Marlys R. Davis

E-911 Program Manager

King County E-911 Program Office

Department of Information and Administrative Services

7300 Perimeter Road South, Room 128

Seattle, Washington 98108-3848

Re: [King County, Washington Request Concerning E911 Phase I
Issues]{.underline}

Dear Ms. Davis:

This letter responds to your letter dated May 25, 2000, in which you
request assistance in resolving a conflict concerning implementation of
Phase I of Enhanced 911 (E911) service in Washington State.
Specifically, you inquire as to "whether the funding of network and
database components of Phase I service, and the interface of these
components to the existing 911 system \[is\] the responsibility of the
wireless carriers or the \[Public Safety Answering Points\] PSAPs."[^1]

Based on the language of the Commission's E911 rules and its E911
orders, discussed below, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau)
clarifies the question of cost allocations for Phase I implementation in
King County, based on the record before us.[^2] Specifically, under the
Commission's rule at section 20.18(d) requiring wireless carriers to
provide Phase I service, the Bureau clarifies that the proper
demarcation point for allocating costs between the wireless carriers and
the PSAPs is the input to the 911 Selective Router maintained by the
Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC). Thus, under section 20.18(d) of
the Commission's regulations governing Enhanced 911 Service (E911),
wireless carriers are responsible for the costs of all hardware and
software components and functionalities that precede the 911 Selective
Router, including the trunk from the carrier's Mobile Switching Center
(MSC) to the 911 Selective Router, and the particular databases,
interface devices, and trunk lines that may be needed to implement the
Non-Call Path Associated Signaling and Hybrid Call Path Associated
Signaling methodologies for delivering E911 Phase I data to the PSAP.
PSAPs, on the other hand, must bear the costs of maintaining and/or
upgrading the E911 components and functionalities beyond the input to
the 911 Selective Router, including the 911 Selective Router itself, the
trunks between the 911 Selective Router and the PSAP, the Automatic
Location Identification (ALI) database, and the PSAP customer premises
equipment (CPE).

***[Background]{.underline}***

###### The Commission's E911 Second Memorandum Opinion and Order. The cost-allocation question you have raised derives, in part, from the Commission's decision in the E911 Second Memorandum Opinion and Order.[^3] There, the Commission decided to eliminate its previous requirement that a carrier cost recovery mechanism be in place before a wireless carrier is obligated to implement E911 services.[^4] Following removal of the carrier cost recovery requirement, the prerequisites for a carrier's E911 obligation are: (1) the carrier's receipt of a valid request from a PSAP capable of receiving and utilizing the data elements associated with the service; and (2) the existence of a cost recovery mechanism for recovery of the PSAP's E911 service costs. Accordingly, the Commission's implementing regulation at section 20.18(j) imposes E911 requirements on wireless carriers if the PSAP has requested Phase I services and "is capable of receiving and utilizing the data elements associated with the service."

*Basis for Request*. In the King County Letter, you state that King
County and several other counties in Washington State have ordered Phase
I service from wireless carriers who offer service within the State. You
assert that PSAPs in King County and in the other counties in Washington
State are capable of receiving the Phase I information over the existing
E911 network, and displaying the information on the existing E911
equipment. Therefore, King County asserts that it has met the
requirements in section 20.18(j) for ordering Phase I service and the
wireless carriers are obligated to provide that service within six
months of the orders.

*Public Notice*. On August 16, 2000, the Bureau issued a *Public Notice*
seeking comment on King County's request, including four issues
implicated in the inquiry: (1) whether a clear demarcation point exists
in the E911 network that distinguishes between carriers' and PSAPs'
responsibilities for E911 Phase I implementation; (2) whether that point
varies according to the technology employed to provide Phase I services;
(3) whether there is a rationale or precedent respecting wireline 911
services that provides guidance in allocating responsibility and costs
between wireless carriers and PSAPs; and (4) whether certain costs
associated with implementing Phase I technologies should be borne or
shared by ILECs.[^5]

*Comments*. Eighteen parties filed comments in response to the Public
Notice; seven parties filed reply comments. A majority of wireless
service providers contend that the PSAP is responsible for any system
upgrades necessary to deliver Phase I information in a form compatible
with the existing 911 network and, thus, that the appropriate
demarcation point is the wireless carrier's MSC. PSAPs and other public
safety organizations, on the other hand, assert in their comments that
carriers must provide Phase I data in a form usable by the PSAP and,
thus, that the appropriate demarcation point for allocating
responsibilities and associated costs between wireless carriers and
PSAPs is the dedicated 911 Selective Router maintained by the ILEC. For
those reasons set forth below, the Bureau views section 20.18(d) as
requiring wireless carriers to bear all Phase I costs up to the input of
the 911 Selective Router and PSAPs to bear all Phase I costs beyond that
point.

***[Discussion]{.underline}***

At the outset, we emphasize that the Commission continues to favor
negotiation between the parties as the most efficacious and efficient
means for resolving disputes regarding cost allocations for implementing
Phase I. Our experience throughout this proceeding reveals that the
variety of situations existing in approximately 6,000 PSAPs across the
nation, including differences in state laws and regulations governing
the provision of 911 services, the configuration of wireless systems,
the technical sophistication of existing 911 network components, and
existing agreements between carriers and PSAPs, argue against a uniform
federal mandate that prevents the relevant stakeholders from reaching
other, mutually-acceptable arrangements on how to satisfy the
Commission's location accuracy mandates. It was for this reason that the
Commission adopted a case-by-case approach in addressing disputes over
the locus of authority in selecting the Phase I implementation
methodology for a particular jurisdiction.[^6] Indeed, the Bureau has
spent considerable time in discussions and multiple face-to-face
meetings with the parties involved attempting to help them reach
agreement. Because they have been unable to resolve this dispute in the
period since King County filed its request for assistance almost a year
ago, however, the Bureau clarifies the obligations of the parties under
section 20.18 as follows.

Section 20.18(d)(1) of the Commission's rules states that wireless
carriers must "provide the telephone number of the originator of a 911
call and the location of the cell site or base station receiving a 911
call from any mobile handset accessing their systems to the designated
Public Safety Answering Point through the use of ANI and Pseudo
ANI."[^7] This obligation is contingent on the requesting PSAP's being
"capable of receiving and utilizing the data elements associated with
the \[Phase I\] service."[^8] The Commission, by this rule, has made
carriers responsible for *providing* Phase I information *to* PSAPs.

Thus, an interpretation of section 20.18(d) must account for the
presence of the existing E911 Wireline Network,[^9] which is maintained
by the ILEC and paid for by PSAPs through tariffs. It includes the 911

Selective Router, which receives 911 calls from the Central Offices of
the various LECs (*e.g*., the regional ILEC and any number of
Competitive Local Exchange Carriers) and forwards the calls to the
particular PSAP that serves the caller's area. The caller's phone number
is transmitted to the PSAP along with the 911 voice call. The PSAP uses
that phone number to obtain various information about the caller from
the ALI database, *e.g*., the caller's name and address, *etc*. The E911
Wireline Network thus consists of: the 911 Selective Router; the trunk
line between the 911 Selective Router and the PSAP; the ALI database;
and the trunk line between the ALI database and the PSAP.

When a wireless 911 call is made, the wireless carrier must bring the
wireless call, as well as the information about the caller (*i.e.*, the
caller's phone number and location) to the E911 Wireline Network for
processing. The E911 Wireline Network processes data received from the
wireless carrier with the voice call. Thus, in order for wireless
carriers to satisfy their obligation under section 20.18(d) to *provide*
Phase I information *to* the PSAP, carriers must deliver that
information to the equipment that analyzes and distributes it -- *i.e.*,
to the input to the 911 Selective Router. We thus agree with parties who
believe that the appropriate demarcation point for allocating
responsibilities and costs between wireless carriers and PSAPs *is* the
input to the 911 Selective Router.

As compared with the wireline E911 system, there are additional costs
for the transmission of wireless Phase I information to the PSAP that
are attributable to certain complexities not involved with the simpler
operation of transmitting a wireline caller's eight-digit phone
number.[^10] These complexities derive from the fact that Phase I
information (ANI and p-ANI) contains a total of 20 digits, but that
neither 911 Selective Routers, the trunks from 911 Selective Routers to
PSAPs, nor PSAPs' CPE were initially designed to handle more than eight
digits.[^11] Various techniques have been developed to enable the
provision of Phase I data to the PSAP. These techniques involve
enhancements and/or "add-ons" to the existing 911 Wireline Network. The
techniques are referred to as: Non-Call Path Associated Signaling
(NCAS); Call Path Associated Signaling (CAS); and Hybrid CAS (HCAS).
Having determined that the input to the 911 Selective Router marks the
point for allocating Phase I costs between the wireless carriers and the
PSAPs, we now provide guidance with respect to the various
additional/specific responsibilities carriers and PSAPs will be expected
to meet in implementing these signaling techniques.[^12]

NCAS requires the use of a Service Control Point (SCP), which is a
database that receives a caller's 20-digit ANI and p-ANI from the
carrier's MSC and returns to the MSC a seven or eight-digit routing
key.[^13] The routing key is then sent to the 911 Selective Router, and
thence to the appropriate PSAP via a Centralized Automated Message
Accounting (CAMA) trunk. At the same time, the routing key and the
caller's ANI and p-ANI are forwarded to the ALI database. The PSAP
retrieves the caller's ANI and p-ANI information (*i.e*., the caller's
phone number and cell sector location) from the ALI database by
requesting the information that is associated with the routing key it
receives from the 911 Selective Router.[^14] NCAS thus requires a trunk
from the wireless carrier's MSC to the SCP, the SCP itself, and a trunk
from the SCP to the ALI database. If a wireless carrier employs NCAS, in
addition to being responsible for the trunk from its MSC to the 911
Selective Router, the carrier must implement these additional components
in order to meet its obligation to provide Phase I information to the
PSAP.

With CAS, the 20 digits of Phase I data are transmitted over the trunk
from the wireless carrier's MSC to the 911 Selective Router. These
trunks must therefore be capable of effectively transporting this number
of digits.[^15] The 911 Selective Router contains a database that links
the caller's p-ANI to a particular PSAP. Once the appropriate PSAP has
been identified, the 911 Selective Router forwards the 20 digits, along
with the voice call, to that PSAP. An additional requirement of CAS is
that the trunk from the 911 Selective Router to the PSAP, the 911
Selective Router itself, and the PSAP's CPE, must each be capable of
handling 20 digits. If CAS is employed, the wireless carrier will be
responsible for providing trunks that are capable of handling the 20
digits of Phase I information from its MSC to the 911 Selective Router.
The PSAP will be responsible for any required upgrades to the 911
Selective Router itself, the trunk from the 911 Selective Router to the
PSAP, and the PSAP CPE.

HCAS contains certain elements found in CAS and NCAS. It employs a
Protocol Converter, or Wireless Integration Device (WID), which is
located at the 911 Selective Router. This device receives the caller's
ANI and p-ANI from the carrier's MSC and converts the 10-digit p-ANI
into a seven or eight-digit routing key, which is sent to the 911
Selective Router and then transported to the PSAP on the CAMA trunk that
connects the 911 Selective Router to the PSAP. At the same time, the
caller's ANI and p-ANI are transmitted from the WID to the ALI database.
The routing key performs the same function as the NCAS routing key
(*i.e*., enabling the retrieval of the caller's Phase I information from
the ALI database). In order to implement HCAS, the WID and the trunk
from the WID to the ALI database must be added to the E911 Wireline
Network, and the trunk from the carrier's MSC to the WID must be capable
of handling 20 digits. Thus, if HCAS is employed, the carrier will be
responsible for the cost of the WID, the trunk from the WID to the ALI
database, and the trunk from the carrier's MSC to the WID.

While the costs of installing, maintaining, and upgrading components
necessary to deliver Phase I

information to the 911 Selective Router are not insubstantial, we
believe that these costs properly repose with the wireless carrier
rather than with the PSAP. These Phase I costs are directly attributable
to the unique nature of the service provided, *i.e.*, the mobility of
the wireless caller, which generates costs

associated with identifying the caller's phone number and location. A
major reason consumers give for subscribing to wireless services is
security and safety, which includes access to 911 services. Thus, it
does not seem inappropriate to make the carriers responsible for those
expenditures necessary to deliver location information in a usable form
to the E911 Network so as to ensure that their customers have access to
enhanced 911 services. Moreover, as telecommunications carriers whose
rates are not regulated, wireless carriers have the option of covering
these Phase I costs through their charges to customers, either through
their prices for service or through surcharges on customer bills.

We note that the decision we reach today does not impose the entire cost
burden for Phase I implementation on wireless carriers, but places a
share of these costs on PSAPs. For example, under the Commission's
rules, PSAPs are responsible for any upgrades necessary to the 911
Selective Router, the trunking from the 911 Selective Router to the
PSAP, and the trunking from the PSAP to the ALI database, as well as
upgrades to PSAP hardware and software necessary to make use of the
location information. In any event, whether the wireless carrier or the
PSAP initially bears a particular set of Phase I costs, wireless
customers will, in all likelihood, eventually bear the bulk of the
overall costs of implementing Phase I, since in most jurisdictions, the
PSAPs' costs of implementing wireless E911 are recovered through a tax
or surcharge imposed on wireless subscribers.

The decision we reach here addresses the issue of where the
responsibilities lie between the wireless carrier and the PSAP in terms
of the costs of implementing E911 Phase I service, under the facts and
circumstances of this case and the record before us. We do not address
the issue of which party -- PSAP or carrier -- may choose the
transmission method and technology to be used to provide Phase I. We
note that, rather than establishing a rule, the Commission has
encouraged PSAPs and carriers to reach agreement on an appropriate
method for transmitting E911 information to the PSAP, given the
circumstances of each situation. If disputes occur, however, the
Commission has identified certain factors, among others, that Commission
staff should consider in addressing the issues; for example, the
additional costs of the two methodologies to the PSAP and the wireless
carrier; and the ability of the transmission technology to accommodate
Phase II of wireless E911 and other planned changes in the E911 system.

We encourage the parties in King County and elsewhere to work
cooperatively to reach agreement on the technology to be used in each
case and note the concerns we would have should any carrier unilaterally
select a technology that could not be used by the PSAPs in that
jurisdiction or that could not be used to meet its upcoming Phase II
obligations, in order to shift costs from itself to the PSAP. We expect
carriers to negotiate in good faith with the PSAPs concerning the
appropriate Phase I technology, based on the totality of the
circumstances before them, including what best serves the PSAP and their
own subscribers' interest in having timely access to E911 services.

We trust that we have fully answered your questions and that the
guidance offered herein will be helpful. Should you have any questions
with respect to any portion of this letter, please do not hesitate to
contact the Bureau's Policy Division at (202) 418-1310.

Sincerely,

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Thomas J. Sugrue

Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

cc: AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.

Nextel Communications, Inc.

Qwest Wireless, LLC

Sprint PCS

Verizon Wireless

VoiceStream Wireless Corporation

[^1]: Letter from Marlys R. Davis, E911 Program Manager, King County
    E-911 Program Office, Department of Information and Administrative
    Services, to Thomas J. Sugrue, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated May 25, 2000 (King
    County Letter).

[^2]: *See* 47 CFR §§ 0.131(a) and 0.331(a). The Bureau has interpreted
    this request as an inquiry concerning the Commission's Phase I
    requirements in section 20.18, and not a request pursuant to
    paragraphs seven and 92 of the *E911 Second Memorandum Opinion and
    Order,* concerning which party has authority to select the
    particular Phase I implementing technology. *See* Revision of the
    Commission's Rules To Ensure Compatibility With Enhanced 911
    Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102, RM-8143, *Second
    Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 20850, 20854, 20886
    (paras. 7, 92)(1999) (*E911 Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*).

[^3]: *E911 Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 20866-67
    (paras. 38-40).

[^4]: ^?^ The Commission found that the carrier cost recovery
    requirement had been a source of ambiguity and controversy and had
    impeded the implementation of Phase I. It further found that, since
    wireless carrier rates are unregulated, there was no need for a
    government-mandated carrier cost recovery mechanism, noting that
    carriers are free to recover these costs in their charges to
    customers, either through their service rates or through specific
    surcharges on customer bills. Nevertheless, the Commission
    emphasized that states are free to have a carrier cost recovery
    mechanism in place if they so choose. *Id.* *See also* 47 CFR §
    20.18(d)(2000).

[^5]: ^?^ Public Notice, DA 00-1875, *Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
    Seeks Comment on Phase I E911 Implementation Issues*, CC Docket No.
    94-102, rel. Aug. 16, 2000. With respect to the fourth question,
    concerning ILECs, we note our continuing concern, based on numerous
    reports, over the timely provisioning by ILECs of the necessary
    network components and associated services for Phase I
    implementation. While we take no action at this point, we will
    closely monitor this matter to determine whether the Bureau should
    recommend that the Commission revisit the issue in the near term.

[^6]: *See* n. 2, *supra*.

[^7]: The ANI is a caller's 10-digit phone number (including the 3-digit
    area code). The Pseudo ANI, or p-ANI, is the unique 10-digit number
    that identifies the cell sector location of the base station
    handling the call.

[^8]: ^?^ *See* 47 CFR § 20.18(j).

[^9]: ^?^ *See, e.g., E911 Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 14 FCC
    Rcd 20886-87 (paras. 92, 94); Revision of the Commission's Rules To
    Ensure Compatibility With Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC
    Docket No. 94-102, RM-8143, *Report and Order and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, 11 FCC Rcd 18676, 18710 (para. 66)(1996).

[^10]: The wireline caller's phone number, in this context, is the
    caller's standard seven-digit phone number plus an additional digit
    to indicate the caller's area code.

[^11]: These components generally support Centralized Automated Message
    Accounting signaling, which is an in-band signaling protocol that is
    designed to transport up to eight digits.

[^12]: The following discussion of Phase I data transmission techniques
    contains information provided in Sprint PCS's Comments filed on
    Sept. 18, 2000 and in the "Enhanced 911 Funding Study for Wireless
    Telecommunications in Washington State" dated Dec. 31, 1998, and
    filed on Mar. 30, 1999, by the Washington State Department of
    Revenue.

[^13]: The routing key is a seven or eight-digit number that is uniquely
    associated with a particular 911 call, and is used by the 911
    Selective Router to determine the appropriate PSAP to which to send
    the call.

[^14]: The ALI database provides to the PSAP, *inter alia*, the caller's
    phone number and cell sector location, and the name of the caller's
    wireless carrier.

[^15]: The 20 digits may be transported on the trunk from the MSC to the
    911 Selective Router using either Signaling System 7 or Feature
    Group D signaling.