National Emergency Number Assn. (NENA) told FCC this week that se...

LECs recover costs of 911 services supplied to public safety answering points (PSAPs). (2) Extent to which LECs are authorized to offer E911 Phase 2 refinements of such services. (3) “Regulatory interface” between FCC authority over wireless 911 implementation and state PUC authority over rates, terms and conditions of LEC intrastate service. “NENA representatives expressed concern that these and other open issues threatened to slow the pace of wireless E911 implementation,” group said in ex parte filing Tues. Filing said “wireless E911 cannot become ubiquitous until the wire facilities essential to its offering, such as selective routing switches, are available throughout the country.” NENA plans to develop proposal for early fall on how to make wireline network infrastructure more available for providing wireless E911 to less populated areas. LEC-related 911 issue is among those under examination as part of FCC technical inquiry led by former Office of Engineering & Technology Chief Dale Hatfield on E911 implementation issues. Wireless carriers, in some cases, have contended they have had difficulty obtaining necessary LEC facility upgrades for E911 Phase 1 deployment and fear issue also could emerge under Phase 2 rollouts. Wireless carriers such as Sprint PCS have stressed role of LECs in closing E911 connection among wireless subscribers, carriers, databases and public safety answering points. NENA said it had requests pending at FCC for clarification of identification of nonservice initialized phones, which include phones donated to domestic abuse programs. While requests cover how to treat harassing calls from such phones, “the issue also extends to the matter of ‘congestion control’ when, for example, large numbers of wireless calls to 911 report the same emergent incident at the same time.” NENA also expressed concern that development of wireless location technology for E911 called Enhanced Observed Time Difference (E-OTD) equipment for GSM networks “seemed to have stalled.” It said “predictions for its superior accuracy, relative to network location solutions, had retrenched.” Group said: “At some point, the holders of GSM Phase 2 waivers must be called on their promises to look at alternative location solutions if their initial E-OTD choice is not viable under the applicable waiver deadlines.”