PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 1919 M St, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News media information 202 / 418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202/418-2830 Internet http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov DA 97-2151 October 3, 1997 ADDITIONAL COMMENT SOUGHT IN WIRELESS ENHANCED 911 RECONSIDERATION PROCEEDING REGARDING RULES AND SCHEDULES CC Docket No. 94-102 Comments Due: October 17, 1997 Reply Comments Due: October 27,1997 Pursuant to Section 1.415(d) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.415(d), addi tional comment is hereby sought in the wireless Enhanced 911 (E511) reconsideration pro ceeding1 concerning issues raised in an ex parte presentation filed by several parties in the proceeding. In the E911 Report and Order, the Commission established rules requiring wire less carriers to implement basic 911 and E911 services. In a September 25, 1997, ex parte letter (Joint Letter), two wireless industry groups (the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) and the Personal Communica tions Industry Association (PCIA)) and three public safety community groups (the Associa tion of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc., the National Emergency Number Association, and the National Association of State Nine-One-One Administrators) propose modifications to terms used in the E911 Report and Order and rules for processing 911 calls and permitting Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) to choose which 911 calls they will receive. The letter also supports an extension of the compliance date for implemen tation of 911 service over digital wireless services for TTY/TDD users from October 1, 1997, to April 1, 1999,2 and requests that the Commission refrain from addressing certain additional 1 See Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 59 Fed. Reg. 54878 (1994); 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, 61 Fed. Reg. 40348, 40374 (1996) (£9/7 Report and Order), recon. pending. 2 See also PCIA, Request for Extension of Time to Implement E911/TTY Compatibility Requirement for Wire less Operators (Aug. 27, 1997); CTIA £x Parte Filing (Sept 23, 1997). 15331 issues until the industry has had the opportunity to fully consider such issues in meetings with the relevant parties. The Joint Letter is attached to this Public Notice. We have also received other ex pane comments addressing issues raised in the Joint Letter. In a September 29, 1997, letter, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo provided the Commis sion with her initial assessment of the recommendations made in the Joint Letter and reiterat ed her view that "it is in the public's best interest that all wireless 911 calls should be passed through to the public safety authority." On September 30, 1997, the Ad Hoc Alliance for Public Access to 911 also filed an ex parte letter opposing the Joint Letter.3 The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau took note of the pending petitions for re consideration and ex parte filings and on September 30, 1997, adopted an Order staying the provisions and effective uate of Section 20.18(a)-(c) inclusive of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 20.18(a)-(c), which would require wireless carriers to forward certain 911 calls to PSAPs, including calls from TTY devices. The stay defers the effective date of those rules from October 1, 1997, to November 30, 1997, in order to permit the Commission to complete its review. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.145(d) and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415(d), 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the issues raised in the Joint Letter no later than October 17, 1997. Reply comments may be filed no later than October 27, 1997. All relevant and timely comments will be considered by the Commission before final action is taken in this proceeding. To file formally in this proceeding, participants must file an original and five copies of all comments. If participants want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their comments, an original and nine copies must be filed. All comments should be filed with the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communica tions Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 222, Washington, D.C. 20554, referencing CC Docket No. 94-102. The full texts of the ex parte presentations are available for inspection and duplication during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Commu nications Commission, J919 M Street, N.W., Room 239, Washington, D.C. 20554. Copies may also be obtained from International Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS), 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140; Washington, D.C. 20037, (202) 857-3800. 1 Following the Joint Letter, CTIA filed another ex parte letter dated September 26, 1997, concerning carri er liability with respect to £911 calls. We nave also received certain ex parte filings prior the Joint Letter which relate to the issues raised in that letter. For example, with respect to die proposed U-month extension of the TTY compliance date, the National Association of the Deaf and the Consumer Action Network oppose it as too long and propose additional obligations. Opposition to Request for Extension of Eighteen Months to Imple ment E911/TTY Compatibility Requirement for Wireless Operators (Sept. 11, 1997). Nextel Communications, on the other hand, supports the requested extension. Motion in Support of Request for Extension of time to Implement E911/TTY Compatibility Requirement for Wireless Operators (Sept. 9, 1997). 15332 For further information, contact Won Kirn at (202) 418-1310, Wireless Telecommuni cations Bureau, Policy Division. -FCC- 15333 September 25, 1997 The Honorable Reed E. Hundt Chairman Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street Washington, D.C. 20054 Re: Ex pane filing in CC Docket No. 94-102, RM-8143, In the Matter of Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems Dear Chairman Hundt: More than eighteen months ago, the wireless industry and the Public Safety community jointly proposed to the Commission a Consensus Agreement that provided a plan for implementing wireless Enhanced 9-1-1 service in two phases. Harnessing the momentum provided by t- Consensus Agreement, the Commission subsequently adopted regulations for wireless E 7-1-1 service. The first of the wireless E 9-1-1 rules adopted by the Commission will take effect on October 1, 1997. Given the complexity of the issues involved, and the technical implications of some additional requirements impoaed by the Commission that expanded the scope of the original Consensus Agreement, certain practical impediments to implementation of the Commission's rules have arisen. These issues must be addressed immediately in light of the October 1, 1997 implementation. In response to the Commission's Order, and the joint resolve of the wireless industry and the Public Safety community to bring the benefits of E 9-1-1 to wireless users, the parties that developed the Consensus Agreement, the Personal Communications Industry Association ("PCIA"), and the Wireless E911 Coalition have joined together to discuss the outstanding issues that present unnecessary obstacles to providing wireless E 9-1-1 service. This memorandum addresses several issues which all groups have discussed and, in many instances, on which they have found common ground. First, we propose certain modifications to the terms used in the original 9-1-1 Report and Order. Second, we emphasize that, although access to TTY/TDD technology is currently available over 15334 analog systems, the industry continues to work with consumer groups and the Public Safety community on a digital solution and thus requires an eighteen month extension of the compliance date for implementation of 911 TTY services over digital wireless systems. Finally, we urge the Commission to refrain from addressing certain issues until the industry has had the opportunity to fully consider such issues with all of the relevant parties. We hope that the Commission will take the following proposals into consideration when making its final determinations on the pending Petitions for Reconsideration in this proceeding. Definition of Terms The E 9-1-1 Report and Order uses certain terminology that mischaracterizes existing technology and therefore represents the regulatory equivalent of requiring the wireless industry to force a square peg into a round hole in trying to comply with the new E 9-1-1 rules. Most significantly, when referring to the types of calls that must be processed and the associated information that must be passed, the Commission characterizes calls in terms of whether a "code identification" is transmitted. "Code identification" currently is defined by the Commission in terms of the Mobile Identification Number ("MIN"). In some circumstances (e.g., with some technologies such as GSM), however, and in most circumstances once number portability is implemented, a MIN will not serve as a unique identifier, and this will thwart carriers' ability to provide those aspects of E 9-1-1 service (e.g., call-back) which require a unique identifier. Hence, whether a MIN "code identification" is transmitted will be meaningless in determining what type of information can be passed to the PSAP. Additionally, for some technologies, there is.no number that equates to the Commission's definition of "code identifier." The Commission should adopt terminology which is representative of the broad range of CMRS technologies for incorporation into the Commission's rules. Hence, the Commission should change its rules to distinguish between "all wireless 9-1-1 calls71 and "successfully validated calls," thereby eliminating any reference to the term "code identification." The term "successfully validated calls" is defined as 9-1-1 calls that pass a wireless switch's service validation process. Assuming a compatible air interface, this typically means that the serving carrier can recognize the call as being from an active customer of either ha own system or from another system which the serving carrier can validate. In practice^ tins usually wifl mean most calls from home carrier subscribers, and most roamer calls from markets in which the home carrier has a valid roaming agreement. Exceptions where the cafl is from a service initialized customer, yet may not be successfully validated, include users to whom service has been denied and international callers. In these cases, the call may fail the validation. The term "all 9-1-1 wireless calls" is defined as any call initiated by a wireless user dialing 9-1-1 on a phone using a compliant radiofrequency protocol. Again, assuming a compatible air interface, this would apply to a carrier which has elected to pass all 9-1-1 15335 calls without respect to validation (e.g., calls from "out of the box" phones, disconnected service phones, GSM phones with no SIM service denied users, and roamer calls that can not be validated). Section 20.18(b) of the Commission's rules allows a PS A? to determine whether it will receive "calls which transmit a Code Identification" or "calls which do not transmit a Code Identification." As discussed above, the term "code identification" should be eliminated. The Commission's rules are intended to provide access to emergency services to as many people as possible. A broader distinction between "all wireless 9-1-1 calls" and "successfully validated wireless 9-1-1 calls" more accurately captures this intent. Furthermore, often individual PSAPs do not have the appropriate authority to make decisions such as whether non-validated calls should be received. Rather, regional or other local Public Safety authorities may have this authority. Hence, the "9-1-1 authority" should be used to describe the entity responsible for choosing the type of call that will be passed, where that term is defined as the governmental authority that is responsible for the planning, design and coordination of 9-1-1 services. Choosing the Type of Calls to be Processed The Commission also must recognize that particular Public Safety authorities may not be able to choose on an individual basis the types of calls they will receive (i.e., all calls or only successfully validated calls) until Phase n location technology is in place. Until that time, the Public Safety organizations agree that they must coordinate within each area served by a carrier's switch their decisions whether to receive all calls or only successfully validated calls. 1 Furthermore, the parties agree that even when Phase D location technology is in place, calls may be identified with the inappropriate PSAP. The Public Safety community notes, however, that processes already are in place that will account for and remedy these occurrences. With these considerations in mind, and in light of the new terms and definitions proposed above, Section 20.18(b) should be amended as follows: (b) As of [one year after the effective date of the rule], licensees subject to this section must process all successfully validated 9-1-1 wireless calls and must process all 9-1-1 wireless calls where requested by the 9-1-1 authority, whwh-is Additionally, Section 20.18(b) should be amended further to accurately reflect that the 9-1-1 Authority's choice of receiving all wireless 9-1-1 calls or only successfully validated 9-1-1 wireless calls may not be possible until the Phase U location technology is in place. 1 See 9-1-1 Report and Order at 140. 15336 The Commission also should clarify that the requirements set forth above (i.e. . that licensees must process all successfully validated 9-1-1 wireless calls as of the implementation date) should not preclude carriers who choose not to perform validation from passing all 9-1-1 wireless calls. TTY Implementation The Commission has set an October 1, 1997 deadline for implementation of 911 services over digital wireless systems for TTY/TDD users. Last week, CTIA convened a meeting of wireless industry representatives, technical experts and consumer organizations to obtain a consensus on how to support TTY/TDD technology over digital wireless systems. Among other things, the parties agreed that analog networks have the capability to support the transmission formats used by TTY today. However, interface issues exist for all technologies, including specific analog wireless products. Although solutions are being developed to address the interface issues of both the analog and digital networks, these solutions will not be available by October 1, 1997 While the parties are committed to working together on such efforts, they also determined that more time is needed to implement the best solutions for TTY ADD users. The parties agreed that an extension of time, not to exceed eighteen months, is needed to accomplish their goals.2 We again urge the Commission to extend the impending deadline. Additional Issues Although the Public Safety community and the wireless industry have communicated extensively about several issues regarding E 9-1-1 implementation, the parties believe that numerous issues pending before the Commission on reconsideration require additional analysis. The Commission has directed the signatories to the Consensus Agreement, PC1A, and the Ad Hoc Alliance for Public Access to 911 to furnish joint reports detailing the status of discussions regarding certain issues (i.e., development of technical and operational standards, grade of service, and common channel signaling) not later than January 30,1998. The parties already have scheduled meetings to discuss these and other issues, some of which were raised in the Petitions for Reconsideration. In light of these scheduled discussions, the Commission should refrain from making any decisions other than those related to the proposals set forth herein. Decisions regarding carrier liability, certain call-back capabilities, strongest signal technology, th* use of temporary call-back numbers, and the status of uninitialized phones should be deferred to allow the relevant parties the opportunity to develop consensus positions which they can communicate to the Commission. Only when all relevant panics have had the opportunity to study in depth many of these technical issues will the Commission have sufficient information to make a reasoned decision. 2 The parties in agreement included members from the telecommunications industry, the Public Safety community, and the organizations representing penons with hewing disabilities. See CTIA exparte communication, filed Sept 23, 1997. 15337 If you have any funher questions, please feel free to contact any of the parties listed below. Sincerely, Michael F. Altschul Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association Mary E. Madigan Personal Communications Industry Association Robert Gurss Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. Jim Hobson National Emergency Number Association National Association of State Nine-One-One Administrators 15338