward the
implementation of wireless E911--especially given the enormous
complexity involved in the task. By June 30, 1999, only three years
after the FCC's order, 27 states had enacted legislation to facilitate
the funding of the first phase of the E911 roll-out. There were also a
number of difficult, complex issues that inevitably slowed the roll-out
of wireless E911. These issues included the age and incompatibility of
PSAP equipment with wireless networks, the wide variety of technical
sophistication and political organization of the PSAPs and differences
in liability protection provided to wireline carriers vs. wireless
carriers when providing E911 service.
By 1999, the FCC expressed dissatisfaction with the pace of the
wireless E911 roll-out. Following a series of public notices, the FCC
eliminated the requirement that a carrier cost recovery mechanism exist
before the carriers could be obligated to provide E911 services.
Despite the numerous thorny, difficult issues that were inhibiting the
roll-out of wireless E911 noted above, the Commission chose only to
eliminate the carrier cost recovery requirement in an attempt to speed
the roll-out. To rationalize this about-face, the Commission asserted
that since wireless carriers' rates are not regulated, wireless
carriers were free to raise their rates in order to recover the costs
of E911 implementation from their customers.
Of course, what the Commission failed to recognize in eliminating
the carrier cost recovery prerequisite is the disproportionate and
potentially ruinous impact this action would have on rural carriers.
All other things being equal, the cost per customer of rolling out
wireless E911 (like all other telecommunications services) will be
disproportionately higher in rural areas. Despite this, rural wireless
carriers were protected under the Commission's initial E911 order
because PSAPs were required to pay rural wireless carriers for the
costs they caused in ordering E911 services. If the costs to provide
rural E911 service were too high, a rational PSAP could be relied upon
to refrain from ordering that service.
Unfortunately, the Commission's decision to eliminate carrier cost
recovery changed that equation. Under the Commission's new rules, PSAPs
have essentially been given a blank check to order phase II E911
service regardless of the costs. Moreover, the FCC recently made it
clear that if a wireless carrier's preferred E911 phase II solution
were not available and the alternative phase II solution were
available, the carrier would be expected to deploy the alternative
solution in response to a valid PSAP request. The result of this
decision could force rural carriers into cost prohibitive network
solutions and will inevitably result in the displacement of thousands
of rural wireless customers who will be unable to pay for E911 services
ordered by the PSAP.
III. THE COMMISSION'S DECISION TO ELIMINATE CARRIER COST RECOVERY
VIOLATES SEVERAL OF ITS OWN WELL-ESTABLISHED POLICIES.
The Commission's decision to eliminate carrier cost recovery also
violates several of its own well-established telecommunications
policies. First, it is universally recognized that the costs of
providing telecommunications services in rural areas are higher than
those in urban areas. Congress recognized this basic concept when it
established the universal service provisions of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 and again is considering various actions this session to
provide subsidies and incentives for telecommunications providers to
deploy broadband service to rural areas. There is no valid explanation
for the Commission's refusal to recognize these same principles in the
roll-out of wireless E911 service. Rural carriers are here, today,
asking only that Congress require the Commission to give the same
consideration to wireless carriers that it gives to other
telecommunications providers serving rural areas receive.
Without action to reinstate carrier cost recovery, the FCC's
wireless E911 rules threaten the provision of cellular service in rural
portions of this country. Because the wireless marketplace is extremely
competitive and because consumer demand for wireless service is
extremely price elastic, wireless carriers will only be able to
increase their rates on a per customer basis to the extent that its
competitors do the same. If all wireless carriers had similar service
areas, there would be competitive neutrality among them. Unfortunately,
there are wide disparities between the service areas of wireless
carriers. By adopting a one-size-fits-all approach and forcing all
carriers to incur the substantial costs of providing E911 capabilities
and passing them on to their customers, the Commission has impaired the
ability of predominantly rural carriers to compete against larger
wireless carriers with geographically more diverse service areas that
include both urban and rural customers. Such carriers have a larger
customer base over which to spread the costs of providing E911 service.
These carriers are in a position to charge their rural customers less
for the same service and have thus been given a competitive advantage
over smaller, rural carriers who have no such customer base over which
to spread these costs. It is important to recognize that this
competitive advantage comes not from one carrier's more efficient
operations or business savvy but instead by virtue of the FCC's E911
requirements.
The FCC's decision to eliminate carrier cost recovery will also
likely result in less overall service in the rural areas, areas in
which E911 is arguably most needed. The wireless industry has grown
dramatically in recent years due in significant part to the continuous
drops in the costs of handsets as well as the costs of using the
service. Given the prohibitive costs of complying with the FCC's E911
mandate, especially if rural wireless carriers are required to deploy
network solutions, the FCC's rules will cause many cost-sensitive rural
customers to drop the service to avoid the disproportionately high per
customer costs of E911 phase II compliance. Rural carriers, faced with
the prospect of a diminished customer base and the enormous costs to
deploy E911, will be forced to cut back on their service areas or even
into bankruptcy. Should this occur, larger carriers are unlikely to
venture into less populated territories that are not profitable, and
entire areas of the country could be disenfranchised from any wireless
service, let alone wireless 911 service.
Finally, the FCC's decision to eliminate carrier cost recovery also
violates the long-standing goal of both Congress and the Commission to
make wireless service a viable competitor to the wireline LEC for
telephone service, especially in rural areas. Throughout the E911
proceeding and in other contexts, the FCC asserted as one of its goals
that wireless and wireline service truly be viewed as substitute
services by American consumers. Under the FCC's current E911 rules,
however, wireless carriers cannot be effective competitors with
wireline carriers.
First, and most importantly, wireline carriers are being paid for
their provision of E911 services while wireless carriers are left to
recover the substantial costs of providing the exact same service
directly from their customers. Second, a significant portion of the
costs paid by rural wireless carriers to deploy E911 service are LEC-
imposed charges to connect the wireless network to the existing
wireline-based E911 network. The costs paid by wireless carriers to
LECs to provide E911 include not only the actual costs to provide the
service, but also a regulatory approved profit margin. Thus, through
the FCC's existing E911 regime, rural wireless carriers are forced to
subsidize the operations of the same wireline carriers the FCC has
identified as their competitors.
IV. CONCLUSION
Given the disproportionately high costs faced by rural wireless
carriers to provide phase II E911 service, USCC urges this Committee to
pass legislation to reinstate the carrier cost recovery mechanism
eliminated by the FCC in 1999. If E911 service is truly a national
priority, this Committee should enact rules that will help pay for the
deployment of this service. While this step alone will not ensure a
rapid roll-out of E911, it will eliminate the dramatic marketplace
distortions the Commission's current rules will inevitably produce in
rural areas. Such a payment mechanism would also help offset the E911
cost imbalance between rural and urban carriers and ensure that E911
service is available to all portions of this country.
If this Committee is unwilling to reinstate carrier cost recovery,
USCC requests that the Committee pass legislation that delays the
deadline for phase II deployment for rural wireless carriers until a
viable, economically rational and commercially acceptable phase II
solution develops. Drawing upon countless telecommunications examples,
USCC urges the Committee to permit rural wireless carriers to delay
deployment until the service has been provided and accepted
commercially by wireless consumers in large urban markets.
In addition to these policy issues, there are also a myriad of
difficult, often complex technical issues that have impacted and
delayed the roll-out of wireless E911. These technical issues do not
lend themselves to easy written explanation. However, I am prepared to
answer any questions you may have regarding these technical issues and
United States Cellular Corporation is willing to supplement my written
testimony to address these issues if it would be of interest to the
Committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would
be happy to answer any questions you may have or identify additional
steps this Committee could take that would facilitate the rapid
deployment of wireless E911 across the country.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. Rimkus.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW J. RIMKUS
Mr. Rimkus. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members,
and guests, my name is Andrew Rimkus, Vice President of
Airbiquity, Incorporated. Airbiquity is a privately held
company located in Bainbridge Island, Washington. Airbiquity is
a location technology company that delivers GPS data to any
wireless network, worldwide.
Previously known to the public safety and wireless
community as Integrated Data Communications (IDC), we changed
our name to Airbiquity in November of 2000. Our company and our
employees are active members of related professional
organizations in wireless and public safety, including the
Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association, the
National Emergency Number Association, the Association of
Public Safety Communications Officials, and the COMCARE
Alliance. Airbiquity appreciates the opportunity to testify
before the subcommittee today.
We believe Airbiquity is uniquely qualified to discuss
technology preparedness for E911 mobile phone location. As the
FCC has stated in its Docket 94-102 proceeding, there are two
major technology choices for the carrier and public safety to
achieve compliance. These alternatives essentially place the
location determining technology either in the wireless handset
itself or in the wireless network. Airbiquity has chosen to
produce a handset-based solution, specifically those with GPS,
due to GPS's worldwide deployment and inherently high accuracy.
These high accuracy standards are reflected in the existing FCC
proceeding for handset-based location technology.
In November 200, Airbiquity announced the development of a
GPS Accessory product that attaches to Nokia-brand wireless
phones in the form a battery pack containing a GPS receiver and
software to send the information. This implementation of
Airbiquity's patented core technology transports data through
any wireless network and attaches to 25 different Nokia phone
models without retrofits or reprogramming of those phones that
operate over all of the major air interface standards including
TDMA, CDMA, GSM and AMPS. Also our solution does not require
changes to the network itself.
This means that our GPS Accessory can operate over any
wireless network using any one of these air interfaces,
including and just as examples those of AT&T Wireless, Verizon
Wireless, Cingular Wireless and VoiceStream. In March of this
year, we announced the commercial availability of this product
at the CTIA 2001 show.
On Monday of this week, AAA, the nation's largest motoring
and travel services organization and RESPONSE Services Center,
who is owned by AAA announced a North American pilot using our
GPS Accessory. This pilot program's breadth includes 11 major
metropolitan areas, 18 different Nokia phone models, 4
different air interface standards and 7 distinct wireless
carriers that distribute these handsets. This means that today
we are moving GPS data from our GPS Accessory attached to these
phones with calling locations spanning from Maine to
California, through the wireless network and to the call center
equipped with our call center product. As we speak today, we
are placing handset locations on mapping terminals with live
operators, as commercial applications are being tested. Here in
my hand is this product, attached to a phone that I bought at a
wireless retail store the other day. It is fully functional and
available for mass distribution today. Airbiquity's Ex Parte
filing with the FCC detailed our successful demonstration of
this product in December 2000, during which we located our
product in the FCC Portals building courtyard.
In addition to our GPS Accessory product, our technology
has been adopted by other major companies in this business. For
example, in May of this year we announced the adoption of our
technology by Wingcast, a Ford Motor Company and Qualcomm
Incorporated joint venture. Our technology is expected to be
incorporated into model 2003 automobiles for their inaugural
telematics offering which is planned to combined features such
as vehicle location, automatic crash notification and other
location-based services focused on making driving safe and more
enjoyable. Our wireless technology is already incorporated or
``ported'' into several DSPs or Digital Signalling Processings
including those offered by Texas Instruments and Agere Systems.
Our technology is also capable of being integrated directly
into the wireless handsets in addition to a GPS Accessory.
We believe that we offer a viable Phase II solution for
wireless carriers to obtain the location of wireless handsets.
Our GPS Accessory is retrofittable to an estimated 15 million
wireless handsets in service today. The GPS Accessory is
compatible with phone models that have been in commercial sale
since 1998 and these phone models are available through
distributors today. We know we are not alone since companies
such as Qualcomm Incorporated and True Position currently have
technological offerings that can serve as alternatives for this
compliance. We expect the market for this technology will be
competitive and well served with product offerings from the
beginning.
We at Airbiquity believe that the state of our products and
technologies being piloted and adopted by major commercial
providers of location-based services, such as AA and Wingcast
which expects to offer telematics service with some of its
vehicle lines, demonstrates the appropriateness and readiness
of our solutions for public safety applications. We urge the
subcommittee to continue its efforts to communicate with and
educate the public regarding viable alternatives to support
this location mandate today.
Thank you and I'm happy to answer questions the
subcommittee might have.
[The prepared statement of Andrew J. Rimkus follows:]
Prepared Statement of Andrew J. Rimkus, Vice President, Marketing,
Airbiquity Incorporated
Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members, and guests, my name is Andrew
Rimkus, Vice President of Airbiquity Incorporated. Airbiquity is a
privately-held company located in Bainbridge Island, Washington.
Airbiquity is a location technology company that delivers Global
Positioning System (GPS) data to any wireless network, worldwide.
Previously known to the public safety and wireless community as
Integrated Data Communications (IDC), we changed our name to Airbiquity
in November of 2000. Our company and our employees are active members
of related professional organizations in wireless and public safety,
including the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association, the
National Emergency Number Association, the Association of Public Safety
Communications Officials, and the COMCARE Alliance. Airbiquity
appreciates the opportunity to testify before the Committee today.
We believe Airbiquity is uniquely qualified to discuss technology
preparedness for E911 mobile phone location. As the FCC has stated in
its Docket 94-102 proceeding, there are two major technology choices
for the carrier and public safety to achieve E911 Phase II compliance.
These alternatives essentially place the location determining
technology either in the wireless handset itself or in the wireless
network. Airbiquity has chosen to produce a handset-based solution,
specifically those with GPS, due to GPS's worldwide deployment and
inherently high accuracy. These high standards for accuracy are
reflected in the existing FCC 94-102 proceeding for handset-based,
Phase II location technology.
In November of 2000, Airbiquity announced the development of a GPS
Accessory product that attaches to Nokia-brand wireless phones in the
form of a battery pack containing a GPS receiver and software to send
the GPS information. This implementation of Airbiquity's core
technology transports data through any wireless network and attaches to
25 different Nokia phone models--without retrofits or reprogramming of
the phones--that operate over all of the major network air interface
standards, including TDMA, CDMA, GSM, and AMPS. Our solution does not
require changes to these wireless networks.
This means that our GPS Accessory can operate over any wireless
network using any one of these air interfaces, including but not
limited to those of AT&T Wireless, Verizon Wireless, Cingular Wireless,
and VoiceStream. In March of this year, we announced the commercial
availability of our GPS Accessory product at the CTIA 2001 show in Las
Vegas.
On Monday of this week, AAA--the nation's largest motoring and
travel services organization--and RESPONSE Services Center, a wholly
owned subsidiary of AAA, announced a North American pilot program using
Airbiquity's GPS Accessory. The pilot program's breadth includes 11
major metropolitan areas, 18 different Nokia wireless phone models, 4
different air interface standards, and seven distinct wireless carriers
that distribute Nokia-brand handsets. This means that--today--we are
moving highly-accurate GPS data from our GPS Accessory attached to
these phones with calling locations spanning from Maine to California,
through the wireless network, and to the RESPONSE call center equipped
with our call center product, the aqServer. As we speak today, we are
placing handset locations on mapping terminal with live operators, as
commercial applications are being tested. Here in my hand is the GPS
Accessory product, attached to a phone I bought at a wireless retail
store the other day. It is fully functional and available for mass
distribution today. Airbiquity's Ex Parte filing with the FCC detailed
our successful demonstration of the GPS Accessory in December 2000,
during which we located our product in the Federal Communications
Commission Portals building courtyard.
In addition to our GPS Accessory product, our technology has been
adopted by other major companies in the wireless location business. For
example, in May of this year we announced the adoption of our
technology by Wingcast, a Ford Motor Company and Qualcomm Incorporated
joint venture. Our technology is expected to be incorporated into model
2003 automobiles for Wingcast's inaugural telematics offering--which is
planned to combine features such as vehicle location, automatic crash
notification, and other location-based services focused on making
driving safer and more enjoyable. Our wireless technology is already
incorporated, or ``ported'', into several Digital Signal Processors, or
DSPs, including those offered by Texas Instruments and Agere Systems,
formerly Lucent Microelectronics. Our technology is capable of being
integrated directly into wireless handsets.
We believe Airbiquity can offer a viable Phase II solution for
wireless carriers to obtain the location of wireless handsets. Our GPS
Accessory is retrofittable to an estimated 15 million wireless handsets
in service today. The GPS Accessory is compatible with phone models
have been for commercial sale since 1998, and these phone models that
are available through distributors throughout the United States today.
We know we are not alone, since companies such as Qualcomm Incorporated
and TruePosition currently have technological offerings that can serve
as alternatives for Phase II E911 compliance. We expect the market for
this technology will be competitive and well served with product
offerings from the beginning.
We at Airbiquity believe that the state of our products and
technologies--being piloted and adopted by major commercial providers
of location-based services, such as AAA (which has 44 million active
members) and Wingcast, which expects to offer telematics service with
some of its model 2003 vehicle lines--demonstrates the appropriateness
and readiness of our solutions for public safety applications. We urge
the Committee to continue its efforts to communicate with and educate
the public regarding viable, commercial alternatives to support the
Phase II E911 location mandate today. Thank you, and I am happy to
answer questions the Subcommittee might have.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. Nixon.
STATEMENT OF JAMES A. NIXON
Mr. Nixon. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. I'm Jim Nixon from VoiceStream Wireless. I've been
involved in 911 for over 7 years beginning as a 911 Center
Supervisor in Nevada and answering 911 calls, many of them from
wireless handsets. Later was a 911 coordinator for the State of
Maryland and for the past 3 years have been working 911 issues
for VoiceStream Wireless.
My unique background kind of puts me on both sides of the
fence and it gives me a little bit of insight into both camps,
I hope.
I've been asked to address the feasibility of the wireless
Phase II deadline which is October 1 as has been mentioned
before. We believe there have been great strides made in the
technology, particularly over the last 2 years, but we don't
believe that the equipment is ready for widespread deployment
yet for a number of reasons I'll discuss later. And we've also
heard that a number of 911 centers are trying to get their
readiness together. We hope we can work to match the two
capabilities up at the right time and the right place.
We have a fear that a rush deployment would waste hundreds
of millions of dollars on all sides of this issue and yet
perhaps not provide an ultimately satisfactory system. We think
there is a need for some real world carrier tests with public
safety, with the carriers, with the local exchange carriers who
play a key role in this whole process to make sure that the
systems and solutions under trial today are viable for large
scale deployments.
Assuming these trials were successful we think that the
wide scale deployment will be available at the end of 2002 or
the beginning of 2003.
We think a thoughtfully planned national implementation
schedule and procedure is probably the best way to go. Our
basic problem with the current requirements is that the
accuracy in deployment requirements were established before the
technology was developed or identified to meet those
requirements. The case is one of acting in absolutely the best
interest of consumers, but maybe a little bit ahead of what was
warranted by technology at the time.
The primary challenge as we've heard, and I'm sure Mr.
Souder will tell us a little bit more about this later is to
provide landline 911 call takers with the same type of
information that they get on landline calls when they get
wireless calls. Typically, you'll get a telephone number and an
address. It's extremely helpful in trying to assess the
situation and marshal the appropriate resources and get them
underway quickly. The mandate provides that the carriers
deliver the callback number as they've done in landline. The
big difference is that the location is sent in a latitude and
longitude format which is generally unfamiliar to many of us
and we need to help the 911 center call takers in their very
tough job to equate that location to an address or a landmark
that they're commonly used to using so they can efficiently do
their jobs.
We believe that there's a number of steps involved in
making this kind of an improvement in any kind of a service,
particularly as important as 911 and we think that as we said
with the accuracy and deployment requirements being set first,
we see this as kind of backwards from what's normally done in a
technology environment where you identify what the requirements
are, but then you go into building standards to which equipment
can be designed and tested so that you can pick the best, most
likely candidate for further development. Vendors can produce
these things, test them adequately and thoroughly as Mr.
Amarosa mentioned in the systems to make sure they don't cause
additional problems. And here we've got somewhat of a reverse
of that with the finite requirements being defined before there
was a roadway built to get to that capability. We think this is
possible to do. We think that the industry is poised to begin
working cooperatively with all the other parties including
public safety as a critical element to this whole issue.
We think that its' time for us to build on the experience
we gained in the Phase I deployment process, to build a very
solid and achievable Phase II plan. We would think that we can
solve issues and make progress much more quickly if we work
cooperatively, rather than trying to put Mr. Sugrue and his
time at the Wireless Bureau through the process of deciding
issues on filings and we look forward, very much to working
with APCO and Public Safety and Project Locate. We think that's
an absolutely wonderful forum to get the subject matter through
experts together so that we can make some real progress and get
some meaningful service out as quickly as possible.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak and I'd be happy to
answer questions.
[The prepared statement of James A. Nixon follows:]
Prepared Statement of James A. Nixon, Senior Manager of Regulatory
Affairs, VoiceStream Wireless Corporation
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Jim
Nixon of VoiceStream Wireless. I have been involved with 911 emergency
services for the past seven years, initially as a supervisor for a 911
call center in Nevada; later as the E911 Coordinator for the State of
Maryland; and for the past three years, working on 911 implementation
for VoiceStream. I have direct, ``hands-on'' experience with 911
implementation, both from the perspective of public safety/law
enforcement agencies and from the perspective of wireless carriers.
VoiceStream is the fastest growing provider of broadband Personal
Communications Services (PCS) in the United States. Currently serving
over 5 million subscribers, VoiceStream is the only U.S. wireless
carrier that owns and operates a near-nationwide network using the GSM
standard--the world's most widely used digital wireless standard.
Through recent mergers and license purchases, VoiceStream has a
licensed U.S. footprint of over 272 million American consumers.
VoiceStream initiated its first service in 1996, when it was part of a
predecessor company.
The Committee has asked me to address whether the current wireless
E911 Phase II deadline of October 1, 2001, only three and a half months
from now, is feasible. While great strides in technology have been
made, especially over the past 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.
It bears remembering that it took more than 20 years before ``land-
line'' 911 service was even available to half of all Americans. 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 Federal Communications Commission (FCC)--
especially since the vast majority of public safety equipment and 911
networks continue to use 1950s-era technology. VoiceStream, like other
wireless carriers, is committed to meeting the needs of public safety,
and it believes these needs can be met. However, meeting these needs
will be extremely challenging under the current time frames.
We have a newly reconstituted FCC, with a new Chairman and three
new Commissioners having been confirmed only a few weeks ago.
VoiceStream fully expects that bringing order to the current issues
regarding Phase II deployment will be one of the first tasks that the
new FCC will tackle.
I. HISTORY OF 911 SERVICE AND DEPLOYMENT IN LAND-LINE NETWORKS
Emergency 911 services were implemented in land-line telephone
networks over decades, without any FCC involvement.
The heart of any 911 system is the Public Answering Safety Point
(collectively, PSAPs). PSAPs are the agencies that answer 911 calls and
then dispatch appropriate medical, fire, or police resources to the
scene. PSAPs may be part of a local police or sheriff's department;
they may be a regional agency with responsibility over a community of
interest; or, they may be managed at the state level. Some PSAPs are
funded from the general tax base; others have authority to assess
monthly surcharges on carrier bills to customers.
Basic 911. In 1967, the President's Commission on Law Enforcement
and Justice recommended that a ``single number should be established''
nationwide for reporting emergency situations. The next year, the then-
administrator of telephone numbers (AT&T) set aside the digits 9-1-1
for emergency services. With ``basic 911'' service, the telephone
company--or local exchange carrier (LEC)--translates the dialed 911
into the seven digit telephone number assigned to the PSAP call takers.
Except for this number translation function, a ``basic 911'' call is
processed like an ordinary telephone call.
Enhanced 911. One of the problems with basic 911 service was that
LEC telephone exchanges may not match PSAP serving boundaries. To
address this routing problem, the LEC industry began introducing
selective routing in the 1970s to help ensure that 911 calls were
forwarded to the correct PSAP. This selective routing feature later
became known as Enhanced 911 (E911) service. Over time, additional
capabilities were added to E911 service, including:
Caller Identification: The telephone number of the person
dialing 911 is forwarded to the PSAP, so the call taker can
return the call if the caller if disconnected.
Caller Location: Addresses associated with land-line telephone
numbers are stored in an Automatic Location Identification
(ALI) database. Upon receiving the caller's telephone number, a
query is made to the ALI database to retrieve the caller's
address, so the PSAP can send emergency personnel to the land-
line caller's location.
The E911 Network. Advanced features, such as selective routing,
caller ID and land-line location, information required the deployment
of a specialized E911 network. A PSAP's E911 network consists of a
selective router, trunks connecting PSAP call taker equipment to the
centralized selective router and then to the LEC's end office switches,
and the ALI database. The E911 network is used exclusively for 911
calls, PSAPs maintain control of their network (e.g., determine how
many trunks are needed, implementing technology upgrades) and, while
they often have the LEC operate the network, PSAPs direct and pay the
LEC for these services. Because a state may have dozens (or hundreds)
of PSAPs, LECs historically tariffed the various components of the E911
network so each PSAP could easily order the functionalities it desired.
Land-line 911/E911 Deployment. It took more than 20 years (1987)
before 50 percent of the U.S. population had access to 911 or E911
service. Today, nearly 93 percent of the population has access to some
type of 911 service from their land-line telephone.
II. WIRELESS E911--GENERALLY
Cellular service was introduced in the mid-1980s and it is my
understanding that most cellular carriers provided basic 911 service to
their customers. In California, for example, cellular 911 calls were
forwarded to the state highway patrol because at the time cellular
service was principally used in vehicles.
In 1994, shortly after setting aside spectrum for Personal
Communications Services (PCS), the FCC commenced a proceeding to
determine whether it should impose 911 obligations on wireless
carriers. In its seminal 1996 Wireless E911 Order, the FCC decided that
wireless carriers should implement E911 service in two
phases:1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility
with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102,
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd
18676 (July 26, 1996).
With Phase I, wireless carriers must transmit the handset's
phone number and the location of the cell site (or cell sector)
serving the E911 caller, thereby providing call back capability
and the caller's general location.
With Phase II, wireless carriers were ordered additionally to
provide within five years more precise location information
(latitude and longitude) within a radius of 125 meters 67
percent of the time.
Although it recognized that Phase II location technology did not
exist at the time, the FCC nevertheless determined that its five-year
(October 2001) implementation schedule was achievable. In response to
estimates that Phase II would cost up to $7.5 billion, the FCC stated
only that these costs would decrease over time.
The FCC has also substantially changed virtually all of its
original wireless E911 requirements and, in most instances, it has made
them more onerous.2 For example:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, e.g., Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure
Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket
No. 94-102, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22665 (Dec. 23,
1997); California Declaratory Order, 14 FCC Rcd 1969 (Dec. 18, 1999);
Second Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 10954 (June 9, 1999); Third Report
and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 17388 (Oct. 6, 1999); Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 14 FCC Rcd 20850 (Dec. 8, 1999); Third Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 15 FCC Rcd 1144 (Jan. 13, 2000); California Declaratory
Reconsideration Order, 15 FCC Rcd 1997 (Feb. 1, 2000); Fourth
Memorandum Option and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 17442 (Sept. 8, 2000); Fifth
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 22810 (Nov. 22, 2000); Fourth
Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 25216 (Dec. 14, 2000); King County
Clarification Letter (May 9, 2001); Non-Initialized Phone Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 01-175 (May 25, 2001).
PSAPs were initially required to pay carriers the costs
incurred in upgrading mobile networks to support wireless E911.
The FCC eliminated this requirement in December 1999. In May
2001, the FCC went further and imposed a financial burden on
wireless carriers not imposed on incumbent LECs. Specifically,
the Wireless Bureau has now required wireless carriers to pay
for a portion of the PSAP's own E911 network and, apparently,
to incur the costs needed to convert 21st century wireless data
into a form that can be used by the antiquated equipment that
many PSAPs continue to use.
A PSAP request for E911 services historically was not acted
upon unless the PSAP had installed the capability to use the
service. This requirement prevents wireless carriers from
having to build an E911 highway to nowhere. Nonetheless, the
FCC is currently considering a PSAP proposal to require
wireless carriers to begin implementation before PSAPs have
upgraded their equipment and E911 network.
In October 1999, the FCC increased its Phase II accuracy
requirements to 100 meters 67 percent of the time and 300
meters 95 percent of the time for ``networked-based''
solutions. However, it imposed even more stringent accuracy
requirements--50 meters 67 percent of the time and 150 meters
95 percent of the time--for carriers using a ``handset''
solution.
Phase I Implementation Status. Wireless carriers must provide Phase
I cell site information within six months of a PSAP request, and
VoiceStream has received Phase I requests from approximately six
percent of all PSAPs (450 of approximately 7,000 total PSAPs). Although
Phase I implementation is reasonably straightforward (and far simpler
than Phase II), experience has proven that Phase I generally cannot be
implemented within six months of a request. In most cases this
``delay'' is due to a combination of factors relating to the technology
upgrades or ``patches'' needed to allow the PSAP's 911 network to
accept the additional data necessary for wireless E911. Many PSAPs have
little interest in Phase I, but we have found they often do not
understand that they need Phase I capabilities in order to use Phase II
capabilities and that, by waiting to implement both at once, they make
implementation within six months virtually impossible.
III. THE CHALLENGE OF PHASE II WIRELESS LOCATION
The successful implementation of Phase II location capabilities
requires modifications by and the cooperation of wireless carriers,
vendors that supply needed technology to carriers, the PSAPs, and the
operator of the E911 network (generally, the incumbent LEC).
A. Wireless Carriers. The provision of location information for
land-line 911 calls is straightforward: the telephone number is
associated with a fixed address and that fixed address can be stored in
an ALI database. How can a wireless carrier provide location
information for a customer that is mobile--and whose location may
change during the 911 call?
In 1996, at the time of the initial FCC Order, everyone expected
that the Phase II requirements would be implemented by a ``network
solution,'' and the FCC's initial rules permitted only a network
solution. With a network solution, location is determined using
triangulation of nearby cell sites (calculating distance by the time
consumed for cell site-to-handset signal transmissions). Under current
FCC rules, a carrier using the network solution must provide a level of
accuracy within 100 meters 67 percent of the time and within 300 meters
95 percent of the time.
Later, following additional developmental work, some vendors
proposed use of ``handset solutions.'' The handset solution often (but
not necessarily) includes a Global Positioning Satellite (GPS)
receiver, with triangulation performed using the GPS satellite data in
conjunction with data derived from the wireless network. Carriers like
VoiceStream using GSM technology proposed a hybrid handset solution
involving network and handset upgrades. In 1999, the FCC revised its
rules to permit use of the handset solutions, but it also imposed more
rigorous requirements on users of this alternative--carriers must
provide a level of accuracy within 50 meters 67 percent of the time and
within 150 meters 95 percent of the time.
There are inherent weaknesses with each solution. The network/
triangulation approach does not work well in rural areas where there
are fewer cell sites. The GPS approach does not work well in buildings
and urban areas where the satellite signal may be blocked. The solution
pursued by a given carrier is often dictated by the particular network
air interface it uses (e.g., AMPS, CDMA, GSM, iDEN, TDMA). In reality,
most carriers plan on using a hybrid approach--a combination of the
network and handset solutions that work best for their network air
interfaces.
VoiceStream, which uses the GSM system prevalent throughout the
world, is deploying Enhanced Observed Time Difference (E-OTD), a hybrid
handset solution that requires upgrades to handsets as well as to its
network. GSM carriers in Europe and elsewhere are observing the results
of VoiceStream's testing and deployment before they commit to large
scale deployments of high accuracy location capabilities within their
networks. VoiceStream has effectively become a test bed for the world's
GSM carriers because of the FCC regulatory initiative.
For the past year, VoiceStream has been testing the E-OTD solution
in Houston, and it has already expended millions of dollars on Phase II
development. We currently have the equivalent of 10 people committed
full time to this effort and this commitment will increase steadily as
we work toward large scale deployments. While progress has been made,
the technology is not yet ready for full national deployment, as
discussed further below.
B. Vendors. Carriers provide services to the public, but they
remain dependent on their vendors--of both network equipment and
handsets--to implement a new capability. VoiceStream, like most
wireless carriers, requires major upgrades to both its network
equipment and to the handsets provided to customers in order to
provision Phase II location accuracy. In the end, a carrier's ability
to meet a regulatory mandate like E911 is determined by the ability of
vendors to develop and deliver large quantities of commercial-grade
equipment and handsets to the carrier in a timely fashion. Even before
this new equipment can be built, however, a set of industry wide
standards must be developed so the equipment can be designed to meet
consistent operating specifications. Typically, the standards
development process for new capabilities take over two years and
vendors then need an additional 18 months or so to design and produce
new equipment based on these standards. While VoiceStream can urge its
vendors to develop solutions quickly, it is the vendor that must, in
the end, be able to create a viable and reliable solution. Since the
E911 initiative is being driven, worldwide, by the FCC location
mandate, vendors are proceeding with care. Their care is also
influenced by the economic slowdown and by carriers--less aggressive
capital investment plans. Now is not an ideal time for vendors to be
expected to invest in expensive research, development and production
work for equipment that is mandated, not by the marketplace, but rather
by the U.S regulator.
C. PSAPs. Most PSAPs cover small areas, have limited resources and
have limited understanding of the technology required for E911 (e.g.,
they will need to obtain sophisticated mapping software so they can
convert latitude and longitude data into recognizable street addresses,
required telecommunications software development and improvements).
Many PSAPs still use equipment which is based on 1950s-era technology
that is not sufficiently robust to handle Phase I service, much less
the additional data required for Phase II precision. When mobile
service was introduced in the 1980s, PSAPs decided to have wireless 911
calls delivered to basic telephones, which lacked the ability to
display 911 data, rather than make the 911 network and equipment
upgrades necessary to provide wireless callers enhanced 911 service.
While PSAPs may now be anxious to acquire modern equipment and
networks, others (e.g., city council, county commission) often
determine funding. Further, individual PSAPs (and especially small
PSAPs) often find it difficult to convince the incumbent LEC managing
their E911 network to upgrade the network without the PSAP securing
significant additional funding.
D. The LEC Bottleneck. Most PSAPs use the local incumbent LEC
services to provision their E911 network, and the majority of current
911 networks rely on 1950s-era signaling technology. This combination
of LEC services and PSAP technology simply cannot support wireless E911
services, whether Phase I or Phase II. For example, the PSAP-to-
selective router trunks routinely handle only eight digits, and 20
digits are in fact needed for Phase I implementation and additional
digits will be needed to depict Phase II latitude and longitude
calculations. The LECs have unfortunately been slow to modernize the
E911 networks to accommodate this additional data. One significant
issue today is the readiness of the LECs to receive wireless carrier
location data using the industry standard (TIA J-STD-036) that was
cooperatively developed by the LECs, PSAPs and wireless carriers
specifically for wireless E911. If they have not yet installed this
capability on their 911 networks, additional development time may be
required to accommodate the non-compliant interfaces being used. Given
that each PSAP installation is to a large degree custom built,
considerable work and time may be necessary to address the multiple
configurations existing today.
E. Coordination Issue. Coordination is difficult given the sheer
number of parties involved. Take, for instance, the Phase I deployment
undertaken by the Texas Commission on State Emergency Communications.
TX-CSEC expected that Phase I could be deployed in six months--even
though the deployment involved over 360 PSAPs, 24 Regional Planning
Commissions, over 40 wireless carriers, several LECs, and an
independent Phase I database vendor. Significant delays were
encountered due to signaling incompatibility between the LEC selective
routers and wireless switches, signaling incompatibility between
wireless networks and some database systems, insufficient time to
complete the huge number of database record updates required,
insufficient time for the PSAPs to complete the routing analysis and
address verifications necessary to correctly identify cell site
locations, errors in some of the numerous trunk orders needed to
connect wireless switches to the selective routers and insufficient
capacity in some selective routers to accommodate the additional
trunking. The Phase I conversion in Texas is now nearing completion,
after two years. The Phase II deployment will be even more
challenging--and unless significant changes are made to the process and
better planning is undertaken--even more complicated.
IV. WIDESPREAD PHASE II WIRELESS E911 DEPLOYMENT WILL BE EXTREMELY
CHALLENGING UNDER CURRENT FCC REQUIREMENTS
Under current FCC rules, carriers must provide Phase II E911
service by October 1, 2001 or within six months of a PSAP request,
whichever is later. The Committee has asked whether this deadline is
feasible. VoiceStream believes that widespread deployment under this
mandate will be daunting for all parties involved.
The FCC established the October 2001 deadline and its accuracy
requirements five years ago when there was no known method of meeting
the accuracy requirements established. Given that both the deadline and
the accuracy requirements were established based on limited data, it
should not be surprising to anyone that we find ourselves in the
current situation.
VoiceStream's situation illustrates the challenges posed by these
issues. VoiceStream uses GSM, the most mature digital air interface
technology serving over 400 million subscribers worldwide. The FCC's
911 rules are the most aggressive requirements in the world.
VoiceStream, being the largest GSM operator in the U.S., took the lead
and, with its vendors, developed the GSM E911 solution, E-OTD. Because
E-OTD initially did not appear to meet the more stringent FCC handset
requirement, the FCC granted VoiceStream a limited Phase II waiver. But
in granting this waiver, the FCC imposed new requirements on
VoiceStream, including:
VoiceStream must deploy by the end of this year a second, less
precise Phase II solution (known as Network Software Solution
(NSS)), and Voice-Stream must deploy this NSS solution
nationally.
The E-OTD solution requires modified handsets, and the FCC
required that beginning October 1, 2001 50 percent of all new
VoiceStream handsets sold must be E-OTD capable, and 100
percent of all handsets sold by March 31, 2002 must be E-OTD
capable.
Two years after the initial rollout, on October 1, 2003,
VoiceStream must satisfy the more rigorous handset accuracy
requirements of 50 meter accuracy 67 percent of the time and
150 meters 95 percent of the time.
The FCC Phase II deadline is only 3.5 months away. Even if
VoiceStream could complete a far-reaching installation of its E-OTD
solution by October 1, based on Phase II requests received thus far
there are only a handful of PSAPs across the country capable of
actually accommodating Phase II service. And even if PSAP equipment and
the E911 network were Phase II compatible, it appears there still will
be insufficient quantities of Phase II handsets available in the market
for customers to purchase. The economic slowdown has slowed consumers
discretionary purchasing dramatically since the waiver was granted.
In summary, the October 1, 2001 deadline will present problems for
a number of reasons. And even while VoiceStream, and other carriers,
will be in a position to conduct tests with a handful of PSAPs during
2002, I believe that the PSAPs, LECs and carriers will have trouble
achieving a nationwide availability deadline of October 2002. Phase II
location capability holds great promise for public safety and for
commercial applications ``but turning that promise into reality has
proven to be much more complicated than anyone could have foreseen five
or even two years ago.
Industry and governmental technological predictions frequently miss
their targets. E911 is a case in point.
V. OTHER IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS
The Committee asked to be apprised of other problems with Phase II
implementation. I below highlight some of the numerous problems that
threaten this effort.
A. Zoning and permitting. Many of the available wireless location
options require additional equipment at the cell site and these
additions could require zoning and building permitting actions
depending on local laws and rules. Equipment added inside existing cell
site enclosures may cause concern for electrical load capacity, heating
and cooling, or structural weight limits (especially on towers).
Antennas and other equipment added to the exterior of the cell site
enclosure or on a tower structure could easily raise new zoning issues.
In either case, adding equipment to a cell site very often forces
renegotiation of the site lease. If all of these issues are not
successfully resolved, it may be impossible to deploy the location
equipment in a manner capable of meeting the FCC accuracy requirements.
Obviously, the time needed to resolve these sometimes highly
contentious and political issues could easily prevent carriers from
meeting the 6 month deployment deadlines.
B. Telephone number exhaust concerns. As you know, telephone
numbers are in extremely short supply and several number optimization
measures are being implemented to conserve telephone numbers in the
U.S. today. Unfortunately, this number exhaust problem is being made
worse because wireless carriers are being forced to use their otherwise
dialable public switched telephone numbers in order to interface with
existing 911 networks. The pseudo-ANI (Automatic Number Identification)
is the ``key'' number used for selective routing and to identify a
specific record in the 911 database, thereby allowing wireless 911
calls to be delivered on the existing 911 networks. However, due to
limitations of existing selective routing equipment, in many instances
dialable telephone numbers instead of non-dialable, true ``pseudo''-ANI
numbers are required. Once a dialable telephone number is assigned as a
pseudo-ANI number, the telephone number cannot be assigned to a
subscriber and used in the public telephone system for fear of creating
confusion during a 911 emergency. This wasteful use of a critically
limited resource must be corrected. For this solution to work, changes
must be made to LEC switches and selective routers to allow them to
recognize and use non-dialable, true ``pseudo''-ANI numbers for 911
purposes.
Discriminatory Funding of the E911 Network. PSAPs pay the full cost
of the E911 network, up to an incumbent LEC's end office switch.
However, last month the FCC ruled that wireless carriers must fund a
portion of the E911 network--the new elements between the existing
selective router and the mobile switch which are required to retrofit
modern wireless systems to support the antiquated 911 networks which
are so prevalent. This discriminatory arrangement is inconsistent with
long-standing cost causation principles and inconsistent with the
parity objective that Congress has established for 911 service. See
Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 (Congress
expressed its intention that wireless carriers be treated in generally
the same manner as land-line carriers on 911 issues).
D. PSAPs Are Discouraged from Modernizing Their Networks. Wireless
carriers have modern networks and PSAPs largely use 1950s-era
technology. There are two ways that Phase II service can be provided in
this environment: (1) PSAPs can upgrade their equipment and networks to
more current technology such as Feature Group D, ISDN, SS7, TCP/IP; or
(2) they can use various work around techniques so Phase I and II data
can be handled by their antiquated networks. Until last month, each
PSAP was required as a prerequisite to making a valid Phase I or Phase
II request to make an individual choice between these two options based
on its unique circumstances. However, now that the FCC has required
wireless carriers to fund the new ``wireless portion'' of the E911
network, PSAPs can effectively require carriers to undertake (and pay
for) the conversion function.
In this environment, PSAPs have no incentive to upgrade their
equipment and networks to 21st century technology. Wireless carriers
are faced with a double whammy--not only must they upgrade their own
networks to Phase I/Phase II, they must then spend additional sums to
convert this 21st century technology so it can be used by 1950s-era
public safety technology. This situation is particularly ironic because
the FCC deleted carrier cost recovery as a prerequisite for service
based in part on claims from public safety that if this change was not
made, the carriers would ``gold plate'' their 911 systems. Yet under
the new rule, gold plating now appears to be a valid PSAP option.
E. The Current Implementation Plan Is Backwards. Ordinarily,
carriers first test a new technology before they install it anywhere in
their network. Once bugs have been identified and fixed, they can begin
installing the feature in their switches. It may be six months (or a
year) before a carrier completes installation of the feature throughout
its network. Forcing deployment of incompletely tested systems actually
increases the danger to the public by creating an environment in which
the wireless system may crash--effectively preventing completion of the
very 911 calls this program is designed to enhance.
With E911, however, the implementation schedule is instead
determined by each of the 7,000 PSAPs. If 1,000 PSAPs request Phase II
service in a short period of time, by rule, the carrier must then
process and completely install 1,000 orders over the following six
months. The problem with this approach, besides the sheer quantities
involved, is its haphazardness. Rather than being able to use resources
efficiently, by converting PSAPs on a market-by-market basis, carriers
must be prepared to convert an untold number of PSAPs simultaneously
across the country. This strategy totally defeats public safety and FCC
arguments that carriers will recoup their location technology costs
through commercial service. A revenue generating service simply cannot
be built when the required location capability hardware is installed in
geographically dispersed small islands across the nation.
F. A Pending Proposal Would Result in Chaos. VoiceStream has
already received over 90 Phase II requests from PSAPs in 48 states. No
carrier has the resources to implement this many diversely located
PSAPs simultaneously. Carriers must therefore ration their resources
using a reasonable strategy. (While it took more than 20 years before
911/E911 service was available to 50 percent of Americans, the FCC
Order requires wireless carriers to achieve this result in five years
while concurrently developing a new technology.)
Today, by FCC rule, PSAPs must complete their upgrades before they
may even make a valid E911 request. This requirement helps ensure that
finite carrier resources are focused on PSAPs that have the capability
actually to use wireless E911 service. However, PSAPs have recently
asked the FCC to require carriers to begin their implementation efforts
based on a promise that they will be ready when the carrier is ready.
The problem with this approach is that while PSAPs may truly believe
they will be Phase II capable on a certain date in the future, they may
have significant difficulty meeting this date because anticipated
funding is not approved or because of delays in the delivery of their
new equipment or network upgrades. The Texas CSEC example cited earlier
demonstrates the complexity of wireless E911 implementation in a real
world environment. This latest PSAP proposal will certainly increase
the quantity of E911 requests made, but, if adopted this proposal will
result in fewer PSAPs converted--as carriers convert PSAPs that are not
ready as promised, PSAPs that already are Phase II capable will wait in
line. Thus, unless there is certainty the PSAP can use the Phase II
data, we are certain to miss the opportunity to improve public safety
in some PSAPs that have completed the considerable effort necessary to
be truly Phase II capable.
G. E911 Service for non-Customers. In 1997, the FCC decided that
carriers should forward all 911 calls to PSAPs, including 911 calls
made by persons who are not customers and, therefore, do not have a
phone number associated with their handset. Carriers expressed concern
because features such as a ``call back'' capability would not be
available from such ``non-initialized'' handsets. The land-line 911
equivalent--requiring that every telephone in America can not only call
911 but also can be called back by the PSAP--is not a requirement.
PSAPs have now begun to complain about the unavailability of call back
from these phones and, while carriers are busy implementing Phase I and
preparing for Phase II, the FCC has asked whether industry should now
be required to expend additional millions providing additional
capabilities to non-initialized handsets.
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
Wireless E911 is an instance where the federal government, acting
with the best of intentions, moved faster that the state of technology
warranted. Having worked in the 911 field and managed 911 operations, I
applaud the FCC's willingness to reach for the stars in its efforts to
help America's thousands of dedicated 911 professionals by improving
the usefulness of wireless E911. President Kennedy took a similarly
bold stance in 1960 when he decided that the United States could send a
man to the moon within a decade. Kennedy's goal was achieved because
the necessary resources and coordination efforts were committed to the
project. Unfortunately, the resources and coordination necessary for
wireless 911 improvement have increasingly been placed on only one of
the many necessary participants. Ironically, the wireless industry is
being asked to retrofit its modern communications technology to support
technology developed prior to the Kennedy Administration.
It is now time for us to work together to build on the knowledge we
have gained since the 1996 FCC Order by establishing a realistic
strategy for Phase II deployment. We have new FCC Commissioners and I
believe that these new Commissioners should be given an opportunity to
review past orders and requirements based on the substantial experience
of the Phase I implementation and recent developments in Phase II
technologies. I would like to believe that a new FCC would:
Reexamine all wireless E911 obligations and deadlines based on
the knowledge learned;
Encourage carriers, vendors, LECs and PSAPs to engage in
``real world'' trials of various Phase II technologies in order
to ascertain areas in need of further improvement and to
develop realistic operational parameters;
Consider in its new approach the impact zoning and permitting
issues may have on deployment timelines and include reasonable
accommodations in the schedule for such potential delays;
Review the current and future problems arising from the
inappropriate use of our limited telephone number resources as
911 data keys and develop a workable alternative;
Establish an implementation schedule that is efficient,
considers the aforementioned issues, and meets the needs of
both industry and the public safety community, and
Be guided by both the long-term, as well as short-term, best
interests of the Public's need for a sound and nationally
consistent 911 service. Let's do it right, rather than just
fast.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee today. I
am happy to address any questions that you may have.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. Souder, we want to congratulate you and your group here
locally for the job that they did that was displayed in the
video at the start. We will not take that 2 minutes away from
your time.
STATEMENT OF STEVE SOUDER
Mr. Souder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to
you and members of the committee. My name is Steve Souder. I am
the Administrator of the Arlington County, Virginia 911
Emergency Communications Center and my comments this morning
are offered on behalf of three associations. One is the
Association of Public Safety Communications Officials, the
other is the National Emergency Number Association and the
third is the National Association of State 911 Administrators.
These three organizations represent 20,000 911 professionals
throughout the United States.
In the 1980's, cellular or as we call it wireless
communications and telephones were introduced commercially in
the United States and have had a profound and mostly positive
impact on society and our quality of life. Each day, there are
approximately 320,000 911 calls made in the United States. Of
those 320,000 911 calls, approximately 110,000 calls a day are
made from wireless telephones. As Mr. Terry mentioned earlier,
more than 90 percent of the citizens surveyed indicate that the
No. 1 reason that they purchased a wireless telephone is for
their safety and for their security.
Wireless 911 calls constitute between 40 to 60 percent of
911 calls received and do not provide any automatic location,
identification or ALI information. ALI information is what is
meant by intense 911. Consequently 911 call takers do not where
40 to 60 percent of all 911 calls are calling from or where the
callers are at and often the callers do not know where they are
at, nor do they know their telephone number, nor do they many
times know the provider of the telephone service to that
telephone number.
If I could draw your attention to the exhibit on the easel,
if you were to call 911 on a wireline telephone as I hold
before you from your office, your business or from a coin
telephone, the call taker would know exactly where you were
calling from. However, if you call up 911 on a wireless
telephone without moving one inch, the call taker would have no
idea where you're calling from. As you can see, there is more
telephones to which call 911 and more 911 calls being made,
most of them from wireless telephones. Because the location of
the caller is unknown we are regressing in our ability to
provide quality service to the community, rather than
progressing.
Wireline 911 calls are usually received and entered in the
dispatch center within 40 seconds due to the availability of
the ALI information providing the call location. However,
wireless 911 calls may cause up to more than 4 minutes of
additional delay in entering those calls into the system
because without the caller knowing where they are and the call
taker knowing where they are, there is a tremendous amount of
dialog that has to go between the two in order to enter the
information that will allow for a speedy response.
In 1994, the Public Safety Communications organizations
petitioned the FCC for assistance. As a result, in 1996, the
FCC issued rules. Included in those rules were Phase II which
is what we're speaking about today and that by October 1, 2001,
the location of wireless 911 callers be provided to the public
safety answering point or PSAP, commonly referred to as the 911
Center within a radius of between 164 feet and 328 feet and I
deliberately mention feet as opposed to meters which is often
referred to because it gives us a context in which to view that
distance. Remember the 320 feet is slightly longer than a
football field. That is a far cry from the information that we
saw presented on the ALI screen earlier.
In the interim, wireless telephones have been improved to
include the ability to page, send and receive e-mail, access
the internet, vibrate instead of ring and ring in many
different tones and styles and become smaller and come in every
color of the rainbow. Recently, in fact, I saw an advertisement
advertising a telephone that could provide video. As Mr. Markey
said earlier, now 5 years after the rules have been issued and
4 months before the technology is required to be provided,
October 1, 2001, some carriers have requested a waiver of that
requirement and others are expected to do so. The single most
important reason that people use phones is for their safety and
security and yet the ability to provide location technology to
locate those people when they call 911 has not been provided
and waivers to providing it are being requested. Again, as Mr.
Terry mentioned earlier, it is not unusual for PSAP to receive
as many 70 wireless 911 calls reporting one accident. Each call
must be answered to ensure that a different emergency is not
being reported. If the location of the caller were known, the
speed and the manner in which these multiple calls were handled
could be improved dramatically.
There are many news accounts of wireless 911 calls that
result in fatalities because the 911 call taker and the 911
caller did not know the location of the emergency. A highly
publicized case several months wherein a car went off the road
in Southern Florida resulted in a fatality and a lot of media
attention. The caller's call sank beneath the water as the call
taker talked to the victim for 3\1/2\ minutes as the call taker
tried in vain to obtain the location that the car was located
at. Meanwhile, emergency vehicles were speeding up and down the
road looking in vain for the location of the car. When the car
was finally located, it was totally submerged in water and its
passenger had succumbed. That victim could have been any one in
this room, your family members, your loved ones, co-workers,
business associates, it could be a wireless telephone service
provider, it could be a Member of Congress or it could be a 911
call taker. This type of tragedy can strike anyone.
In my own jurisdiction, as mentioned earlier in the video,
within the last year there have been three high profile
incidents involving reports by people using cellular telephones
to report emergencies that have gained both national and
international attention: abduction and car jacking which we saw
on the video; and abduction and rape; and a person threatening
suicide. It was only through professionalism, luck and
persistence that they were positively resolved and in one case
it took almost an hour and another almost 30 minutes for
something that should have taken less than 1 minute.
It is unconscionable that in 1987 when 100 percent of the
enhanced 911 calls received were provided with location
technology and yet in the year 2001 60 percent of those calls
received are not provided with location technology.
In closing, in 1958, the Congress of the United States
endorsed the concept of the three digit number 911 for use in
summoning law enforcement, fire, rescue and emergency medical
services. Ten years later, in 1968, the first 911 call was made
from a small town of Haileysville, Alabama. Since that time,
911 has become synonymous to Americans as the best way to
request emergency assistance. Millions of citizens owe their
life to 911 and with the advent of wireless telephones, 911
service now is available from locations that it was never
available from before.
On behalf of APCO, NENA and NASNA, I urge the Congress to
do whatever is within your power to ensure that those ever
increasing number of American citizens who call 911 from their
wireless telephone are assured that their location is made
available and that the 911 emergency communication center is
able to process those calls in the same manner that occurs with
a 911 call made from a wireline telephone. Americans deserve
that, expect that and need that.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Steve Souder follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve Souder, Administrator, Arlington County,
Virginia 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Center on Behalf of the
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International,
Inc., the National Emergency Number Association and the National
Association of State Nine One One Administrators
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you very much for
providing me with this opportunity to appear before you today. My name
is Steve Souder, and I am the Administrator of the Arlington County 9-
1-1 Emergency Communication Center. I am here today on behalf of the
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International,
Inc. (APCO), the National Emergency Number Association (NENA), and the
National Association of State Nine One One Administrators (NASNA).
These associations represent state and local government emergency 9-1-1
communications centers (also known as ``Public Safety Answering
Points'' or ``PSAPs''). APCO, NENA, and NASNA have worked tirelessly to
promote wireless enhanced 9-1-1 capability, and I am proud to be here
today on their behalf and the approximately 6,000 PSAPs across the
United States.
Until approximately ten years ago, nearly all incoming 9-1-1 calls
to PSAPs were from wireline telephones, and most provided the call-
taker with automatic number identification (ANI) and automatic location
information (ALI) for the caller. The provision of ANI and ALI is known
as Enhanced 9-1-1 or E9-1-1. Attached to copies of my testimony is an
illustration of a typical data screen that a call-taker sees
immediately upon receiving a wireline E9-1-1 call. Armed with this
information, the 9-1-1 call-taker can quickly and accurately dispatch
police, fire, ambulance and other appropriate public safety agency
personnel to emergency locations.
Today, unfortunately, close to half of all 9-1-1 calls provide LESS
information than what we had ten years ago for most wireline calls. The
reason is simple. The explosive growth of wireless telephones has
occurred without E9-1-1 capability, leaving PSAPs in the dark regarding
the location of 40-50% of their 9-1-1 callers.
There are approximately 110 million wireless telephones in use in
the United States, a majority of which were probably acquired to
provide the subscriber with a greater sense of security and the ability
to seek emergency assistance anywhere, anytime. Those 110 million
wireless telephones generate approximately 120,000 9-1-1 calls every
day. However, uosdHokkhnlike the typical wireline call of even ten
years ago, virtually none of those 120,000 daily wireless calls provide
Enhanced 9-1-1 information. The data screen that the 9-1-1 call taker
sees in those instances has none of the essential location and call
back information that has long been available for most wireline calls.
Without accurate location information for wireless calls, the 9-1-1
call-taker must make a verbal inquiry regarding the caller's location,
adding to the time that must be spent on each call, and slowing down
response time by several precious minutes. Wireless 9-1-1 callers also
often do not know exactly where they are, or they are unable to
describe their location with any clarity or accuracy. In some cases,
callers may even hang up, or their wireless calls are ``dropped''
before they can provide necessary information regarding the emergency
or its location. These problems are every day occurrences in PSAPs
across the nation.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, there have been highly publicized
emergencies where the absence of wireless location information led
directly to the loss of life, or at least imposed far greater danger to
than would otherwise have occurred. For example, members of the
Committee may be familiar with an incident in my own jurisdiction in
Northern Virginia where a women was hijacked and placed in the trunk of
her car while it sped away. While she had a portable cell phone with
her, and could call 9-1-1 to report her predicament, she obviously
could not identify her changing location.
In a recent highly publicized event in Florida, a woman's vehicle
went off the road and landed in a drainage canal. She immediately
called 9-1-1 from her cell phone as her car slowly sank into the water.
However, because she could only identify the name of the road she was
on, and not the actual scene of the accident (which was not visible
from the road itself), emergency personnel were unable to find her in
time, and the women drowned.
I mention these cases because they tend to highlight the nature of
the problem. However, I want to emphasize that the lack of wireless E9-
1-1 is a daily threat throughout the United States.
Even when a wireless 9-1-1 caller can provide accurate verbal
descriptions of their location, the absence of automatic location
information can still wreak havoc with a PSAP's ability to respond
efficiently to emergencies. For example, it is not at all unusual for
my agency to receive up to 70 calls reporting the same automobile
accident. Finding such an emergency is not the problem. The problem is
that we don't know in advance that those 70 calls are all about the
same event, and we therefore need to spend scarce resources to answer
each and every call. In the meantime, the PSAP's incoming lines become
clogged and we run the risk that there may be another caller waiting in
line to report an entirely different emergency. In contrast, with
automatic location information for wireless calls, our systems could be
set up to prioritize calls such that after the first report, all other
calls from the immediate vicinity would be placed in queue behind calls
from other locations.
Fortunately, major efforts are underway to address these serious
problems, though much more is still to be done. Nearly ten years ago,
APCO, NENA, and others identified wireless E9-1-1 as a critical issue
and brought it to the FCC's attention. The Commission responded with a
proceeding that began in 1994, and resulted in rules adopted in 1996.
However, as of today, we still do not have wireless E9-1-1. 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. Examples include e-mail, instant messaging, Internet
access, hands-free operation, and a shrinkage in the size and cost of
handsets. I only wish the wireless industry and equipment manufacturers
had developed E9-1-1 at the same pace as these convenience features.
Now, we are facing an important deadline. On October 1, 2001,
assuming that there has been a valid request from a PSAP, a wireless
carrier must begin implementation of Phase II of the rules. Phase II
requires delivery of location information within accuracy levels of 50-
100 meters (164-328 feet), depending upon the choice of location
technology. Only then will PSAPs begin to see the real benefits of
wireless E9-1-1.
Some wireless carriers are proceeding on schedule to meet the
October 1 deadline, and I applaud their commitment. Others, however,
have fallen behind and are either seeking waivers, or are expected to
do so in the near future. I and the public safety organizations that I
am representing here today are deeply troubled by these waivers. We
recognize that the carriers face significant costs and technical
challenges. However, the fact that some carriers are on schedule, and
that both network-based and handset-based location technologies are
available and proven in the field, suggests that some carriers have
simply not devoted sufficient attention or resources to this issue.
These proven location technologies may not be perfect, but theyhave
demonstrated the capability to meet the FCC's standards. Something
better will always come along tomorrow. But we in public safety are
seriously concerned that if we keep delaying present performance based
on future promise, we will never have anything workable to improve on.
We simply cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
The issues facing carriers are complex, and I know that APCO, NENA
and NASNA are undertaking a serious review of the documentation
submitted in support of various waivers, and will be making appropriate
recommendations to the Commission. I also recognize that there may be
some factors beyond the control of carriers which may cause delay in
Phase II implementation in some situations. Nevertheless, the public
safety community urges that the Commission be firm and, to the extent
possible, hold the carriers to the existing deadlines, because lives
are at stake. Every day of delay is another day that the public is at
risk because of the inability to quickly and accurately locate
emergencies reported on wireless telephones.
Of course PSAPs also have a responsibility for making E9-1-1 a
reality. Many PSAPs are now or will soon be ready to receive and
process Phase II information from wireless carriers. Frankly, others
are not so far along, either because of funding constraints, the need
for LEC network upgrades, or perhaps a reluctance to expend scarce
resources for Phase II readiness until the carriers are themselves
proceeding towards Phase II deployment. The public safety community is
working hard, however, to improve E9-1-1 readiness on the part of
PSAPs. For example, I am part of APCO's Project Locate which is
working, with participation from NENA, to educate PSAPs and assist them
in becoming Phase II ready as soon a possible. APCO and NENA have also
sponsored seminars and other educational programs across the county to
educate PSAPs, some of which are quite small and have limited funding
and technical expertise.
The challenges before us are great. However, I am confident that a
united effort between the wireless industry, equipment manufacturers,
technology providers, PSAPs, and the FCC will allow the United States
to continue to have state-of-art methods for receiving and processing
calls for emergency assistance. In the end, our common goal must be the
ability to locate every 9-1-1 call, regardless of the type of telephone
placing the call. I am sure that this Committee agrees with that goal,
and we welcome your support and encouragement in that regard.
Thank you
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. Sugrue.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. SUGRUE
Mr. Sugrue. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee and subcommittee. A little over 2 years ago in my
second week on the job as the new chief of the Wireless Bureau,
I appeared before the subcommittee to testify on E911 matters.
And Ms. Eshoo's comment about the importance of this technology
to women reminded me that morning I told the subcommittee that
I personally became a wireless subscriber when a number of
important women in my life reached a critical stage and that
was when my daughters became drivers and when my first daughter
turned 16 we got our first cell phone and when her younger
sister became 16 and started driving, we got the second. Then
my wife said hey, what about me, and I said that's right, we
got the third and I was the last one to get a cell phone in the
family, although now we're all enthusiastic wireless users.
Well, in the intervening 2 years, both Congress and the
Commission have continued to focus on wireless 911 and taken
important steps toward our mutual goal of a nationwide
ubiquitous reliable wireless E911 system. And one of the
cornerstones of this progress was the passage of the Wireless
Communications and Public Safety Act in October 1999 under the
auspices of this subcommittee and the leadership of the
subcommittee Chairman Tauzin and many of the current
subcommittee members, Mr. Shimkus was the sponsor, Ms. Eshoo, I
know was the co-sponsor, Ms. McCarthy I know was very involved
as well. So I commend the subcommittee and its members for
those efforts in this regard and that legislation has been very
helpful in moving us along to realize our goals for E911.
On the FCC side, we too have been actively engaged in 911
matters during the last 2 years. Among other things, we have
increased the range of options available to carriers by
permitting the use of new handset based technologies such as
those using the GPS satellite system and so-called hybrid
technologies, those that combine elements of both handset and
network based approaches. Our decision in that regard was
based, in part, on arguments from rural carriers that these
technologies were needed for them to be able to implement E911
and their operating areas.
We adjusted and clarified our rules concerning certain
operational issues affecting E911 implementation including cost
recovery by carriers and PSAP. We convened several multi-party
meetings, including carriers, vendors, manufacturers and
members of the public safety community to exchange information
on the state of location technology development. And we
performed extensive outreach, speaking at numerous, numerous
conferences, meetings and other events aimed at informing and
educating interested parties including State and local public
safety agencies and carriers on our 911 rules and policies.
Now in 2001, the beginning of phased in deployment of Phase
II is almost here. As has already been noted many times,
carriers are begin the process of rolling out Phase II on
October 1 of this year. This October 1 deployment timeframe
dates back to a consensus agreement between the wireless
carrier community and the public safety community which was
filed with the Commission in 1996 and formed the basis of our
E911 rules.
Now I should add that Phase II implementation is not a
flash cut process. Under the Commission's rules, it will take
several years for Phase II to be ubiquitously deployed. For
example, with handset based technologies, the rules require
carriers to hit progressively higher penetration levels for
location capable handsets until they achieve a 95 percent
penetration by the end of 2005. Carriers choosing network based
technologies must incorporate the necessary hardware and
software in their networks over a 6 to 18 month period after
receiving a request from a PSAP for service. These PSAP
requests are expected to come in over the next few years as the
PSAPs become ready to utilize Phase II services at different
points in time.
Well, where does wireless E911 stand now? I agree with Jim
Nixon that it seems clear that parties have come a long way
since their original agreement in 1996 and from the information
provided to us, it appears that a number of carriers are well
on their way to deploying Phase II and a number of call centers
have requested Phase II and are preparing themselves to use
this new location information effectively.
We recognize that there are always challenges involved in
deploying any major new technology on a mass market basis for
the first time and wireless location technologies are no
different. To make the promise of wireless E911 a reality, much
work remains to be done by call centers, vendors and carriers
to meet the challenges involved in deploying these life-saving
technologies.
We at the FCC will continue our efforts to make this
happen. We are committed to working with the stakeholders to
resolve problems and speed deployment, but we are also
committed to enforcement of our rules, if for example, parties
simply ignore their obligations or fail to make good faith
efforts to comply.
At the same time we will be flexible and practical in
applying the E911 rules. Last year, the Commission set out
specific standards for Phase II waivers in an order granting a
specific limited waiver to VoiceStream. Those standards,
fundamentally, require carriers to show the Commission what
they can and will do to provide Phase II location information,
not simply what they cannot do.
We are currently considering several waiver requests and
will address those based on the specific showings and facts
presented to us. Our focus will remain on the most practical
and realistic means of achieving the objectives of promoting
public safety and implementing Phase II as soon as possible.
Finally, I am reassured by factual information indicating
that there is wireless location technology available, capable
of locating 911 callers much more accurately than is the case
today. In my view, it is time to begin the deployment process.
And as that deployment proceeds, I expect that the technology
and system-wide performance will improve as we learn and get
experience with it. I also expect as customers increasingly
understand how location capability makes their life safer, they
will insist on having it available and will come to rely on it
in the same way they rely on air bags, seat belts and cars.
I am confident that the future of this technology is strong
once it is actually deployed and this virtual cycle begins to
kick in. But to get to that future all of us involved in this
process will have to redouble our efforts to see that the
promise of this life saving technology is fulfilled.
Again, I'd like to thank the subcommittee for this
opportunity to provide you with this information on our program
and I look forward to working with you over the next few months
and years as we go forward on this and answer any questions, of
course, this morning.
[The prepared statement of Thomas J. Sugrue follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas J. Sugrue, Chief, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission
I. INTRODUCTION
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank
you for this opportunity to report to you on the Commission's policies
and rules aimed at improving the quality and delivery of wireless 911
services throughout the Nation and, in particular, at implementing
wireless Enhanced 911.
II. IMPORTANCE OF WIRELESS ENHANCED 911 SERVICE
Almost exactly five years ago today, the FCC adopted the first
wireless Enhanced 911 rules, as a vital step in applying wireless
technology to improving public safety. A wireless phone is a valuable
emergency tool that can be taken almost anywhere. For many Americans,
the ability to call for help in an emergency is the principal reason
they own a wireless phone. But that help may never arrive, or may be
too late, if the 911 call does not get through or if emergency response
teams cannot locate you quickly. Our wireless 911 rules require that
wireless carriers deliver 911 calls and implement the technology that
provides the 911 call center with information about the caller's
location.
We based those first rules in large measure on an agreement reached
between the wireless industry and the public safety community back in
1996. Both recognized the importance of improving wireless 911 and,
especially, of locating wireless 911 calls. To reach these goals, these
parties developed, and filed with the Commission, a Consensus Agreement
that proposed a transition plan to allow the wireless industry and
technology vendors to develop and begin to deploy the capability to
accurately locate 911 calls. This consensus transition plan included
both scheduling and accuracy requirements. The goals it set were very
challenging--they required the development of sophisticated location
technologies for all of the various transmission standards used by
wireless carriers. It also required effective, cooperative efforts
among wireless carriers, technology vendors, equipment manufacturers,
local telephone companies, and state and local public safety
organizations and governments. The Commission adopted E911 rules based
on the schedule and the accuracy standards proposed in the parties'
Consensus Agreement.
The Commission has recognized, however, that new technologies often
develop in unexpected ways, both good and bad, and that we should be
ready to adjust our rules both to take advantage of the opportunities,
and to ameliorate the problems, presented by such developments.
Accordingly, over the course of the intervening years, we have made
revisions to our rules with the goal of facilitating the deployment of
wireless E911. In particular, we have adjusted our program in several
ways to reflect technological change and to allow carriers more choices
to meet our standards. For example, when technology was developed to
put GPS location capability in wireless handsets, we revised our rules
to permit this promising new technology to compete with network-based
solutions in providing location information. We also revised the
methodology for assessing accuracy to make it more workable and
tightened the accuracy requirements somewhat to better reflect
technological developments and to further enhance public safety. And
last year we granted a temporary, limited waiver of the accuracy
requirements to VoiceStream, to permit use of a new hybrid location
technology; i.e., one that combines elements of the handset- and
network-based approaches. Other Commission orders have addressed a
range of obstacles to E911 deployment, including funding and disputes
over the division of responsibilities between carriers and public
safety call centers.
Now, in 2001, the end of the scheduled 5-year development period
and the beginning of phased-in deployment are almost here. Under the
Commission's rules, carriers are to begin the process of rolling out
E911 Phase II on October 1, 2001, less than four months from now. When
Phase II is implemented, it will generally enable the reporting of the
location of 911 calls within 100 meters or better. However, I should
add that this is not a flash-cut process--it will take several years
for Phase II to be ubiquitously deployed. For example, with handset-
based technologies, the rules require carriers to hit progressively
higher penetration levels for location capable handsets, until they
achieve 95 percent penetration by the end of 2005. Similarly, carriers
choosing network-based technologies must incorporate the necessary
hardware and software into their networks over a 6- to 18-month period
after receiving a request from a PSAP for E911 service. These requests
are expected to come in over the next few years as PSAPs become ready
to utilize Phase II services at different points in time.
As we approach this benchmark, the need for wireless E911 is
clearer and greater than ever. In 1995, there were 34 million wireless
subscribers, who, according to the Cellular Telecommunications and
Internet Association, made 20 million 911 calls a year. Today, there
are more than 116 million wireless subscribers and the number of
wireless 911 calls has more than doubled, to over 50 million a year.
About 30 percent of all 911 calls nationwide are now made from wireless
phones, and this percentage is growing. This dramatic increase in
wireless 911 calls places increasing burdens on call takers at 911 call
centers, particularly since accurate location information is not
provided for any of those calls. E911 Phase II is needed more than ever
to help police, fire and emergency medical teams locate emergencies
more quickly and do their life-saving work more effectively and
efficiently.
III. CURRENT STATUS OF WIRELESS E911
Where does wireless E911 stand now--and how near are the original
Consensus Agreement parties to meeting the pledge made to begin
accurately locating wireless 911 calls within five years? In my view,
they are close to hitting that target. They certainly have come a long
way. Promising location technologies have been developed and field
tested. Necessary software is being developed and infrastructure
equipment and handsets are being manufactured. Many carriers appear
well on the way to deploying Phase II, and many call centers have
requested Phase II and are preparing themselves to use this new
location information effectively. But there are always challenges
involved in deploying any major new technology on a mass market basis
for the first time, and wireless location technologies are no
different. To make the promise of wireless E911 a reality, much work
remains to be done by call centers, vendors, and carriers to meet the
challenges involved in deploying these lifesaving technologies.
We at the Commission will continue our work to make this happen,
and to achieve complete deployment of Phase II location information
across the nation as quickly as possible. Progress to date has been
spurred, in large part, by the Commission's rules and decisions. Those
rules have been definite in requiring that carriers implement E911, but
flexible and practical in the means by which they do so. This approach
requires cooperation and good faith effort on all sides to ensure
successful deployment. We are committed to working with the
stakeholders to resolve problems and speed deployment. But we are also
committed to enforcement of our rules if, for example, parties simply
ignore their obligations or fail to make good faith efforts to comply.
Thus, it is important for all parties to work diligently to achieve the
goals they agreed to five years ago, which are now reflected in the
wireless E911 rules.
We share Congress' vision, embodied in the Wireless
Telecommunications and Public Safety Act of 1999, of a seamless,
ubiquitous, and reliable wireless telecommunications system that plays
a critical, life-saving role in emergency communications. The specific
provisions of the 911 Act--declaring 911 the national emergency number,
protecting the privacy of location information while providing for its
effective use in emergencies, and promoting liability protection--have
significantly advanced those goals, and we commend this Subcommittee
for its leadership in getting this important legislation enacted. We
strongly support the vision of the 911 Act and remain determined to
monitor and enforce the E911 rules to help achieve that vision.
At the same time, we will continue to be flexible and practical in
applying the E911 rules, when the circumstances warrant that approach.
Last year, in granting the VoiceStream waiver, the Commission set out
specific standards for Phase II waivers. Those standards,
fundamentally, require carriers to show the Commission what they can
and will do to provide Phase II location information, not simply what
they cannot do. The Commission expects wireless carriers to take
concrete steps toward achieving Phase II, while recognizing that
difficulties may arise. Different carriers may face different problems
and opportunities, because of the technology they use or the geographic
areas they serve. We are currently considering several waiver requests
and have heard reports that other carriers are preparing additional
requests. We plan to address these requests based on the specific
showings and facts presented to us, with our focus on the most
practical and realistic means of achieving the objectives of promoting
public safety and implementing Phase II as soon and as fully as
possible.
In fashioning this program, we are reassured by factual information
indicating that there is wireless location technology available capable
of locating 911 callers much more accurately than is in place today and
think that it is time to begin deployment. As that deployment proceeds,
we expect that the technology and system-wide performance will improve,
and as customers increasingly understand how location capability makes
their lives safer, they will insist on having it available. They will
come to rely on automatic wireless location identification in the same
way they rely on air bags and seatbelts in their cars. And once
customers begin to use wireless location technology, competition and
experience will help make it not only more accurate and reliable, but
more useful for other purposes as well. The future of this technology
is, I am confident, strong, once it is actually deployed and this
``virtuous cycle'' begins to kick in. But to get to that future, all of
us involved in this process will have to redouble our efforts to see
that the promise of this life-saving technology is fulfilled.
IV. CONCLUSION
I would like to thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to
provide information on the Commission's wireless E911 program. I look
forward to updating this information as wireless E911 advances and to
answering any of your questions.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, all of you. I think like most of the
Panel, I have myself a ton of questions and my sense is we'll
probably go two rounds, perhaps, for those of us able to stay.
Very enlightening testimony for sure and going back to the
opening statements as well, and thinking about the first time
that our family went out and got a cell phone was exactly the
reasons Mr. Sugrue that you talked about. I have a 13-year-old,
but she's already asking for a phone, so we'll see if she gets
it before she gets her driver's license.
Mr. Rimkus, why in your opinion haven't more carriers
embraced Airbiquity's GPS Accessory product?
Mr. Rimkus. I think that the technology out there is
reasonably new, this kind of GPS technology, particularly in
this form factor. On the issue of cost, it is very much a
volume driven type of product.
Mr. Upton. Tell us again what the cost is per handset.
Mr. Rimkus. Our product in low volumes, we expect it to
sell in the range up to $99 which again in low volumes. As
volumes increase, we expect that cost as any kind of technology
comes about to go down. Just as when analog phones were then
replaced with digital phones several years ago as the new
features came forward, those phones were also initially pricey
and then going forward with additional type of demand, price
went down.
Also, with our particular product and implementation, it is
limited to a specific handset manufacturer that would, in this
case it's a Nokia handset manufacturer and those carriers again
would need to be distributors of that product.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Nixon and Mr. Clark, why wouldn't
TruePositions 911 solution be right for your company. Mr.
Amarosa talked extensively about the testing that they've done
in a number of areas, I think it was what, 400 places around
the country, I imagine a pretty good blend of rural and urban
areas.
Mr. Nixon. Actually, VoiceStream has expended a lot of
effort with a number of vendors. In fact, all the vendors that
we identified as potential solutions to our particular
situation. We worked very extensively with TruePosition before
we actually received our waiver from the FCC. And we found that
in our particular situation because--not being an engineer, I'm
going to speak rather generally, each one of the radio
technologies that is used and there are 4 or 5 major ones out
there at least, there are different characteristics that would
either enhance or degrade the performance of any given location
technology.
Mr. Upton. Let me just interrupt you for 1 second. I'm from
Southwest Michigan and as I have talked to my 911 folks, we're
across the lake from Chicago and particularly with the network
base solution where you have to do the triangulation which you
see the towers primarily for me it's I-94, connecting Detroit
and Chicago. We actually heard from some of our folks that if
there's an accident on the Dan Ryan Expressway in Chicago,
sometimes that signal is forward along the cell is filled up
and it's literally forwarded along to 65 miles across Lake
Michigan in Bering County that gets the accident results for
what's happening in downtown Chicago. You're not able to,
particularly in rural areas, to put those towers up and do the
triangulation which means it may be something along the lines
of the GPS system which most sailors again in Western Michigan,
we've got a lot of boat owners, we've got the GPS there and
people know where they are.
Mr. Clark. Let me add a little bit to what Jim is saying.
First of all, from an engineering perspective, radio
frequencies are an imprecise science in that they are affected
by many, many anomalies, topographic anomalies, atmospheric
anomalies, a lot of things can cause the radio waves to do
different things. A case in point is you can be in the middle
of downtown Chicago and to the extent that you get into a radio
anomaly where the system interferes with itself, it creates
what's called a fernel zone, you won't have service.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Amarosa, when you tested it, I know you're
from New York, New York has got to be the worse case scenario
for that type of situation.
Mr. Amarosa. We were successful in the testing in New York
based on the number of cell sites that were deployed which was
over 30, based on the configuration which was basically in the
midtown Manhattan area at that given point in time.
There are other environments that present challenges and
some of those challenges have to be met on a day to day basis.
That's why it's so very important to understand the particular
area that you're in, like you've talked about, southern
Michigan and the lake problems and the proximity----
Mr. Upton. You tested in both rural and urban.
Mr. Amarosa. We tested in rural and we had some successes
in rural areas with TDOA. We had better success with an angle
of arrival capability that exists and we will continue to test.
We have test systems that are going on right now in rural
counties in Wilmington, Delaware as well.
Mr. Upton. I know my----
Mr. Clark. Mr. Chairman, may I finish my comment?
Mr. Upton. You can. It's my time and I won't yield it back
yet. Go ahead.
Mr. Clark. Thank you. I didn't want to cast disparaging
comments against TruePosition. They truly have a product that
works. My comments were in the context of trying to understand
the anomalies that can happen with radio frequencies. Cellular,
notwithstanding, that's just--that's the quantum physics of
radio. But the one thing that I would like to do is make sure
that we understand there is a clear distinction between an area
as Chicago or Michigan where you have cell density that
provides you enough reference points to accurately locate a
subscriber, versus rural America, like southeastern Oregon
where we don't have enough cell sites to be able to accurately
triangulate and find those customers we'll locate on a network
technology.
Mr. Upton. But just to follow up on that for a second,
wouldn't the GPS system be a far better way in rural Oregon
than having the--the towers, from what I understand, one of you
testified, the full testimony indicated that the cost per tower
was along the lines of as much as a half a million a tower. Is
that right?
Mr. Clark. That's correct.
Mr. Upton. To do those triangulation towers, that's a lot
of money, a lot of millions.
Mr. Clark. In the record you'll find that U.S. Cellular has
selected handset based GPS as the solution for our rural
customers.
Mr. Upton. I know my time has expired. Mr. Sawyer?
Mr. Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me turn to the
human side, Mr. Sugrue talked about the adaptation in the
emergency and law enforcement communities and Mr. Souder,
you're here speaking to that. Could you talk to me for a moment
about how ready services are across the country to respond to
the technology when it gets here and what remains to be done,
what level of preparation do they have right now?
Mr. Sugrue. I'd be happy, but I think he'd be the better of
the two to respond.
Mr. Sawyer. Either one of you.
Mr. Souder. The 911 public safety community is in the
process of being ready. Many communications centers are ready
today. They could accept whatever was provided in the way of
Phase II technology. Others are installing that equipment and
preparing for that.
In my own jurisdiction, just yesterday, I was in the
capital of Virginia, Richmond, at a hearing of its newly
appointed 911 Board, knowing that it's only several years old
and the purpose of that meeting was to participate in a dialog
as to how the Commonwealth of Virginia was going to support the
PSAP community in preparing them financially for the investment
of new technology that would allow us to receive those calls.
They are on the verge of voting affirmatively to fund mapping
technology for the entire State of Virginia that would afford
us the opportunity to do that. Those kinds of efforts are
occurring in many places of the United States.
Mr. Sawyer. Is that mapping that would superimpose latitude
and longitude over ordinary street descriptions?
Mr. Souder. That is correct. It would literally be an icon
on a map that would allow you to identify physically where the
call is being made from.
Obviously, the technology is expensive for some
jurisdictions. Unfortunately, not all States have developed
cost recovery mechanisms for Enhanced 911 via wireless.
Approximately half of the Nation has. The other half are
considering it and the three associations that I represent are
available to assist them in any way possible to help them craft
the legislation that would allow for cost recovery to be in
place and they could help to underwrite the cost in their
particular States.
Mr. Sawyer. We've heard some references to cross
jurisdictional problems and questions of messages that are
received in a location that could not possibly render service.
Are the protocols in place for dealing with either mutual
assistance or cross jurisdictional reference, rapid reference?
Mr. Souder. Yes, they are and in the context that if a
wireless 911 call was received from a caller from downtown
Chicago to a constituent of Mr. Upton's in southeastern----
Mr. Upton. Southwestern.
Mr. Souder. Southwestern.
Mr. Upton. We're doing redistricting now. We don't want to
go quite that far. It once went that far, but before me.
Mr. Souder. Thank you, Mr. Upton. There are procedures in
place that would allow the call taker receiving the call to
then transfer the call back to where it was originated from.
Obviously, one could not expect that call to go across several
States and a call taker sitting in Iowa to get that call and
know where to transfer it back to, but the mechanisms are very
similar to those that have been in place for years as it
relates to wire 911 calls. Now those networks are network-based
and they are selectively routed and consequently it is only
infrequently that a 911 center would receive a call that didn't
originate within that center. But in the wireless environment,
indeed that does happen. We received a call very recently from
suburban Maryland and downtown Arlington, but we had the
procedure in place wherein we understood why it was received,
because the comment made earlier about cell sites being
business and forwarding it along until you hit, if you will, a
PSAP that can answer your call, but very quickly we were able
to route that call back to the PSAP that was responsible for
that jurisdiction.
Mr. Sawyer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Terry.
Mr. Terry. I want to just clarify, follow the same line of
questioning, and go back a little bit. How many 911 centers
around the country are even capable of handling this technology
today. I heard 100 percent and 50 percent and I need that
clarified in my mind.
Mr. Souder. I cannot give you an exact percent. The APCO
organization that I am speaking on behalf of has initiated a
project called Project Locate. The purpose of that project is
to both elevate attention to the issue as well as to identify
within each State a jurisdiction or perhaps a region and in
some cases an entire State that indeed will be the model
community or the model jurisdiction for the deployment of Phase
II wireless in that particular State. We have participants
throughout the United States. All of those participants are
ready to receive those calls. That was a requirement, if you
will, to participate in that.
Mr. Terry. All right, so my opening statement when I talk
about being in the Badlands of eastern Colorado, I can't even
be sure today that once we have the cell phone technology to
locate that, whether or not that 911 center who would receive
the call has the technology to locate?
Mr. Souder. That's correct.
Mr. Terry. So we're talking about two rails here, first of
all is the--one rail is the cell phone provider and service
provider, the other is our 911 centers have to use, catch up
and use that technology.
I say that because when I mentioned my experience on the
Omaha City Council and we upgraded to the Enhanced 911 Center
and merged several government entities into one package, we had
a specific discussion about cell phone technology and making
sure that the product that we bought was capable of doing that
and I remember, I can't remember the exact added expense of
that, but I just couldn't imagine that smaller communities
could afford to even do it. So I'm just kind of wondering,
maybe you have a better handle on this.
Do you know how many communities are able to use the
technology today and how far behind--maybe that's the wrong
question. How far do they have to go to catch up to what we're
requesting the cell service providers do?
Mr. Sugrue. The information we have comes from the public
safety organizations like APCO and NENA. NENA which is the
National Emergency Number Association, sort of the association
of PSAPs is doing a national report card study that they
commissioned and which I think they're aiming to release soon,
within the next month perhaps, as soon as the end of the month
at their annual convention and I would hope there would be some
data on that in there.
Our information, first of all, the Phase I which we haven't
talked much about today, but is cell location to the cell site
or cell sector, is I think finally reached a point that it's
starting to roll out pretty steadily across the country. Right
now again the data we've been provided indicates about 20 to 30
percent of the PSAPs have that and that provides a stage then
to go to Phase II.
We also believe that there are about, we've been told it's
about 60 to 100 Phase II requests. That would include the
Project Locate 48, but there are others as well. But out of
6,000 PSAPs, that's still obviously a small number.
I should also add that our rules don't require a carrier to
implement Phase II until the PSAP is ready. Now there is a
present dispute before that was alluded to as to when one
assesses readiness at the time of the request or at the time
the service is to be turned on and as I said that is before us,
but in general principle, if the PSAP isn't ready, the carrier
doesn't have the obligation to put it in place then.
Mr. Terry. One follow-up, generally, in my last few seconds
here, what's the congressional role in this labor? Isn't it
basically your call, you, the FCC's call?
Mr. Sugrue. The congressional role is, it's really
basically the FCC's call, but we're always interested in input
from this subcommittee.
Mr. Terry. Thank you.
Mr. Upton. Ms. Eshoo.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question is
for Mr. Sugrue. To your knowledge, are there any carriers who
are on schedule to comply with the October deadline?
Mr. Sugrue. I believe so. Ms. McCarthy alluded to Spring
and they've filed a plan. We required all carriers to file
plans in November announcing what technology they were going to
use and so on. As far as we know, they're on track. We haven't
heard anything to the contrary from Verizon, for example,
biggest carrier in the country.
Now I should say we've heard from Sprint with one
particular switch manufacturer, there may be an issue, there
may be a delay in--there's mobile switching centers that use
that particular supplier, but that would be a short delay and
something like that. And these are the sort of the fine tuning
tweaks that in any implementation of new technology one would
anticipate. I don't get the sense the public safety community
would have a major objection to sort of practical adjustments
as someone was actually implementing to take care of issues
like that.
Ms. Eshoo. So Sprint is the one that you feel the most
confident about? There isn't anyone else that you can name?
Mr. Sugrue. Verizon, which is the second one. We have--
until this morning, I would add VoiceStream in that.
VoiceStream received a temporary waiver of the accuracy
requirement, a deferral. They could hit a somewhat less precise
accuracy requirement. It was not a delay waiver. It wasn't a
waiver that pushed back their deployment schedule. Indeed, it
accelerated their deployment schedule to a certain degree.
Ms. Eshoo. In November of last year, you required the
wireless carriers to report their plans for implementing E911
Phase II including which technology they planned to use to
provide the caller location. Did everyone comply?
Mr. Sugrue. Everyone did comply. Some required some phone
calls from us to draw their attention to it.
Ms. Eshoo. They complied?
Mr. Sugrue. They complied, yes.
Ms. Eshoo. So you didn't have to take any action?
Mr. Sugrue. No.
Ms. Eshoo. Did you have the authority to take any action?
Mr. Sugrue. I believe so. That was in an order the
Commission adopted and then was delegated to the Bureau.
Ms. Eshoo. Now with the panel that's here today, how many
have applied for waivers? Two? How many have been granted
waivers? Three. So of the companies, we have what, 5 companies,
4 companies?
Mr. Sugrue. Just two.
Ms. Eshoo. Two carriers----
Mr. Sugrue. Two applied, one received, I believe is the----
Ms. Eshoo. This is somewhat of an obvious, but a little bit
of a tricky question. The more that apply and receive, do you
think the others are going to fall into line, it will become a
pattern, so that by the time we get to this deadline, it really
doesn't mean anything, doesn't mean that much or it will have
been watered down?
Mr. Sugrue. I'll take a crack at that first and then the
others----
Ms. Eshoo. I wanted someone else to take a crack at it, but
anyway, go ahead. They're relieved that you are.
Mr. Sugrue. The Commission granted a waiver to VoiceStream
last September and we did that on the basis that they had made
a convincing case that with their particular technology which
is GSM which is at the present time a relatively small share of
the U.S. market as represented by GSM carriers, they're trying
to change that. The available location options meant that they
couldn't satisfy the standard in terms of the accuracy, they
said as of October 1, but they could hit the network standards,
the 100 meters, with a handset solution and within 2 years they
could be fully compliant on the handset standard.
Ms. Eshoo. Two years from when?
Mr. Sugrue. Two years from October 1. So in other words,
they'd locate to 100 meters for 2 years and then 50 meters
starting in 2003 and they would speed up deployment of handsets
because you don't need a GPS receiver as you do with Andy's
technology. It's a software change to the phone for their
system.
So we thought that was a reasonable case. It's what we've
been telling carriers to do which is tell us what you can do,
provide an implementation schedule and they've put in their
waiver request specific dates and sort of roll out plans and we
thought that was a good model.
Ms. Eshoo. My time is just about running out.
Mr. Sugrue. I'm sorry.
Ms. Eshoo. No, thank you for your answer. I just want to
get as much as I can in. Did you want to say something, Mr.
Nixon?
Mr. Nixon. I think there are a couple of different ways to
answer every one of these questions. As Mr. Sugrue suggested
and mentioned in his comments, our waiver was based on a unique
situation for our technology, GSM. So certainly other GSM
carriers may apply to tag on to our waiver because they're in
the same situation, but I don't think that necessarily means
that other carriers with other technologies are more inclined
to apply.
Ms. Eshoo. In your view, well, of course, it would be your
view, because that's what you've already expressed. What I'm
trying to separate out is what is kind of a company excuse
thing because there's a deadline, we haven't gotten everything
together, so let's put in the waiver just to cover ourselves.
That's one and I'm not trying to diminish anyone. We have the
public interest to look after. You have your company to look
after and maybe you just haven't done enough soon enough and
all of a sudden the deadline is upon you, but I think that what
we've done here is to express really how overwhelmingly
important and critical this is. So I'm trying to separate the
wheat from the shaft. I think that the FCC is going to grant a
wavier where really is necessary and it's kind of the grays of
what you just explained, I find somewhat acceptable and
understandable. But what is it that we need to do to get at the
excuses? How's the FCC--I don't know what other word to use, I
don't mean to offend anyway, but it's probably the best word to
describe it, how are we going to separate the wheat from the
chaff here?
Mr. Nixon. I think the excuse, I'm glad you recognize it.
Maybe it's not the best word for it, but the situation
actually, as I mentioned in my comments, we set a very, very
aggressive schedule to do some new things. I think everybody in
the wireless industry has been working very hard for it and
doing very well to meet that aggressive time line.
Ms. Eshoo. So why can't everyone else come up with--or is
too much to ask for that even though we don't hit the 1000
percent target, that the FCC just described, that you have an
interim target on the way to the fullness of the technology
that you're seeking.
See, what I'm afraid of is the more waivers that are
granted, the more companies are going to come in and way well,
if they did that, then why should we get out of the market? I
mean there's a pattern that establishes itself and people thing
well, why should we expend our resources if the others are on
hold. I'd like it to go the other way.
Mr. Nixon. Yes ma'am. One of the fine points that Mr.
Sugrue suggested about our waiver is that we, technically our
implementation is a handset solution so we have more stringent
requirements of 50 meters to meet. Our waiver simply allows us
to meet the same accuracy initially that the network based
systems would have to meet so I think it was well put it really
wasn't a compliance waiver, it was a fine tuning waiver more to
allow us time to develop and mature this technology, so it's
getting more and more effective.
Ms. Eshoo. And what is that time?
Mr. Nixon. Within 2 years.
Ms. Eshoo. Two years.
Mr. Nixon. That's within our waiver.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, gentlemen. Are there any women that
head up any of these industries? I can't help but--no, there
aren't?
Mr. Souder. I would offer that there are many female com.
center directors throughout the United States.
Mr. Upton. I would note that we have a very able or it
wouldn't have happened in Bering County without----
Ms. Eshoo. Is the FCC considering a waiver?
Mr. Upton. Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Mr.
Sugrue for--I do remember your testimony a couple of years ago
and thank you for talking about the last E911 legislation
because I would refer to Mr. Souder's second chart. There was a
time when you wouldn't even get, that call wouldn't be brought
up because as we know, many States had different numbers. We've
had some successes and this is just the iterative process of
moving forward and trying to create more benefits through a
great technology.
What do I tell my--this is what I tell my anti-government
big anti-government big brother critics. If they don't want the
GPS or the triangulation or the hybrid system, turn their set
off. Is that correct?
Mr. Nixon. I'm sorry, could you--the privacy issue?
Mr. Shimkus. Yes.
Mr. Nixon. That's obviously one of our biggest concerns is
we want to make our service more attractive and useful to
people, certainly in public safety, but we want them to have
control over their rights and their privacy.
Mr. Shimkus. By turning it off, does that do that?
Mr. Nixon. Well, I'm not--that's not my core part of the
business, but I can tell you for sure that we are very, very
closely looking at every one of our options and we don't intend
to offer something that is going to violate anybody's rights.
We're going to do everything we can to make them have a choice
to select what they want to use, what they want to use the
location for, therefore input on their privacy and control of
the privacy information.
Mr. Shimkus. So turning it off, does that help?
Mr. Nixon. You can--and frankly, one of the requirements
here is that in 911, you're presumed to be asking for
assistance, therefore, you're presumed to be waiving your
privacy in order to allow the 911 center and emergency
resources to reach you, so----
Mr. Shimkus. But if I have my phone off, am I being
tracked?
Mr. Nixon. If you have your phone off, no, but even with
your----
Mr. Shimkus. That was my question.
Mr. Nixon. Even with your phone on, you can disable
everything except----
Mr. Shimkus. Is there any of these triangulations. I'm
referring to a battery process by which is igniting some
transmission of identification of location?
Mr. Rimkus. Perhaps if I could talk about that,
Congressman. With our particular implementation as you're
asking, the location can be determined within the handset and
only when that specific opt-in, as it were, is really a
different subject altogether in the discussion today, is
offered. That information is forwarded then, on to the PSAP or
the call center and of this case. So just speaking for our
specific implementation, it's actually the very defined act
that takes place. You actually push a button and sends that
information so it offers that kind of privacy. There are
multiple implementations, but I think all of us that are in the
technology industry would liken it to Caller ID today which is
to have some sort of capability of enabling or disabling that,
but if it goes to the PSAP it overrides that and that's
included in the 1999 Wireless Act, as a matter of fact.
Mr. Markey. Would the gentleman yield? I think everyone in
the audience wants to know if there's some nationality
correlation between the name Rimkus and Shimkus.
Mr. Rimkus. Perhaps we could share some potato pancakes
some time. Just to throw in, we did have a good football coach
from Houston named Rimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. It's really a Lithuanian month for me, having
NATO expansion and traveling over there, so any time I can
press the cause of the Baltic Nations, I do that. Thank you for
giving me this forum.
Let me just finish up with my last question because I've
been trying to sort out, I was not a member in 1996, so I was
uncertain about this 1996 agreement that we're all talking
about.
And so what I've gleaned from the testimony is that there
was an agreement in 1996 through the industry and the FCC and
all one happy family and that then the FCC decided to stop
because recovery mechanism in 1999 of the 1996 agreement. If
that is the case, Mr. Sugrue, why? Because obviously this is
cost recovery to provide--I'm from a rural district. It's
expensive to cover in rural areas because we just don't have
the mass of people and can you explain that process to me?
Mr. Sugrue. Sure, there was a cost recovery requirement in
the consensus agreement that was incorporated in the
Commission's rules, that the cost recovery mechanism. The exact
meaning was somewhat ambiguous,but it was certainly subject to
a reading and subject to interpretation by carriers as
requiring public safety agencies to pay the full costs of the
carrier's deployment of 911, either Phase I or Phase II. And as
Mr. Souder indicated, about half the States have cost recovery,
so half the States seem to be not eligible to go forward with
E911 from wireless phones. And even in the half that had cost
recovery, there were continual disputes about whether it was
real cost recovery or adequate cost recovery and this was just
at Phase I. And we could see with the greater cost of Phase II
that these disputes were only multiplied and so we asked for a
recommendation from the consensus group again, the carrier
community and one of the public safety agencies said we think
cost recovery should stay and another public safety group said
no, we think it should be eliminated. We ended up eliminating
it as a separate requirement for carriers and keeping it for
the public safety agencies. And so each entity bears its own
costs now. The carrier doesn't have to pay for the upgrades to
its network and can recover those costs through its charges to
its customers and the public safety agency has to pay for the
upgrades for its equipment and network.
Mr. Clark. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pickering [presiding]. Yes.
Mr. Clark. If I could add a couple of comments to Mr.
Sugrue's comments? First of all, one thing that I'd like to
point out from earlier, Mr. Terry was particularly wise in his
comments, trying to understand the elements that it takes to
fully have a working E911 location system. First of all, we
selected, we being U.S. Cellular, we selected handsets.
Handsets have a rollout that has no tie to PSAP compliant, so
U.S. Cellular has put themselves on a path that we will
literally over the next 5 years replace all of our handsets.
We've made that commitment, but there's nothing in the record
as it currently stands that will put all the rest of the
elements in place, so that the public will get the service that
we're talking about today. That's the first point I'd like to
make.
The second point is the original--from an engineering and
from a policy standpoint, the original thinking associated with
cost recovery is we already have an infrastructure in place on
the wireline environment that's been there for decades and
that's very much the model that we saw today in terms of the
information that's delivered and how it's delivered and
received. The economics associated with that in cost recovery
were to emulate that same environment, so we had a model that
we started with and now what we've got is that model has in
many respects been abandoned, so that the onus of the costs
associated with all these systems including the upgrade of the
PSAP systems is on the wireless carriers and I would pose that
that's an inequity given the original philosophic position we
started with.
If we are in any way able to work through this issue and
get back to the original consensus on cost recovery, I would
submit things would actually speed up, because if you look at
the record, the first 2 years under Phase I, we had a
tremendous amount of success. We had all of the people
associated with different organizations focused on
implementation. However, when cost recovery changed, the
energies of all those bodies went into conflict in trying to
determine who was going to pay for it, rather than getting it
done and that's where we're at today.
Mr. Pickering. Mr. Sugrue.
Mr. Sugrue. Yes, I'd like to respond. I had sort of two
points in there. One is on the handset deployment schedule,
there are two elements to a handset approach. One is that
subscribers have to get a new ALI capable/location capable
handset. The other is typically an assisted GPS, perhaps the
most predominant implementation of this technology, there has
to be upgrades to the network.
With respect to the handsets, we proposed, and indeed the
proponents of the technology and the carriers who are
interested in it, have proposed and agreed to that there be a
start on rolling out the handsets, even before you had a PSAP
request, because that was going to take 4 or 5 years to replace
all the handsets in your incumbent base. Those handsets are out
there. You have to depend on people coming in, trading them in,
and so forth.
As compared with the network solution, Mike Amarosa
referred to that, that once you turn on Mike's system, everyone
in the area is covered. You can locate everyone on that
network. So the tradeoff was you need to start that process so
if 2 years down the road, only about 50 percent of your
customers will have location capable handsets, so when you get
a PSAP request, you're not starting from ground zero and that
was, I think, a reasonable requirement and one that at least
most of the carriers seemed to recognize as reasonable.
Second, on cost recovery, the wireless ILECs live in a rate
regulated world. They needed a cost recovery requirement
because they don't have a means just to pass costs on to their
customers. They need permission from a regulator, either from
us or a State regulator. Wireless carriers, the FCC lifted its
rate regulation and Congress directed us to lift State
regulation of rates. There is no regulatory limit on a
carrier's ability to recover these costs in its rates, in
surcharges and line items on bills. We haven't attempted to
regulate that at all. The position that the public safety
agencies, who are strapped for cash, who have to incur
substantial expense to upgrade their own systems should also
incur the expense of putting in the equipment in the carrier's
network just didn't seem to us to be reasonable.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Markey.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman very much. I'm going to
be directing my questions toward Mr. Sugrue whose name I know
to be Irish.
And a distinguished Boston College graduate.
Mr. Sugrue. Absolutely.
Mr. Markey. So first of all, let me point out that the law
which we passed does require that the cell phone industry
provide privacy protections to consumers. Thankfully, they have
embraced that and opt in, that is, getting the permission of
the consumer, the norm within the industry. I think what people
have to understand though is that the protection only applies
when a carrier that is one of the cell phone companies, Verizon
or any other, is interacting with the consumer. If the consumer
decides to call Zaguts to get some information about a
restaurant, then they don't have the same protections as if
they were talking over one of the Verizon lines on a service
that Verizon would have control over. There is a no protection
check that had been built in and that's why the Federal Trade
Commission has to take as its responsibility in order to fill
in that gap in the protections which consumers need in order to
ensure that their privacy is protected.
Can you elaborate a little bit on that, Mr. Sugrue?
Mr. Sugrue. Sure. In addition to retailers, for example,
there are location providers who are not deemed to be common
carriers and the privacy protections were put into Title II of
the Communications Act and that section only applies to
carriers. For example, the OnStar system, which is a wonderful
system that has been very popular and is now moving out,
started out in Cadillac and into a broad range of GM cars, but
at least we don't view them as a common carrier of the service
they're providing. The location information they obtain is not
subject to the provisions in the legislation you referred to,
Mr. Markey. So I know the cellular industry is very concerned
about that because they feel when it comes time to roll out
commercial services that they'll be subject to some
restrictions and limitations that some of their competitors
will not be subject to. And so, for example, when you're
driving down the street, one of the examples is always and
there's a sale from a store on the next block, there will be
limitations if you get that information from a cell phone
compared to, let's say, through a car-based location system.
Mr. Markey. Let me get a few facts out here on the table
that might help the Committee in its deliberations. A lot of
carriers are moving toward GSM technology and just about every
one of these companies talks about the dream of moving to third
generation technology as well. I think it's important for us to
know the state of the industry today, however.
What percentage of American consumers are still served by
analog only technology?
Mr. Sugrue. The percent of consumers is, last year it
dipped below--the year before, excuse me, by the end of 1999,
below 50 percent for the first time. It was like 50 percent,
49. I don't have--I believe it's about 41, 42 percent this year
of customers who are still on analog phones.
Mr. Markey. I think it's important for the consumer and the
policymaker to understand that, that even though there's a
vision out there in the industry that still have of the
consumers in America are stuck in the analog era and that the
corporate strategies that these companies have yet to catch up
with the obvious digital revolution that should be benefiting
all consumers. So our speed should reflect that speed as well.
And I understand that the Federal Government as well as the
Congress is looking at issues that deal with perhaps reclaiming
more spectrum from the Pentagon, from educational institutions,
including the Catholic Church, which is relevant to our own
backgrounds, and what I'm wondering is whether or not it's time
for us to start to look at mobile satellite services. There was
a vision back in 1993 that Iridium, Global Star, other
companies would be using all of this, that spectrum, at this
point in time. They're not. Obviously, most of them are in
bankruptcy, coming out of bankruptcy, not all of them, I want
to make that clear, that's not the case. But a lot of them are.
Is it time for us to revisit that issue and that spectrum as an
alternative to first visiting the Catholic Church and the
Pentagon as a place where we can find spectrum that can be used
for third generation technology?
Mr. Sugrue. As I know you are aware, it's never easy to
take spectrum from anyone, whether it's the Catholic Church,
the Pentagon or satellite licensees. That issue has been teed
up by CTIA. They sent us a petition asking us to look at
precisely that issue on our 3-G efforts and it's being actively
considered within the Commission right now.
Mr. Markey. Is there a time table that you've established
for making a determination as to whether or not this spectrum
is actually going to be utilized by these companies or just sit
there, warehoused for an indefinite period of time. We might be
talking decades in terms of the corporate strategy.
Mr. Sugrue. In the mobile satellite world, they do have
rules, they call them milestone requirements, but which
licensees have to do certain things in order to keep their
licenses. It's a progressive thing. You sign a contract, build
a prototype and so forth. So it's not completely wide open like
that, but again, the issue has been squarely raised and I
certainly hope that we can address it one way or the other
pretty promptly because it is a pressing issue.
Mr. Markey. Finally, let's take a look a Iridium,
Motorola's idea, name about Mendelea's 77th element, 77
satellites, 77th element and Mendelea was tired of elements he
went down to 66 satellites, they decided not to change the name
as they moved down the elements, but I think they're down to
considerably fewer satellites now.
So give us a very brief overview of what the status of that
spectrum is, how much of it is being used, what your
conversations are with them with regard to the use of it and
what the chances are that we might be able to reclaim some of
it?
Mr. Sugrue. Iridium went through bankruptcy as you know.
Came out of bankruptcy within the past year. I believe the
company sold for about $25 million. They have a contract now
with the Defense Department that I guess is sufficient to keep
them operational and I know their new management is looking at
options to re-enter the commercial world again with sort of a
reconstructed business plan.
I don't think anything is on the table now about doing
something with the spectrum they're presently in. But they are
one of the applicants for this two gigahertz for another
license.
Mr. Markey. I think we should raise some questions about
the use of the old spectrum.
And finally, Japan and Europe, how successful has the 3-G
technology been in those markets?
Mr. Sugrue. Not terribly yet, but they do have strong
imperative, sort of in the way they do business which is more
sort of an industrial policy sort of base to move forward. They
have already allocated substantially more spectrum though for
these services than we have, almost double in most cases.
Mr. Markey. How many customers are using 3-G?
Mr. Sugrue. 3-G?
Mr. Markey. In the----
Mr. Sugrue. Just about zero, but they're transitioning up
to 3-Gs by so called 2.5-G services and I don't have those
figures either, but it's just starting. They just did their
allocation and licensing last year and they're moving
gradually.
Japan was going to turn--I correct myself, they have about
3,000 3-G customers on a trial basis now, in Tokyo, and they're
hoping for commercial rollout in the fall.
Mr. Markey. Thank you very much for that excellent Jesuit-
based testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Pickering?
Mr. Pickering. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me just add
or first address some of the questions raised by Mr. Markey
from Massachusetts concerning 3-G. We are looking at
legislative options to get to 3-G. As we go down that road, I
look forward to working with Chairman Upton and Chairman Tauzin
and Mr. Markey to find the solution and I would agree with him,
we need to put everything on the table, from satellite spectrum
to the Pentagon to commercial, except educational and Catholic.
Mr. Upton. Don't forget the Congregationalists.
Mr. Pickering. But as we try to find the solutions to meet
the objectives and the targets on E911, we need to remember
that it has been a tremendous success story and I know we have
probably called attention to that today as we looked at the
type of responses we've had over the last 2, 3 years in crime
reduction, crime patrols, the domestic abuse, the types of
things that cellular phones, wireless phones can be used for in
public safety and for personal safety have been tremendous. I
know in my own family I have five sons, the youngest of which
is 2\1/2\ and when he was about 1\1/2\ in the midst of our
daily morning chaos where we're trying to get four children to
school and pre-school and I have the children in the bathtub
and my wife is getting their clothes and their breakfast we had
my 1\1/2\ year old son slip out the door with my dog and we
didn't know he was missing until someone had called E911 and a
friendly police officer returned him to us. For about 10
minutes there our youngest son, the prodigal son was on the
wrong path in life.
Because of wireless and E911, he has come home. So it is a
tremendous success story that we need to put into context of
what we're discussing and debating.
To that end, let me just ask a couple of quick questions.
Mr. Sugrue, by the October 2001 deadline, what would you
say would be the projected compliance among the industry of
meeting that targeted deadline without the waivers? How much of
the industry would be in compliance by that deadline?
Mr. Sugrue. That's hard to say. Let me try to answer it
by--and let me note, I'm very impressed that you do the bath
routine in the morning. We've never pulled that one off. That
was always an evening ritual in our household.
We do anticipate getting more waivers as get closer to the
date. What we've told carriers are that we don't want to see a
waiver that just says I can't do it, off the hook, go home,
I'll see you in a couple of years. Waivers under the framework
the Commission set up in approving the VoiceStream waiver are
really carrier specific implementation plans. We want to see a
plan that says look, I can't meet the literal terms of your
requirements, but here's what I can do and here's what I will
do and here's how I'll do it.
Under that scenario we are pushing very hard to get the big
6 carriers focused on all having implementation plans in place,
along those lines, the big 6 nationwide or near nationwide
carriers. We're not forgetting our friends like U.S. Cellular.
I think they wish we would sometimes, but--who are important
players in the rural areas in smaller communities, but those
six carriers serve 75 percent of the customers in the U.S. They
have the most resources and we thought it was in terms of just
our resources to focus attention on public safety, that's sort
of the initial point and we certainly hope that all six of
those will have plans in place to go forward.
Mr. Pickering. And that would represent how many of the
subscribers in the country?
Mr. Sugrue. About three quarters.
Mr. Pickering. Mr. Clark, as you know, I represent a rural
district. What would your three recommendations be of what the
FCC should do in taking into consideration the unique
circumstances of rural Mississippi or rural America in meeting
the regulatory objectives? You had mentioned cost recovery.
Expand on that or sum up your recommendations of how we can
have a regulatory framework sensitive to your unique
circumstances as well as getting the services to rural America
as quickly as possible?
Mr. Clark. I think the first one would be cost recovery and
a return back to the original consensus agreement. With that, I
would add that we would also need to add handsets to the
original agreement because that was added later. As a matter of
fact, that was added just about a year ago. So that would put
in place the structure so that there's incentive for all
parties, especially in rural America where you have smaller
carriers in terms of their economic power, you have smaller
PSAPs in terms of their economic power. It would give them an
ability to work together and everybody share in putting the
service together, not putting the cost on a particular member
of that team.
I think the other thing that we need to do is we need a
rural exemption and that's not something that I say lightly
because there are competitive connotations to that as well, but
U.S. Cellular filed a waiver, a request for a waiver in June of
last year and we were denied. And the reason that we filed the
waiver is we had no handset manufacturer that would sit down
and talk to us, tell us what handsets were going to be
available, which GPS technology, and even take an order from us
to buy them.
As of this date, we're still in that predicament. Rural
America has a unique requirement in that you don't have the
cell density to be able to use true position types of network
solutions to be able to accurately locate a customer that dials
Enhanced 911 and absent a handset solution, there literally is
no answer.
Mr. Pickering. But what would the consequence of an
exemption be for rural areas? Would that service then be
delayed in those areas?
Mr. Clark. It's my belief that that service is going to be
delayed under the current policy. if you think about the
logistics of the way we're going to roll this out, whether you
do network or handset base and the compliance and the metrics
associated with compliance, there's a high probability that the
urban areas will be the first covered, so there's at least one
more dimension to your question and that is take the current
policy and look at how it's to be implemented to meet the
performance criteria of implementation and I think you'll find
out that the rural carriers have been left out. Rural America
has been left out.
Now the other side of this and the direct technical answer
to where you're going to try to go with rural America because
see, I live in East Tennessee, I'm sitting next to a guy from
New York. I don't know if you guys have figured that out or
not, but you know, in East Tennessee we've got the mountains,
we've got valleys, we've got Smoky Mountain National Park. You
can lose yourself in nature in East Tennessee, you can lose
yourself from E911 in East Tennessee. So the technical solution
for those areas has got to be handset-based. There is not now
nor will there ever be in my opinion enough cell density around
the area like the Smoky Mountain National Park where you're
going to be able to see enough cell sites to be able to say I
know that person is between Merriville, Tennessee and the park
entrance.
So let me go back and kind of sum up what I've said, if
I've got a little bit of time here. First, I think we need to
go back to the original consensus order. Let's get back on
solid ground where we can focus on implementation and not argue
and try to figure out who is going to pay for what and that, I
think, takes us back to a paradigm that everybody is
comfortable with. That takes the big issue off the table.
The second issue for rural America that I'd recommend is
there is today no technical solution that works in rural
America, so the time line is not going to work. And looking at
the technologies that are available today, it doesn't matter
whether it's U.S. Cellular. It doesn't matter whether it's
Verizon, AT&T or VoiceStream, this is an urban-rural problem.
It's not endemic to a carrier. It's endemic to rural versus
urban America. So we've got to acknowledge there are
complexities and costs associated with rural America that you
don't have if you're in the middle of Washington, DC.
Mr. Pickering. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I would like to
follow up on those questions at a later time or in writing or
continue to work with FCC to address this very important and
critical issue for rural.
Mr. Upton. I' d be happy to work with you on that.
Mr. Pickering. Thank you.
Mr. Upton. Ms. McCarthy.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask Mr.
Sugrue a practical question and it may come across as somewhat
naive, but it was sparked by something Mr. Clark just talked
about with regard to working together and sharing revenues and
so forth. Because the technology, it seems like every company
is doing their own thing, and yet we know the technology exists
in other forms. I was at a meeting regarding the Kyoto protocol
a few years back and the taxis have the ability to show a map
instantly on the car where they are and I guess my question to
you is, or my first question is, what's keeping the companies
from sharing technology so that they're not all out there
struggling all by themselves to accomplish this?
Mr. Sugrue. I don't know that anything is preventing the
sharing of technology. Certainly, this process, I mean I
referred to the consensus agreement back in 1996 in part to
make the point that the October 1 date was a proposal from the
carrier community of 5 years ago, not something we made up on
our own. But also, in part, to emphasize the genesis of this is
in consensus among carriers and public safety entities and in
manufacturers and vendors. We called this series of forums to
bring everyone together because I'm sure you've had the
experience too but when you meet seriatim with parties involved
in a dispute, you would think you were listening to two very
different things, two realities or more in this case because
there were 3 or 4 parties involved. And so we wanted to say
well, look, he just said this doesn't work and you just said it
does work. Where is it and so forth?
We just required that test data from anyone, well, from the
two carriers, two major carriers that have a waiver before us
now be publicly disclosed. That was subject to confidentiality
agreements. It was so hard, though to deal with it under that
confidentiality, we issued an order lifting that and indeed the
parties have agreed to make it public so there can be a more
public sharing of information about how the systems are
performing or not performing and under what conditions.
This is not an area where--this is a very competitive
industry, but we can't let each carrier trying to get an edge
on the other slow down the rollout of this. This is where
information should be shared, I think, in the public interest.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, then let me ask the interested parties
at the table about this same question and your thoughts on
sharing so that this can move along rapidly and perhaps end
some of the frustrations that you're experiencing with the
technology.
Would anybody like to respond?
Mr. Nixon. Certainly. We commented earlier from
VoiceStream's perspective that we think the Project Locate
that's being sponsored by ABCO and the other public safety
agencies is an excellent forum for us to have these types of
discussions. Early on, Mr. Sugrue mentioned the WEIA which is
Wireless E911 Implementation Ad Hoc Group which was the forums
which--my degree of trivial knowledge is astounding sometimes
and then on other things I confuse myself, but that was a forum
very much like what I envision and hope Project Locate
environment can be where we can identify what we can do today,
where we can identify locations where 911 centers are ready to
take and test the equipment. We can identify areas where the
local telephone carriers have the capability to handle the
additional data required for wireless compared to land line
911. If we can focus together on a few of those places and do
tests to verify that the systems are ready, the solutions are
ready to No. 1 talk to each other, to No. 2 handle the
information and data delivery, etcetera, to achieve the goal of
giving the call takers additional information for wireless
similar to what they get for landline, and No. 3, if they're
ready for widespread, more broad based deployment, I think we
need a few of those real-life labs, if you will, where all the
equipment and capabilities come together to test the final step
in our very rapid and successful, I think, development of this
capability.
Ms. McCarthy. I appreciate that. Did anybody else want to
comment on that?
Mr. Clark. I'd make one comment. If you look at the history
and the record on this and again, speaking from an engineer's
perspective, in engineering you begin with a plan and then you
build a prototype and then you do alpha and beta testing and
then you do a production roll out and the record that we got on
this with respect to some of these solutions are in the
prototypical or in the alpha stages or proof of concept and
they do, in fact, work. But there's a big change from trying to
take these types of solutions to this problem on the time line
that we have today from an alpha stage into a production
rollout of sufficient quantity to satisfy the industry
requirement for performance. So in my opening statements, the
software that my company needs to be able to do this for both a
network and an assisted GPS handset solution aren't available
until fourth quarter of this year.
So not to make excuses, but the fact is if you look into
the details in this, there are critical elements that are
absolute prerequisites technically for the whole thing to work.
I think it would be a travesty for us to go down a path of
policy, have everything that we need except for one element for
sake of speed and have more situations where we have to listen
to these tragedies in the public because we can't give that to
the public.
Ms. McCarthy. I guess I'm still a little bit confused, not
by your answer, but perhaps I didn't pose my question quite
accurately.
If in the end all of this has to work together, and it
must, whether I'm on a Sprint phone or your product or in your
territory or in Sprint territory, it all has to work together.
It all has to come together, so why then if Sprint says they're
going to be able to meet the deadline, but you aren't because
of the technology that's missing and need more time, how come
there isn't some sharing of that?
Mr. Clark. Thank you for qualifying your question. That is
a different question than I answered. I will tell you people
from Tennessee, you have to talk slowly to us so we can keep up
with you.
You've posed a great question and that is one of the things
that we scratch our head about and try to understand what has
Sprint done? They seem to be on a path that looks like they're
going to make it. And I hope they do. But we don't know what
they're doing. And I think that's your point and----
Ms. McCarthy. Listening to you all, I'm struggling with you
because we all know, we all agree, we want this to happen as
soon as possible because it's going to save lives, so that was
my concern.
Mr. Sugrue, because you mentioned competition, is it
because of competition that these kinds of things can't be
known by everybody? Because in the end when you have all
systems in place including the local components, it's all got
to work together.
Mr. Sugrue. I don't know and indeed whether U.S. Cellular
has talked to Sprint about sharing information, for example, on
their system and how it works.
Ms. McCarthy. Don't they have to at some point? If I'm in
their territory and on a Sprint or vice versa, it all has to
work.
Mr. Sugrue. If what you're asking is if a Sprint subscriber
is roaming into U.S. Cellular's area and they have a roaming
unit, I don't know whether that's the case, but if they do,
yes, it should work one on the other.
Ms. McCarthy. I'm trying to figure out how they can all
work together to get it done by the deadline we imposed, or if
not, then we have to genuinely have discussions.
Mr. Sawyer. Would the gentle lady yield?
Ms. McCarthy. yes.
Mr. Sawyer. If, in fact, in some parts of the country it's
necessary to use a geopositioning technology and my
subscription for my instrument, my carrier, is in an area
that's based on triangulation and I go on vacation to Eastern
Tennessee, then I am all of a sudden no longer equipped. Is it
not reasonable to think that at some point all instruments will
have to be equipped for both systems?
Mr. Sugrue. We require in our rules, if you're doing a
handset based approach that you have to use the best available
means of locating people, for example, who are roaming on to
your system from another system, precisely for that reason.
VoiceStream in its waiver request proposed a system that,
for example, even though it's a handset based, they have sort
of a safety net system that will locate all people, albeit to a
less precise degree of accuracy, but provide much better, still
better location information than Phase I.
As a fallback, we say you absolutely have to provide Phase
I information which is at least to the cell site or the cell
sector, but it is, to be honest with you, on the handset based
approach, it is one of these sort of, I don't know if it's a
flaw or a gap, but it is one element of it that caused us at
the FCC a lot of concern, just that issue.
Ms. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I know I yielded my time, but
may I pursue? I guess I can.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The other bugaboo seems to be this
whole question of who pays cost sharing, etcetera, etcetera and
I know that no time line, no deadline was placed on the PSAPs
probably for good reason, but give them time after you guys
finish to figure this all out, but I note in the article that I
quoted from earlier in the day that 32 States have approved
state-wide E911, but only four States, according to the
National Conference of State Legislatures which we called, only
four States have passed cost recovery mechanisms, looks like
it's Indiana, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Virginia. Many other
States are giving that authority to figure out who pays to
their public utility commissions to work on.
I guess my question is what do you--how do you anticipate
like what happened out in Kansas, according to this Lisa Duran,
Director of Johnson County's Emergency Communications
Department, again speaking in this article said, ``efforts last
year reached an agreement with major wireless companies on an
E911 system for Kansas fell apart.'' She said the companies
insisted that part of the state-imposed surcharged be used to
pay for their new equipment. Do you have a sense, Mr. Sugrue,
of how States are coping with this part of the responsibility,
that unfunded Federal mandate we sent them to pay for all of
this. Are they sharing part of the surcharge that's going to be
imposed? Is anybody--I worry about, they'll do their job and
then all of a sudden it will fall apart at the State level.
Mr. Sugrue. I may be missing something in your question,
but the issue about which we've had somewhat of a robust debate
here at the panel on cost recovery revolves around the fact
that the Commission removed the requirement that State agencies
pay for the carriers' costs of implementing 911. They still
have to pay for the PSAPs cost of implementing 911 and that's
not trivial and some States have not addressed that or stepped
up to the plate, at least to a sufficient degree.
However, we did leave that to the States. Some States had
successful, at least programs were in place. This was not an
attempt to fix it when it ain't broke. So we said any State
that wants to--they have a surcharge on a wireless bill and
they have a pool and they share it among carriers and PSAPs,
that's fine. You just keep going ahead and doing what you're
doing. All we were trying to do was remove our Federal
requirement, that as you put it, imposed this unfunded mandate
on State and local governments to pay carriers' costs of
implementing this technology.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I guess Mr. Chairman our next concern
and hearing may be down the road on States and how they can
best implement this because there is a cost factor involved and
that seems to be holding up the second portion of this project.
Mr. Upton. There is and we need to know exactly where the
PSAPs are, as well, the 911 centers. It's obviously an
interlocking----
Mr. Sugrue. I would add on the earlier version of the 1999
act we referred to previously that was in the previous
Congress, there was a funding mechanism introduced and the
source of the funds was leases on Federal lands for cell phone
towers and it was, I thought, a nice little thing because we
got towers built, we got the revenues, they were directed to
the States to fund 911 deployment. It turned out, I gather that
in the Congress, tower location is very controversial. It was
deemed to be an intrusion on local interests, even when located
on Federal lands, just applied to Federal lands.
Mr. Upton. Rock Creek Parkway.
Mr. Sugrue. Exactly. And it was deleted from the
legislation. That deleted the revenues. That deleted the
funding and so that part of it was----
Ms. McCarthy. I don't remember, Mr. Chairman, why it was
deleted, but maybe that's something we can revisit because with
the rural situation as you spoke to so eloquently throughout
the country, this could be a real impediment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You've been very gracious with
your time.
Mr. Clark. Mr. Chairman, if I could for a minute, Ms.
McCarthy, we've compiled State by State status of cost
recovery. If you'd like to, we'd share that with you.
Ms. McCarthy. I would like that. I'm sure the Committee
would like that.
Mr. Clark. We can provide that for the record as well.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Green.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and just so there's no
confusion, I'm sitting in Mr. Markey's place, but you can tell
from our accent that Mr. Markey and I don't come from the same
part of the country.
Let me just express because I wasn't here, there was
another hearing going on downstairs on health care on the
frustration. I was a State Representative in 1984 in Texas when
we passed the 911 network for Harris County, city of Houston.
In the late 1980's, the State came in and with some effort and
we created a funding mechanism for it for our telephones in
Harris County, hardline. The State did the same thing. Now we
didn't get to rural areas immediately, just because you
couldn't do it and for hardline, but they're almost there. I
don't know if they're there now because having left there in
1992, but in seeing what's happening and I was happy moving to
this Committee in 1997 to see what we were doing on a national
basis for E911. And my concern is we're going to be flooded
with waivers and I'm glad the FCC is being very specific
because I would like to see the enhanced coverage starting in
urban areas just like we had to start with hardline and moving
to the rural areas as we develop that funding base because it
is more expensive.
Let me overlay that with my last weekend in Houston, Texas
when we had people on the top of their cars on I-10. Their cell
phone was the only way they could reach out to anyone, so it is
an emergency that we do this. And that happens whether it's
running off the road on the way to Gatlinburg, Tennessee or
not, so that's why the frustration that we do not need to see
an extension. We could see specific waivers, but we need to
start in the urban areas in the build out so that we can cover
all our folks. And that's my concern.
Let me first talk about the FCC and I want to go back to
the idea of the total E911 coverage. And again, Houston, Texas
is a very urban area. We can do the triangulation, but we do
have rural areas, not a lot of mountains in my part of the
country, but we do have problems with the siting and just
outside of the tower range. It seems to me that there needs to
be an FCC mandate that all cell phones at a certain time should
have dual capability for GPS and triangular service, so I would
be covered when I was, some day I'm going to get back to
Gatlinburg, but also in West Texas. Is that something the FCC
has talked about or discussed?
Mr. Sugrue. We haven't considered it. It's occasionally
discussed in the industry or in the people who filed this, but
more as something that some observers believe is likely to be
the market-driven outcome, once this technology gets out there.
Now I don't know whether that's the case or not. There are some
who are very gungho on the GPS system and believe, in time, it
will be built----
Mr. Green. I share the concern about it and I'd like to
have it market driven, but we didn't have the hardline 911
market driven and I know that Mr. Amarosa, you were here 4
years ago and having seen the technology develop, so it is
available in urban areas and yet we're still not seeing it, so
as much as I'd like to see it market driven, there are some
things you just can't do. We wouldn't have color TV if it
wasn't required back in the 1950's so all of us would have, not
color TV, UHF and VHF, unless it was somewhere along the way
because that wouldn't have been market driven unless we said
that has to be done for the consumers. I think we are looking
at the same situation with E911.
When do you think we will see the best guess when we can
have a--if not a 95 percent penetration in American market,
maybe a 75 percent because again, I know in the rural areas, it
will be the next step, but in the urban areas and the suburban
areas, when do you think we'll see that kind of E911
penetration?
Mr. Sugrue. That depends, in part, on what Steve and his
group does in terms of PSAP readiness as well as what the
carriers do. So it's hard to predict that.
I can say the timeframe we talked about, for example, on
our handset rollout, as I mentioned in my testimony goes to
the, through the end of 2005, so for the next 4\1/2\ years. It
was certainly our expectation at the FCC that was the
approximate timeframe by which we would see this deployed
through the majority of the units.
Mr. Green. And the specific waivers you're talking about
would not delay that estimate in 2005?
Mr. Sugrue. No waiver before us, I believe, delays the end
date. Every waiver that has come in says we can hit it at the
end. We have trouble up front. The ones who ask for a delay in
time.
Mr. Green. And again, I want to encourage the FCC to be as
reasonable as you can, and yet don't delay it because we are
seeing that and we made that argument for hardline years ago.
The funding base can be there because I did get complaints from
folks in the city of Houston about that small charge. It wasn't
much. The biggest complaint was folks from the city of Houston
and Harris County complaining about the state-wide charge to
buy equipment for some of our areas that couldn't generate it,
but I also explained to them next time you go on that hunting
trip out to Mason, Texas, you might like to have that coverage
out there, that they couldn't afford and I didn't get any
response, negative back on that.
Mr. Upton. Does anyone else have----
Mr. Sugrue. I just want to add that greater Harris County
continues to be a leader in this area, so the work----
Mr. Green. In fact, in future panels we'll have and they've
been here before us, so Mr. Chairman, that's all I have unless
someone has some response.
Mr. Souder. If I could comment on that, Mr. Green, in the
industry, 911 is considered to be a religion in the State of
Texas and the chief practitioner is a constituent of yours in
the form of Mr. John Melcher, a name that I'm sure----
Mr. Green. I know John very well, since 1984.
Mr. Souder. But an absolute leader in this industry and
we're very gratified to have him be one of the principal
officers of the NENA Association at this time.
While I have the microphone and commenting on a very
insightful comment by Mr. Upton a moment ago about an
inventory, one of the goals of the goals of the NENA Report
Card to the Nation which is a report card to the industry and
to the Congress to be expected some time later this year is to
do that, just assess in the entire nation who is where and what
do they need to get to be where they need to be?
Mr. Upton. I think that's a very important piece of
documentation that we need and particularly for the FCC to
understand and work with to get this thing done, because as I
think about all the members that ask questions here relating, I
think every single person here had a personal experience with a
911 situation and as we go back to your opening statement, Mr.
Sugrue about trying to get this implemented as fast as we can,
you said that we're well on our way and we want to have good
faith estimates in terms of exactly the reasons when a waiver
is given, to find out what that implementation timeframe will
be for them to get a waiver. In fact, you've denied it when
that's occurred and when you hear about some of the costs and
obviously you look at the volume, you look at the different
situations, whether it would be in Eastern Tennessee or in the
Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Chicago, the Golden Mile in
Chicago, the loop and everything else, obviously, but as we all
travel, we all take our phones and last night I got a call from
my carrier wanting to upgrade the phone and made the comment
that it doesn't work in Michigan. Well, it does now. And
there's going to be a roaming charge with it as well, so that
911, when you hit that in St. Joe or Benton Harbor or
Kalamazoo, it's going to work just like it does here in
Virginia or DC or Arlington, where I live when I'm here. So
this is an important issue. Yes, it does save lives. That
technology that all of us have, even for our teenagers is here
and we want to make sure that it works and----
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, if you would just yield. I know,
in fact, one of the reasons seemed like I have to sign a new
plan any time to get a new phone anyway.
Mr. Upton. They sent me a letter, but they followed it up
with a phone call, so I'm glad----
Mr. Green. It's all part of the negotiation because thank
goodness we do have 4 or 5 carriers in most urban areas, but we
do have the technology and I have a phone that I take with me
everywhere. I just wish that it would also work in Mexico. But
that's our next goal. But we have it and I think it's provided
in that coverage that 10 years ago we didn't have or 5 years
ago, but by doing E911 we'll make that happen.
Thank you.
Mr. Upton. Again, I appreciate all your testimony. We may
follow up with some questions for the record, but we will now
adjourn the hearing. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]