**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER**

**MICHAEL J. COPPS, APPROVING**

** **

*Re:      Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements;* Report and
Order (FCC 07-166)

 

            Here we are again---September 11^th^.  The sixth anniversary
of that terrible and murderous day when America began to understand just
how vulnerable we are in this 21^st^ century.  Six years later, not
enough has changed.  We are still vulnerable.  Our communications
infrastructure is still not capable of connecting us in the ways we need
to be connected in the maelstrom of catastrophe.  In some few ways and
places, we may be better off, but in far more other ways and places, we
are not.  We're working, but there remains so much to do.  Two months
ago, the Commission embarked on a huge effort to encourage construction
of an interoperable, nationwide broadband public safety network, to be
turned into reality by the combined efforts of the public safety
community, a commercial licensee, and the FCC.  Today we
visit---actually ***re***visit---the challenging world of wireless E911,
in hopes of providing our citizens with effective and reliable
connections to emergency operators in times of crisis. 

 

Our reliance on wireless phones grows deeper every day.  The number of
handsets deployed in the United States grows almost exponentially---an
increase of 50 percent over the last three years.[^1]  The amount of
time we spend on our phones continues to soar---an average consumer uses
his or hers for around 13 hours each month, an increase of two hours
from just the year before.[^2] That's just part of the picture when it
comes to E911.  More tellingly, for 14 percent of American adults, their
wireless phone is now their ***only*** phone.[^3]  When these 30 million
wireless-only consumers---and any child in their care---face a medical
crisis or physical threat, they will seek help through the wireless E911
system.  If that system fails them, it can be the difference between
life and death.

 

            Many Americans probably believe that their wireless handsets
provide the same level of protection as the wireline phones they have
replaced.  The terrifying reality is that, in many cases, this is not
so.  Wireless phones do not transmit a particular street address to an
emergency operator, as the wireline E911 system does.  In fact, even
under the best of conditions, carriers are required only to transmit a
set of geographic coordinates that is accurate within 50 or 100 meters. 
In other situations, the accuracy may be far worse.  Indeed, one recent
study looked at call performance within a small sample of individual
PSAPs and concluded that the overall level of accuracy was below what
the experts expected and, in many cases, below what the FCC's rules
require. 

Available evidence also indicates that location accuracy is especially
unreliable for calls placed from inside a building or in a rural
area---two places where mobile handsets are increasingly common.  Nor is
it possible using current technology to estimate the elevation from
which a call is placed---a critical piece of information for first
responders if the caller-in-need is located in a sky-scraper or other
multi-story building.

 

            So it should be abundantly clear that the FCC faces a
profound set of challenges to develop a wireless E911 system that will
give American consumers the level of protection they need and deserve. 
This is starkly urgent business, but in the best of cases, it will still
take time; it will take more money; and it will take supreme efforts on
the part of industry, public safety and the FCC.  On this sixth
anniversary of the searing tragedy of 9/11, we should require no
reminder that the status quo is not acceptable and that the burdens of
protecting the people's safety must be an ongoing national priority.

 

  Is today's item aggressive and demanding?  Yes it is.  But let me say
right now that we would be in even worse shape public safety-wise
without having already taken some aggressive steps.  Making sure that
Voice over Internet Protocol was part of the E911 system was aggressive
and controversial.  But it was the right thing to do and I continue to
commend Chairman Martin for his leadership in that.  If our public
safety alternatives are to do either too much or too little, you will
find this Commissioner is always going to err on the side of doing more
rather than less.

 

            As I suggested when we initiated this docket earlier this
summer, I think the right path forward involves a sequence of two
steps.  First, the FCC---in full partnership with public safety and
industry---needs to test and really understand the capabilities and the
limitations of our existing E911 system, and we need to assess
developing and future technologies that can improve these capabilities.
 Second, after we understand the technical realities of where we are
today and the limits on what is possible in the future, we need to set
aggressive accuracy standards---the most aggressive that law and
technology allow---and require carriers to meet them.  

 

            In the discussions surrounding the release of our NPRM
earlier this summer, I was pleased that my colleagues accepted my
suggestion that we commission two reports from our Office of Engineering
and Technology that could put this process on a sound technical
footing.  These reports were to address the question of how well
in-building coverage fares under current technology, as well as the
extent to which so-called hybrid technology---the most promising
technique out there right now---could help remedy some of the
limitations of the existing wireless E911 infrastructure.  I had hoped
that these studies would be available before I was called upon to vote
on a framework for adjusting the FCC's accuracy standards. 

 

            Unfortunately, those studies are not before us today, even
as we have an item that adopts the specific compliance benchmarks
suggested to us in recent days by the two leading public safety
organizations.  In a more perfect world, we would have the additional
time necessary to develop a fuller factual record before reaching a
decision.  But I also recognize that any technical issue can always
benefit from additional study and that any important decision contains a
degree of legal risk.  The simple truth is that public safety officials
and the wireless industry are rarely going to agree about the
appropriate timeframe for developing and implementing new and expensive
technologies.  Faced with a choice between the concerns of industry and
the suggestions of the public safety community, I think the right answer
is to forge ahead with a set of aggressive---but I believe
achievable---benchmarks.  The rules we announce today will give industry
a strong incentive to develop technical solutions that will make the
American public safer.  I appreciate the Chairman's leadership in
bringing us to this point.

 

            Now that we are resolving the PSAP-level accuracy issue, I
hope we can focus our energies on moving forward swiftly to address the
many additional issues raised by the second phase of the NPRM in this
docket, Section III.B.  Our resolution of this portion of the
proceeding---even more than the decision we reach today---will determine
whether American wireless consumers will benefit from a technologically
advanced  E911 system capable of keeping them as safe as they possibly
can be.  Indeed, our approach to that next phase is perhaps the best
test of whether this Commission is really on-target to improve the state
of public safety readiness in the years ahead.  The specific questions
we must address include (1) whether to mandate a "hybrid" technical
solution and a single wireless accuracy standard, (2) whether to require
carriers to report the height as well as the latitude and longitude of
E911 calls, (3) how to require carriers to measure and report compliance
with our standards, and (4) how to deal with the remaining issues of
wireless VoIP provision.  I certainly look forward to receiving OET's
studies and to addressing these questions in the weeks and months
immediately ahead.  We can settle for no less. 

 

            I also think it is important to mention that the OET studies
and our consideration of the further issues raised in Section III.B will
give us a second opportunity to assess whether the compliance deadlines
we set today are appropriate.  I am not now, nor ever will be,
interested in compromising public safety just because the right
technical standards will require substantial investment by industry in
infrastructure.  But I also recognize that it is possible to set
standards so high that they become counter-productive.  While I believe
that the benchmarks we set today are achievable, if the record that
develops between now and one year from now suggests otherwise, I am
willing to revisit the timeframes we establish today. The important
point is today's action provides what seem to be realistic parameters
and timeframes for getting the job done.  E911 has taken a long
time---too long---and we just do not have the luxury of frittering away
more of that precious commodity. 

 

            Many thanks to the Bureau for its hard work on this
item---and also to my colleagues who worked so hard on this item and the
other public safety proceedings the Chairman has teed up.  I am pleased
to see the Commission back in the forefront of public safety
communications.  It is where we should have been all along.

[^1]: *Eleventh Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market
    Conditions With Respect to Commercial Mobile Services*, FCC 06-142,
    at ¶ 158.

[^2]: *Id.* at ¶ 168.

[^3]: Alex Mindlin, "Cellphone-only Homes Hit a Milestone," *New York
    Times* (August 27, 2007).