Apple, Inc. Exhibit 1012 Page 1
`
`

`
`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 99-245
`
`Before the
`FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`Revision of the Commission's Rules
`To Ensure Compatibility with
`Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems
`
`)
`) CC Docket No. 94-102
`) RM-8143
`)
`
`THIRD REPORT AND ORDER
`
`Adopted: September 15, 1999
`
`Released: October 6, 1999
`
`By the Commission: Commissioner Tristani issuing a statement.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`IN TRODUCTION
`
`..............................................
`
`EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
`
`.......................................
`
`III. BACKGROUND
`
`..............................................
`
`IV. DISCUSSION .
`
`................................................
`
`...........................................
`A. ALl Deploym ent
`1. Handset-Based Solutions .....................................
`2. Network-Based Solutions ....................................
`..............................
`B. Accuracy and Reliability Standards
`..........................
`C. Technological and Competitive Neutrality
`......................................
`D. Compliance Verification
`E. Advance Carrier Reports of E911 Plans ............................
`
`V.
`
`PROCEDURAL MATTERS
`
`......................................
`
`17388
`
`Paragraph
`
`I
`
`12
`
`13
`
`17
`
`17
`35
`62
`66
`78
`83
`86
`
`90
`
`Apple, Inc. Exhibit 1012 Page 2
`
`

`
`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 99-245
`
`.....................................
`A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
`.........................
`B. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
`................................................
`C . A uthority
`.........................................
`D . Further Inform ation
`
`VI. ORDERING CLAUSES
`
`.........................................
`
`Appendix A - List of Parties
`Appendix B - Final Rules
`Appendix C - Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`90
`91
`92
`93
`
`94
`
`In this Order, the Commission takes another significant step towards enabling
`1.
`wireless callers to obtain emergency assistance more rapidly and efficiently by dialing 911.
`Wireless phones can be a vital, life-saving way to call for assistance in emergency situations.
`Indeed, the ability to reach 911 in an emergency is one of the most important reasons
`Americans give for purchasing wireless phones.' But, unlike most wireline phones, which are
`connected to Enhanced 911 (E91 1) service that automatically reports the caller's location,
`when a 911 call is placed using a wireless handset, the dispatcher at the 911 Public Safety
`Answering Point (PSAP) does not know where the caller is.
`
`The life-saving advantage of being able to know accurately and quickly the
`2.
`location of an emergency is obvious. Emergency police, fire, and medical teams cannot assist
`a person they cannot find. Less obviously, automatic location identification (ALl) also allows
`PSAPs and emergency response teams to operate more efficiently. Wireless calls may be
`received by the carrier at an antenna some distance away from where the call is actually
`placed, because of the vagaries of radio transmission, terrain, or network congestion. ALI can
`be applied to route these calls immediately to the proper PSAP, normally that nearest the
`scene. ALI also allows PSAPs to handle wireless calls more quickly and efficiently, because
`the dispatcher need not question the caller about his or her location. Finally, ALI can help
`PSAPs deal with sudden bursts of calls, which often occur after incidents such as highway
`accidents. Knowing the location of the incoming calls, the PSAP can better distinguish
`redundant calls about a particular accident from calls concerning a different emergency.
`
`Wireless subscribership continues to grow rapidly. From year end 1996 to year
`3.
`end 1998, the number of wireless subscribers grew from 44 million to 67 million, an increase
`
`Polk Public Opinion Strategies, National Survey, July 31-August 4, 1997 (last viewed Sept. 20, 1999)
`poll.cfm>.
`<http://www.wow-com.com/consumer/highway/reference/e911
`
`17389
`
`Apple, Inc. Exhibit 1012 Page 3
`
`

`
`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 99-245
`
`of 52 percent. During that same period, wireless 911 calls grew even more rapidly, from
`1.805 million per year (59,180 per day) in 1996 to 2.943 million (98,097 per day) in 1998. an
`increase of 63 percent.2 The growing use of wireless phones to make 911 calls clearly
`represents an important advance in public safety. However, the growing number of wireless
`911 calls exacerbates the limitations of wireless 911 service, in particular the continuing
`inability to automatically locate those calls. While most PSAP operators immediately know
`the location of wireline callers, because wireline E911 has been widely deployed, PSAPs do
`not know the location of wireless callers, except in a very general way in those PSAPs where
`Phase I (providing cell site or cell sector information) has been deployed. As a result, PSAP
`dispatchers must question all wireless callers to try to determine their location before any help
`can be sent. This process can delay significantly the arrival of help, especially if the call
`must be transferred to another PSAP that actually serves the location or if the caller does not
`know his or her location.
`
`These 911 call location difficulties represent a significant public safety
`4.
`problem. Nearly 70 percent of auto accident fatalities occur within two hours after a crash
`and, according to a conservative estimate, 1,200 lives are lost each year because of delay in
`discovering accidents.3 Addressing this problem is especially important for rural areas.
`According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data, for example, emergency
`communications are most valuable, and improvements are most needed, in rural areas. In
`1996, motor vehicle crashes in rural areas accounted for 59 percent of total motor vehicle
`fatalities that year, 25,000. The fatality rate is also twice as high on rural interstate highways
`as on urban ones per miles driven, and rural crashes are more severe, more likely to involve
`both multiple fatalities and severe vehicle damage." Overall, a person is as much as three
`times as likely to suffer a fatality in a rural crash.5
`
`2 CTIA. Cellular Carriers Association of California, California Highway Patrol, New York State Police, and
`others, Wireless 911 and Distress Calls (last viewed Sept. 20. 1999) <http://www.wow-com.com/statsurv/e91 ]>.
`
`' American College of Emergency Physicians' Scientific Assembly, Cell Phones a Threat to 911 (Oct. 16,
`1997) <http://www.erwatch.com/cell.htnl>.
`
`' National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Traffic Safety Facts 1996, Rural Areas (last
`viewed Sept. 21, 1999) <http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/peoplencsa/FactPrev/Rural/96.html>. According to the
`Department of Transportation Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS), the average Emergency Medical Service
`(EMS) crash notification time is almost twice as long in rural areas (8.95 minutes) as in urban areas (4.85
`minutes). In addition, the average response time for rural areas, 11.47 minutes, is also almost twice that of urban
`areas (based on 1992 data).
`
`NHTSA, Research Note, Rural and Urban Crashes - A Comparative Analysis, Aug. 1996, at 2.
`<http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ncsa/reports.html#1996>.
`
`17390
`
`Apple, Inc. Exhibit 1012 Page 4
`
`

`
`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 99-245
`
`5.
`To improve public safety and extend ALI to wireless callers,
`the Commission
`has established a schedule, subject to certain conditions, for deployment of E911 features by
`wireless carriers. In Phase I, which began on April 1, 1998, PSAPs were to receive a rough
`estimate of a caller's location and a dialable call-back number. In Phase II, scheduled for
`October 1, 2001, or six months after the service is requested, whichever is later, PSAPs are to
`receive a much more precise location identification, within 125 meters or about 410 feet of
`the caller's location.6
`
`When the Commission adopted its Phase II rules in 1996, it was believed that
`6.
`location information could only be effectively provided by technologies based in or overlaid
`on carrier networks, using approaches such as triangulation of the handset's signal. Since that
`time, advancements in location technologies that employ new or upgraded handsets have
`demonstrated important progress. Competition in the development of network and handset-
`based technologies has yielded significant results. While it does not appear that any single
`network-based or handset-based location technology is perfect in all situations or for all
`wireless transmission technologies, both network and handset-based solutions may provide
`location information by 2001 that meets or exceeds our accuracy requirements.7 Each type of
`solution has its advantages and limitations. Each may also be improved or combined with
`other technologies in the future to support further improvements in 911 service and public
`safety.
`
`The Commission's current rules, however, as a practical matter only permit
`7.
`network-based solutions to meet our Phase II requirements, because they require that ALI be
`provided for all 911 calls in a requesting PSAP's area as of a fixed date. It is not, we
`believe, economically or logistically feasible to expect or require that all current handsets be
`upgraded or replaced to meet that date. Rather, some form of phase-in of new or upgraded
`handsets is necessary if handset-based solutions are to be a viable competitor for initial
`deployment under Phase II. The statistical method the Commission adopted to measure
`location accuracy and reliability, Root Mean Square (RMS), also appears to be unworkable in
`some respects for both network-based and handset-based solutions.
`
`In order to address these issues, we revise our rules in this Order to permit
`8.
`handset-based solutions, or hybrid solutions that require changes both to handsets and wireless
`networks, to compete in a reasonable way with network-based solutions in providing Phase II
`ALl. While we believe that the public safety is advanced by the actions we take today, we
`recognize that these rule revisions involve several trade-offs. Allowing a phase-in for
`handsets potentially can delay the full availability of Phase II location information for callers
`
`6 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(d).
`
`7id.
`
`17391
`
`Apple, Inc. Exhibit 1012 Page 5
`
`

`
`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 99-245
`
`and PSAPs. To offset this drawback, we require that handset-based solutions be held to a
`higher accuracy standard, which will help locate callers more quickly and assist PSAPs in
`handling 911 calls more efficiently. We also require that handset deployment begin earlier
`than the current October 1, 2001 deployment date and that this deployment occur, for wireless
`carriers employing a handset solution, regardless of whether the PSAP has requested Phase II.
`These steps should promote the rapid rollout of handset-based solutions through normal
`handset turnover and growth. In addition, we require that wireless carriers employing handset-
`based solutions take additional steps to provide location information for roamers and callers
`with non-ALI capable handsets. Finally, we require that carriers take action to ensure that
`any phase-in for handset-based solutions is brief and complete, so that, so far as possible. all
`callers and PSAPs will benefit from accurate, automatic location information in emergencies
`without undue delay.
`
`We also replace the RMS reliability methodology with a more workable and
`9.
`understandable standard. This revised standard sets levels of accuracy that must be achieved
`for 67 percent and 95 percent of all calls. To recognize that handset approaches will
`generally require a longer phase-in period, we establish, as a compensating factor, a tighter
`accuracy standard for handset-based solutions (50 meters for 67 percent of calls) than for
`network-based solutions (100 meters for 67 percent of calls). Further, in view of the
`likelihood that installing equipment throughout a carrier's network will often require more
`time than the six months currently allowed under the Commission's Rules, we will allow
`wireless carriers employing network-based location technology to reach 50 percent coverage
`within six months of a PSAP request for Phase II services and 100 percent coverage eighteen
`months after a PSAP request.
`
`Taken together, we expect that this revised program for Phase II deployment
`10.
`will encourage the deployment of the best and most efficient technologies, speed actual
`implementation of E91 1, and promote competition in E91 I location technology and service.
`We expect that our actions today will provide the clear guidance needed to enable the many
`necessary participants in wireless E911 deployment to implement Phase II as soon as possible.
`This Commission will, in other orders in the near future, resolve the remaining issues before
`it concerning the deployment of Phase If.
`
`We recognize that the actions we take today to spur the deployment of Phase II
`11.
`implementation are ambitious and that we may confront challenges as we move forward. The
`substantial benefits of wireless E911 to the public interest and safety, however, make it crucial
`that those challenges be met and overcome without undue delay.
`
`II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
`
`12.
`
`Specifically, we adopt the following revisions to our wireless E911 rules:
`
`17392
`
`Apple, Inc. Exhibit 1012 Page 6
`
`

`
`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 99-245
`
`Wireless carriers who employ a Phase II location technology that requires new.
`modified or upgraded handsets (such as Global Positioning Systems (GPS)-based
`technologies) may phase-in deployment of Phase II subject to the following
`requirements:
`
`o
`
`Without respect to any PSAP request for Phase II deployment, the carrier shall:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Begin selling and activating ALI-capable handsets no later than March
`1, 2001;
`
`Ensure that at least 50 percent of all new handsets activated are ALI-
`capable no later than October 1, 2001; and
`
`In addition to the 50 percent requirement, ensure that at least 95 percent
`of all new digital handsets activated are ALI-capable no later than
`October 1, 2002.
`
`o
`
`Once a PSAP request is received, the carrier shall, in the area served by the
`PSAP:
`
`1.
`
`Within six months or by October 1, 2001, whichever is later:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Ensure that 100 percent of all new handsets activated are ALL-
`capable;
`
`Implement any network upgrades or other steps necessary to
`locate handsets; and
`
`Begin delivering to the PSAP location information that satisfies
`Phase II requirements.
`
`2.
`
`Within two years or by December 31. 2004, whichever is later,
`undertake reasonable efforts to achieve 100 percent penetration of ALl-
`capable handsets in its total subscriber base.
`
`For roamers and other callers without ALI-capable handsets, carriers shall, at a
`minimum, support Phase I ALI and shall implement other available best
`practice methods of providing the location of the handset to the PSAP.
`
`To be allowable under our rules, an ALI technology that requires new,
`modified, or upgraded handsets shall conform to'general standards and be
`
`o
`
`o
`
`17393
`
`Apple, Inc. Exhibit 1012 Page 7
`
`

`
`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 99-245
`
`interoperable, allowing roaming among different carriers employing handset-
`based location technologies.
`
`For carriers employing network-based location technologies, we replace our current
`plan, which requires that implementation be fully accomplished within 6 months of a
`PSAP request, with a revised rule requiring the carrier to deploy Phase II to 50 percent
`of callers Within 6 months of a PSAP request and to 100 percent of callers within 18
`months of such a request.
`
`We adopt the following revised standards for Phase II location accuracy and reliability:
`
`o
`
`o
`
`For network-based solutions: 100 meters for 67 percent of calls, 300 meters for
`95 percent of calls;
`
`For handset-based solutions: 50 meters for 67 percent of calls, 150 meters for
`95 percent of calls.
`
`We direct wireless carriers to report their plans for implementing E911 Phase II,
`including the technology they plan to use to provide caller location, by October 1,
`2000. This report shall provide information to permit planning for Phase II
`implementation by public safety organizations, equipment manufacturers, local
`exchange carriers, and this Commission, in order to support Phase II deployment by
`October 1, 2001.
`
`III. BACKGROUND
`
`In the E911 First Report and Order adopting the wireless E911 rules in 1996,
`13.
`the Commission stated that its decisions reflected its "longstanding and continuing
`commitment to manage use of the electromagnetic spectrum in a manner that promotes the
`safety and welfare of all Americans."' The rapid, effective, and efficient deployment of
`wireless E911 remains one of the most important ways of fulfilling this commitment. The
`wireless 911 rules seek both to improve the reliability of wireless 911 services and to provide
`the enhanced features generally available for wireline calls. To further these goals, the
`Commission has required wireless carriers to implement Enhanced or E911 service, subject to
`certain conditions and schedules. With E911 service, a dialable number accompanies each
`call, which allows the PSAP dispatcher to call back if the call is disconnected or to obtain
`additional information. Of greatest importance, wireless E911 service allows the dispatcher to
`
`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, I I FCC Rcd
`18676, 18678 (1996) [hereinafter E911 First Report and Order and E911 Second NPRM].
`
`17394
`
`Apple, Inc. Exhibit 1012 Page 8
`
`

`
`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 99-245
`
`immediately know where the caller is located, a capability called Automatic Location
`Identification or ALI.
`
`In adopting the rules and schedule for wireless ALI in 1996, the Commission
`14.
`sought to apply a general policy of technological and competitive neutrality to encourage
`innovation and efficiency, while continuing to consider the possibility of further
`improvements in ALI. 9 In the 1997 E911 Reconsideration Order, the Commission took note
`of inquiries with respect to whether non-network-based technologies, such as handset-based
`technologies using the GPS satellite system, could comply with the wireless E911 rules. In
`reaffirming its policy of technological and competitive neutrality, the Commission made clear
`its willingness to consider waiving or revising its rules to ensure that they permitted and
`fostered the deployment of the best, most effective and efficient methods of achieving Phase
`II compliance."0 CTIA sought clarification of issues raised by handset-based ALI
`technologies in a petition for further reconsideration of this Order." Further, in a Public
`Notice released in December 1998, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau)
`established a schedule to assist those interested in filing waivers for handset-based approaches
`to the Phase II ALI requirements, and requested comment on guidelines that should apply to
`such waivers. 2 A number of parties filed waiver requests and other pleadings responding to
`the Waiver Public Notice and the waiver requests. 3
`
`To further supplement the record, the Bureau released a second Public Notice
`15.
`on June 1, 1999, seeking more targeted comment on specific issues relating to whether the
`
`See E911 First Report and Order, I I FCC Rcd 18714 (emphasizing that the intention is to adopt general
`performance criteria rather than extensive technical standards): Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure
`Compatibility With Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems. CC Docket No. 94-102. Memorandum Opinion
`and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22665. 22724-25 (1997) (in setting deadlines and benchmarks for ALl. Commission
`policy has been to be technologically and competitively neutral) [hereinafter E911 Reconsideration Order].
`
`0 E911 Reconsideration Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22724-25.
`
`CTIA Comments II at I.
`
`2 Public Notice, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Outlines Guidelines for Wireless E911 Rule Waivers
`for Handset-Based Approaches to Phase II Automatic Location Identification Requirements, 13 FCC Rcd 24609
`(1998) [hereinafter Waiver Public Notice].
`
`'" A list of pleadings is included in Appendix A. Abbreviations used in this Order in citing to pleadings also
`are included in Appendix A.
`
`1739S
`
`Apple, Inc. Exhibit 1012 Page 9
`
`

`
`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 99-245
`
`Commission should grant waivers or otherwise modify the ALl requirements."4
`These issues
`included schedules for handset-based solutions, problems in providing ALl to roamers, the
`likely pace of handset turnover, and the reliability methodology that should be used. It also
`sought specific comment on submissions by SnapTrack and APCO proposing phased-in
`implementation schedules for handset-based solutions.' 5
`In addition, the Bureau asked for
`further consideration of E911 implementation issues by parties to a 1996 Consensus
`Agreement, in a Public Notice released June 9, 1999.'6
`
`On June 28, 1999, the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology
`16.
`(OET), in cooperation with the Bureau, hosted a roundtable discussion of technical issues
`involved in implementing the performance and accuracy standards for E911 Phase II ALl
`technologies.' 7 Roundtable participants included representatives of network-based solution
`technologies, handset-based solution technologies, manufacturers, wireless carriers, and public
`safety representatives.'"
`
`A.
`
`ALI Deployment
`
`IV. DISCUSSION
`
`'+ Public Notice, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Requests Targeted Comment on Wireless E911 Phase
`II Automatic Location Identification Requirements, DA 99-1049, rel. June 1. 1999 [hereinafter Targeted Public
`Notice]. A list of pleadings in response to the June I Public Notice is included in Appendix A. Abbreviations
`used in this Order in citing to pleadings also are included in Appendix A.
`
`' See SnapTrack Reply Comments 1: APCO Further Comments I.
`
`lb Public Notice, Commission Seeks to Facilitate Wireless E911 Implementation and Requests a Report. CC
`Docket No. 94-102, FCC 99-132, rel. June 9, 1999 (requesting a report on E911 implementation schedule, choice
`of technology, and cost recovery issues to be filed by August 9. 1999). For background on the Consensus
`Agreement and its role in the E911 rulemaking, see para. 17 infra. Parties who filed comments in these stages of
`the proceeding are listed in Appendix A.
`
`"7 Public Notice, Technical Roundtable On Implementation Of Automatic Location Identification ("ALl") For
`Enhanced 911 ("E91 I") Technologies To Be Held June 28. 1999. DA 99-1141 (June 9, 1999); Public Notice,
`Commission Announces Details of Technical Roundtable on Implementation of Automatic Location Identification
`for Enhanced 911 Technologies, DA 99-1243 (released June 23, 1999).
`
`" The following entities were represented at the roundtable: Aerial Communications, AirTouch, APCO,
`AT&T Wireless, Ericsson, GTE Wireless, IDC, KSI, Motorola. NENA, Nextel, Nokia, Nortel Networks,
`Omnipoint Communications, QUALCOMM, SigmaOne, Sirf Technology, SnapTrack, TruePosition, U.S.
`Wireless Corporation, Western Wireless.
`
`17396
`
`Apple, Inc. Exhibit 1012 Page 10
`
`

`
`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 99-245
`
`Backeround. In initially proposing and adopting the rules for Phase II ALl. the
`17.
`Commission intended and expected that those rules would be technologically and
`competitively neutral. For example, the Commission anticipated in the 1994 Notice of
`Proposed Rulemaking that either handset-based or network-based ALI technologies might be
`deployed.' 9 Similarly, in the E911 Second NPRM accompanying the E911 First Report and
`Order, the Commission emphasized the importance of expediting the introduction of new
`-2
`technology that would substantially advance the quality of E911 service to the public,
`1
`particularly through more accurate and reliable location information. 2' However, at the time
`of the adoption of the E911 First Report and Order, the record indicated that handset-based
`ALI technologies were subject to several deficiencies that made them impractical for E911
`deployment. The 1996 Consensus Agreement among representatives of both the wireless
`industry and the public safety community, which helped form the basis for the Commission's
`wireless E91 1 rules, was effectively based on the assumption that handset-based technologies
`would not be able to provide ALI. As the Commission stated in the E911 First Report and
`Order, "[i]t appears from the Consensus Agreement comments that E911 will generally be
`implemented by network-based technology, rather than by modification of handsets."22 The
`Phase If ALI schedule, which was identical to that proposed in the Consensus Agreement,
`reflected this assumption, notably in its setting of a flash-cut implementation date. While the
`Commission set general technical standards for the ALI capabilities that must be achieved,
`rather than extensive technical standards, it did not consider the possibility of rules or rule
`modifications that would recognize the specific characteristics of technologies that required
`new or upgraded handsets.
`
`After the rules were adopted, it became apparent that technological advances in
`18.
`handset-based and hybrid23 ALI technologies were being made, suggesting that those
`
`," Revision of the Commission's Rules To Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling
`[hereinafter E911
`Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 9 FCC Rcd 6170 (1994)
`First NPRM].
`
`20 E911 First Report and Order, II FCC Rcd at 18745.
`
`2 E911 First Report and Order, II FCC Rcd at 18743-44. We proposed an accuracy level of 40 feet for
`both horizontal and vertical coordinates, with a reliability of 90 percent, after the end of the five year Phase II
`period.
`
`22 E911 First Report and Order, II FCC Rcd at 18732.
`
`' By hybrid solutions, we mean ALl solutions that require both upgrades or replacement of handsets and
`assistance from hardware or software in the wireless network or from some.separate facilities. ALl solutions
`proposed by SnapTrack and Lucent are examples of what we would consider hybrid solutions, because both
`involve upgraded handsets with GPS capability and information provided by a network infrastructure. See, e.g.,
`Lucent Press Release, "Bell labs geolocation technology pinpoints wireless 911 calls within 15 feet," June 30,
`
`17397
`
`Apple, Inc. Exhibit 1012 Page 11
`
`

`
`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 99-245
`
`technologies could be effective alternatives to network-based approaches. The Commission
`specifically addressed this development in the E911 Reconsideration Order, reaffirming the
`policy of technological and competitive neutrality while inviting petitions for rulemaking or
`waiver requests that would allow us to consider modifications to the implementation deadline.
`accuracy standards, or other rules. 24 The Commission suggested, for example, that it would
`consider phased-in implementation of ALI, especially to the extent a proposal also helps
`achieve the further improvements in ALl capabilities the Commission anticipated in the E911
`Second NPRM.25 The Bureau, in its Public Notices, sought further comment on both the
`possible advantages of handset-based solutions (e.g.,
`the possibility of significantly higher
`accuracy and of earlier implementation) as well as the concerns such solutions raise. 26 The
`Bureau pointed out, for example, the concern that carriers employing handset-based ALl
`technologies might not be able to provide reliable ALI service to "roamer" customers whose
`home carriers adopt network-based solutions.27 The Bureau sought guidance on steps to
`minimize problems associated with non-ALI capable handsets and to address roamer
`situations.2" In response, the Commission received multiple requests to revise or waive the
`rules to permit the use of handset-based ALl technologies, as well as oppositions to such
`changes.
`
`Discussion. We conclude that the public safety and welfare support revising
`19.
`our current rules to permit the broadest range of technical solutions to be employed to achieve
`ALL compliance, including handset-based and hybrid solutions. As revised, our rules for
`Phase II will allow other ALl technologies to be deployed as effective competitors to
`network-based solutions. This expanded range of technological options should stimulate
`greater competition and innovation, helping to improve ALl services while lowering prices
`and spurring the rapid, universal, and efficient deployment of 911 ALl for wireless callers.
`also should make it possible to provide 911 ALl more rapidly and efficiently for rural areas.
`
`It
`
`1999, (last viewed Sept. 20, 1999) <http://www.lucent.com/press/0699/990630.bla.html>.
`In general, when we
`refer in this Order to handset-based solutions, we include all solutions that require upgrade or replacement of
`current handsets, including hybrid solutions, unless we indicate otherwise.
`
`2, E911 Reconsideration Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22725 (para. 124).
`
`Z5 id.
`
`2' Waiver Public Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 24609 (1998); Targeted Public Notice, DA 99-1049, rel. June 1, 1999.
`
`2' Waiver Public Notice at 24611-12; Targeted Public Notice at 5.
`
`28 Targeted Public Notice at 5-6.
`
`17398
`
`Apple, Inc. Exhibit 1012 Page 12
`
`

`
`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 99-245
`
`Commenters that urge us to modify our rules to accommodate handset-based
`20.
`solutions claim that handset-based solutions represent the most realistic methods for
`implementing Phase II ALI by the October 1, 2001, deadline, but that these solutions can only
`be deployed if the Commission rapidly revises its rules to preserve the handset alternative as a
`viable approach.29 Specifically, they contend that ALI technologies that can out-perform the
`Phase II benchmarks and save lives will not be deployed until the Commission gives
`unequivocal direction that a phased-in approach to compliance is acceptable."0 Opponents of
`revised rules or waivers for handset-based technologies contend, on the other hand, that
`network-based technology is available today that meets, and in some cases exceeds, the
`Commission's accuracy and performance standards. Opponents also contend that serious
`questions surround the timing and ultimate viability of handset-based approaches. especially
`their effects on users of current, non-ALI capable handsets and roamers3 " They argue that a
`phase-in for handset-based solutions would represent a delay in the Phase II implementation
`schedule that is not in the public interest. 2
`
`21.
`Any delay in deployment and effective, universal operation of E911 ALI is
`undesirable. The sooner ALI information is available and used by PSAPs the more rapidly
`and efficiently emergency help can be sent. We have set an aggressive schedule in order to
`deploy ALl as soon as reasonably possible and we seek to avoid and minimize any delay. We
`also believe, under the circumstances here, however, that the benefits of a reasonable a phase-
`in approach for handset-based ALl solutions justify and outweigh the drawbacks, including
`any possible additional delays in ALI deployment.
`
`22.
`As an initial matter, the extent of any actual delay from a phase-in for handset-
`based solutions is speculative and handset-based solutions may well speed actual ALI
`deployment in important cases. As APCO and other commenters point out,33 the current
`October 1, 2001 start date is conditional - it comes into effect only if PSAPs that are able to
`
`,' SnapTrack Comments II at 2; IDC Comments II at 17-18.
`30 SnapTrack Comments II at 3.
`
`3' Allen Telecom Reply Comments II at 2; KSI Comments II at 7-8; Metrocom.com Comments II at 2-3;
`NENA Comments II at 7-8; TX-ACSEC Comments I1 at 2-4: TruePosition Comments If at 2-3; U.S. Wireless
`Comments II at 4-8.
`
`" Allen Telecom Comments II at 2; NENA Comments II at 6-7; TruePosition Comments 11 at 4; U.S.
`Wireless Comments If at 6-7.
`
`3 See, e.g., APCO Additional Reply Comments I1 at 2.
`
`17399
`
`Apple, Inc. Exhibit 1012 Page 13
`
`

`
`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 99-245
`
`use the information request Phase II from carriers and a funding mechanism is in place. 3
`Until these conditions are satisfied, carriers are not required to provide ALI. Of equal
`importance, until PSAPs have taken the necessary steps to upgrade their facilities and
`processes to receive and use ALI information, the benefits of ALI to public safety will not be
`realized. Permitting several technologies to compete to provide ALI is likely to spur
`innov