T-Mobile Asks FCC Not to Impose New Rules in NET 911 Act Comments

T-Mobile consulted extensively with public safety groups on its procedures, it said, asking the FCC not to change the rules since its procedures are proving effective in routing dual-mode callers to 911 centers.

T-Mobile devised “novel approaches” to handling 911 calls that capitalized on its CMRS E911 capabilities, supplementing them “with a combination of user-provided and automatically determined customer location information for 911 calls flowing over Wi-Fi networks,” it said. “Since it launched the initial trial of this service, T-Mobile has been able to deliver 911 calls that otherwise would not have been possible, increasing consumers’ ability to summon help in an emergency.”

The FCC has had a T-Mobile petition for clarification on the dual-mode phone issue since 2005, before the company began its Unlimited Hotspot Calling service, which uses dual- mode Wi-Fi/GSM handsets. The FCC took up the issue as staff developed the VoIP-E-911 rulemaking.

Most commenters made no direct reference to the dual- mode phone issue, except to warn the FCC against being sidetracked. The dual-phone inquiry is “clearly outside the scope” of what the FCC rulemaking should examine, Sprint Nextel said. FCC members raised similar concerns in comments on the NPRM when they approved it last month. “By virtue of an extemporaneous discussion regarding mobile VoIP, we veer well off the course set by Congress,” said Commissioner Robert McDowell.

The VON Coalition agreed. The FCC “should focus on providing interconnected VoIP providers with the capabilities to meet existing 911 and E911 obligations, not in promulgating new ones,” it said. FCC questions on CMRS-VoIP “are in no way compelled by the plain language or intent of the NET 911 Act,"VON said. In seeking comment on the issue, the agency might not meet its statutory deadlines, the coalition said. The issue is “worthy of additional study,” but deserves a separate proceeding, it said. The FCC has until Oct. 21 to implement the Act, under the 90-day deadline set by Congress.

Keep it simple, several commenters urged. “There is no need for detailed regulations to effectuate the purposes of the NET 911 Act,” USTelecom said. “Prudence dictates that the FCC limit its rulemaking to only those provisions that must be implemented by October 21,” said Sprint Nextel. The wireless carrier urged the FCC to declare that NET 911 obligations apply to “any LEC, any PSAP or any other entity that owns or controls 911 infrastructure.” Verizon urged the agency to “adopt a straightforward rule requiring that, if an entity provides 911 capabilities to CMRS providers, it must also make such capabilities available to VoIP providers on the same rates, terms and conditions.”

Interconnected VoIP providers need direct access to E911 capabilities so they can improve existing E911 systems and support next-generation E911, Vonage said. Public safety groups NENA and APCO agreed. “VoIP providers should be granted reasonable and non-discriminatory access to all capabilities that are necessary for the deployment of E9-1-1 services,” whether an E911 provider is a public or private entity, the safety groups said. In return, “VoIP providers should commit to deploying fixed and nomadic VoIP service in accordance with national VoIP E9-1-1 standards” written by NENA and others, they said.

FCC rules should acknowledge that a next-generation E911 system is in development, NENA and APCO said. The new system will be IP-based. “While the Commission may be focused on those capabilities necessary for interconnection with the current E9-1-1 system, there needs to be an understanding of the capabilities involved with” the new system, “which in many instances will enable the same (and more) functions of the E-9-1-1 system in the form of different ‘capabilities,'” the public safety groups said. The FCC “should clarify that in areas of the country that deploy [next-generation] systems, interconnected VoIP providers … may connect to [them] where the functions required by the current E9-1-1 rules can be met.”

Significant debate arose over state and local authorities’ role in enforcing the E911 rules. The FCC should handle enforcement, Verizon said. Sprint agreed, saying it’s “important that VoIP providers have uniform rules under which to operate.” Don’t delegate to states yet, said Qwest. “Federal rules first should be promulgated and affected entities allowed some ‘experience time’ before any state delegations occur,” it said. NENA and APCO want states included. “It is important that the Commission appreciate and recognize the traditional role that state public utility commissions have played in the interconnection process generally and concerning” 911 issues, the safety groups said. The 911 system is “largely a state and local government responsibility,” they said. State public utility commissions should address implementation disputes based on national guidelines set by the FCC, they said.

State and local authorities had mixed opinions on jurisdiction. The FCC should “clarify that the NET 911 Improvement Act affords Commission jurisdiction over state and local entities,” said the Illinois Commerce Commission. Others disagreed. “The FCC does not have sufficient resources to engage in ongoing compliance issues in every State and should delegate authority to enforce regulations to State public utility commissions,” said Oklahoma City. Cooperation with and delegation to the states “should be strongly encouraged,” said the Texas 9-1-1 Alliance.

In its implementation rules, the FCC should establish “a non-exhaustive list of capabilities” needed to provide VoIP E911, and “a mechanism to update that list as technology advances,” Vonage said. USTelecom opposed inclusion of a “laundry list” of E911 provisioning capabilities in the FCC rules. Such a list could preclude technological advancement and other innovation in the E911 space, it said. Instead, the FCC should consult bodies that are writing standards for VoIP E911, it said. Qwest similarly condemned the list approach, urging that the FCC require that E911 capabilities used by CMRS providers to be made available for VoIP providers. If a VoIP provider wants a capability not provided to CMRS, the VoIP provider should emulate an Open Network Architecture request and work with the carrier providing E911 capabilities, Qwest said.

The FCC should harness its new power to require that PSAPs, local exchange carriers and owners of selective routers regularly send and update contact information to the FCC, said the VON Coalition. “Unfortunately today, there is no clear number of selective routers in the country,” it said. “As ownership of selective routers has diversified, data about them has lagged.” NENA and APCO disputed that notion. “NENA does in fact maintain such lists in the form of a ‘9-1-1 System Reference Guide,'” that group said.

The FCC should “designate the 911 Selective Router as the demarcation point for allocating E911 implementation costs between” interconnected VoIP providers and public safety answering points, Vonage said. The FCC also should establish network testing and dispute resolution procedures, E911 agreement filing requirements and a national selective router registry, it said. “Rules that require transparent and publicly accessible information about the network and capabilities that make up the nation’s current E911 system are necessary to meet Congress’s mandates of non discriminatory access for IVPs, and to move the country closer to next-generation E911,” it said.