Apple, Inc. Exhibit 1009 Page 1
`
`

`
`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 97-402
`
`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
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`Adopted: December 1, 1997
`
`Released: December 23, 1997
`
`By the Commission: Chairman Kennard and Commissioner Tristani issuing statements.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ....................................
`
`Paragraph
`
`1
`
`I. BACKGROUND ................................................. 7
`
`A. E911 First Report and Order .......................................
`B. Ex Parte Filings, Stay Order, and Additional Pleadings ....................
`
`III. D ISCU SSION
`
`..................................................
`
`A. 911 Availability Without Customer Validation ..........................
`1. Background and Pleadings .....................................
`................................................
`2. D iscussion
`B. TTY Access to 911 Services ......................................
`....................................
`1. Background and Pleadings
`................................................
`2. D iscussion
`a. TTY Compatibility with Digital Wireless Systems
`b. Notification Requirement .....................................
`c. Reporting Requirement ......................................
`d. Short Message Service .......................................
`e. E911 Requirements for TrY Calls ..............................
`
`..................
`
`7
`10
`
`13
`
`13
`13
`25
`42
`42
`53
`53
`60
`62
`65
`68
`
`22665
`
`Apple, Inc. Exhibit 1009 Page 2
`
`

`
`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 97.402
`
`C. Applicability of Rules ............................................
`1. Definition of Covered SMR Services ..............................
`..................................
`a. Background and Pleadings
`b. D iscussion
`.............................................
`2. Mobile Satellite Services .
`.....................................
`a. Background and Pleadings
`..................................
`b. D iscussion
`.............................................
`D. Phase I E911 Requirements
`.......................................
`1. Background and Pleadings .....................................
`2. D iscussion
`................................................
`a. Clarification of Terms .
`.....................................
`(1) Selective Routing: Appropriate PSAP, Designated PSAP
`(2) Section 20.03 Definitions of ANI, Pseudo-ANI
`................
`b. Section 20.18(d) Phase I Requirements and Implementation Schedule ....
`c. Obligation To Provide Call Back Capability ......................
`E. Phase H E911 Requirements .
`....................................
`1. Background and Pleadings
`...................................
`2. D iscussion
`...............................................
`a. Phase II Implementation Schedule .............................
`b. ALI Accuracy Standard
`...................................
`....
`............................................
`F. Other Issues
`1. Limitation of Liability .
`......................................
`2. Cost Recovery and Funding .
`..................................
`3. Additional Issues
`..........................................
`
`..........
`
`IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS ..........................................
`
`A. Regulatory Flexibility Act ........................................
`B. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis .
`.........................
`C . A uthority
`.................................................
`D. Further Information ..
`..........................................
`
`V. ORDERING CLAUSES
`
`............................................
`
`Appendix A - List of Parties
`Appendix B - Final Rules
`Appendix C - Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
`
`70
`70
`70
`75
`84
`84
`87
`90
`90
`98
`98
`98
`100
`104
`108
`111
`11
`117
`117
`125
`130
`130
`143
`147
`
`149
`
`149
`150
`151
`152
`
`153
`
`22666
`
`Apple, Inc. Exhibit 1009 Page 3
`
`

`
`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 97-402
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
`
`I. On June 12, 1996, the Commission adopted a Report and Order and a Further
`Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this docket, establishing rules requiring wireless carriers to
`implement 911 and Enhanced 911 (E91 1) services.' The Commission received 16 petitions
`for reconsideration of the E911 First Report and Order.2 By this action, we resolve the
`petitions for reconsideration or clarification of the rules we adopted in the E91 I First Report
`and Order.
`
`2. Thirteen of the petitioners urge the Commission to reconsider the rules governing
`when covered wireless carriers must make 911 access available to callers. Three petitioners
`request the Commission to modify or defer the implementation dates of rules requiring
`covered carriers to provide 911 access to people with hearing or speech disabilities through
`the use of Text Telephone Devices, such as TTYs. 3 Five petitioners seek reconsideration of
`our decision with respect to the wireless carriers to whom the rules apply, particularly for
`'covered Special Mobile Radios (SMRs)."
`
`3. Five petitioners raise issues concerning the E911 Phase I requirements that covered
`carriers must provide call back numbers and cell site location information, and six petitioners
`challenge the adoption of the E911 Phase II requirements of Automatic Location Identification
`(ALl). With regard to other policy issues, six petitioners request the Commission to
`reconsider its decision not to provide Federal limitation of liability with respect to actions
`taken by carriers in efforts to comply with E911 requirements, and five petitioners seek
`reconsideration of the Commission's decision not to establish a Federal funding mechanism
`for the recoupment of carrier costs associated with achieving compliance with E91 1
`requirements.
`
`4. Following the initial round of comments on the petitions, two additional rounds of
`comments were requested by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to supplement the
`record. The first concerned technical issues regarding the transmission and screening of 911
`
`In the Matter of 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, 11 FCC Rcd 18676 (1996) (E911 First Report and Order and E911 Second NPRM).
`
`2 The list of pleadings is included in Appendix A. Abbreviations used in this Order in citing to pleadings
`also are included in Appendix A.
`
`3 The text telephone, also referred to as the TMY, was developed by a deaf physicist in the mid-1960s from
`existing teletype technology. Use of the TTY network has become widespread in the deaf community because
`the technology, although old and slow, is dependable and works well in a voice environment. See
`htrp//tap.gallaudet.edu/faq2.htm. For further discussion regarding TrY, see Section IL., infra.
`
`22667
`
`Apple, Inc. Exhibit 1009 Page 4
`
`

`
`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 97-402
`
`calls.' The second concerned proposals contained in a joint ex parte letter from
`representatives of the wireless industry and the public safety community to resolve or defer
`consideration of various issues raised on reconsideration. 5
`
`5. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, pursuant to Section 1.429 of the
`Commission's Rules,6 we decide (I) to modify our rules by requiring wireless carriers to
`transmit all 911 calls without regard to validation procedures and regardless of code
`to temporarily suspend enforcement of the requirement that wireless
`identification; (2)
`carriers provide 911 access to customers using TTY devices until October 1, 1998, but only
`for digital systems and subject to a notification requirement; (3) to modify the definition of
`"'covered SMR" for E911 purposes to include only providers of real-time two-way
`interconnected voice service the networks of which utilize intelligent switching capability and
`offer seamless handoff to customers, and to extend this definition to broadband Personal
`Communications Services (PCS) and cellular as well as SMR providers; and (4) to clarify the
`Phase I requirement for call back numbers and modify associated rule definitions. We also
`reemphasize that our rules are intended to be technology-neutral, and to encourage the most
`efficient and effective technologies to report the location of wireless handsets, the most
`important E911 feature both for those seeking help in emergencies and for the public safety
`organizations that respond to emergency calls.
`
`6. The limited revisions to our rules we adopt today are intended to remedy technical
`problems raised in the record while otherwise reaffirming our commitment to the rapid
`implementation of the technologies needed to bring emergency assistance to wireless callers
`throughout the United States.
`
`A. E911 First Report and Order
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`7. The E911 First Report and Order was the culmination of extensive efforts by the
`public safety community, the wireless telecommunications industry, and the Commission to
`
`4 See Public Notice, Additional Comment Sought: Commission Seeks Additional Comment in Wireless
`Enhanced 911 Rulemaking Proceeding Regarding Ex Pane Presentations on Certain Technical Issues, CC
`Docket No. 94-102, DA 97-1502, released July 16, 1997 (July 16 Public Notice).
`
`' See CTIA, PCIA, APCO, NENA, and NASNA Ex Pare Letter (filed Sept. 25, 1997) (Joint Letter); see
`also Public Notice, "Additional Comment Sought in Wireless Enhanced 911 Reconsideration Proceeding
`Regarding Rules and Schedules," CC Docket No. 94-102, DA 97-2151, released Oct. 3, 1997 (October 3 Public
`Notice).
`
`6 See Section 1.429(b) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.429(b).
`
`22668
`
`Apple, Inc. Exhibit 1009 Page 5
`
`

`
`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 97-402
`
`In addition to over 110 comments and reply
`implement E911 for wireless services.'
`comments on the E911 Notice, the record included a Petition for Rulemaking filed by Ad Hoc
`Alliance for Public Access to 911 (Alliance)8 and a Consensus Agreement filed by the
`Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) and three national public safety
`organizations -
`the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials International, Inc.
`(APCO), the National Emergency Number Association (NENA), and the National Association
`of State Nine One One Administrators (NASNA). 9
`
`8. In adopting the E911 First Report and Order, the Commission recognized the
`importance of improving the quality and reliability of 911 services available to wireless
`callers. Although 911 was originally developed for wireline telephone users, the number of
`wireless 911 calls is growing rapidly, paralleling the dramatic increase in wireless telephone
`subscribers in the United States, currently more than 50 million. 0 According to CTIA, more
`than 21 million emergency wireless calls were placed in 1996 in the United States." This
`amounts to more than 59,000 wireless 911 calls each day. Unlike wireline E911 systems,
`which allow automatic number identification and automatic location identification of wireline
`911 calls, however, the phone number and the location of the caller cannot be displayed at the
`Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for wireless calls and many wireless 911 callers have
`difficulty describing their exact location to emergency assistance providers.
`
`' The Commission began this rulemaking by issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on October 19, 1994.
`Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems,
`CC Docket 94-102. RM-8143, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 9 FCC Rcd 6170 (1994) (E911 Notice).
`
`' On October 27. 1995, Alliance filed a Petition for Rulemaking requesting that 911 access be provided to
`any cellular phone, regardless of whether it is listed as a cellular carner's subscriber, and that mobile handsets be
`equipped to select and use the channel with the strongest cellular signal whenever a 911 call is placed. Eight
`comments and one reply comment were filed. See E911 First Report and Order, I I FCC Red at 18687 (para.
`20).
`
`, On February 23, 1996, the Commission sought comment regarding the Consensus Agreement, and 17
`comments and 14 reply comments were filed. Id. at 18688 (para. 22).
`
`'0 CTIA announced that the number of wireless telephone subscribers would reach 50 million for the first
`time during the week of July 27 - August 2, 1997. "'July 27 - August 2: U.S. will reach 50 million wireless
`phone subscribers," CTIA News Release, July 21, 1997. This represents a 19 percent penetration rate; total
`United States population is 260 million. See also Electronic Buyers News, June 23, 1997, at 1; Implementation
`of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Annual Report and Analysis of
`Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Commercial Mobile Services, Second Report, FCC 97-75, 12
`FCC Red 11267 (1997).
`
`" See "'Wireless Phones Used for over 59,000 Emergency Calls Every Day," CTIA News Release, May 20.
`1997.
`
`22669
`
`Apple, Inc. Exhibit 1009 Page 6
`
`

`
`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 97-402
`
`9. In the E911 First Report and Order, therefore, the Commission established the
`following requirements for wireless carriers, including cellular, broadband Personal
`Communications Service (PCS), and certain SMRs:
`
`Basic 911 Caoabilities
`
`" Within 12 months after the effective date of E911 rules (i.e., by October 1, 1997),
`carriers must process and transmit to an appropriate PSAP all 911 calls from wireless
`handsets which transmit a code identification, without user validation.12
`
`" By this date, carriers must also process and transmit calls that do not transmit a code
`identification to any appropriate PSAP which has formally instructed the carrier that it
`desires to receive such calls from the carrier.
`
`" By this date, carriers must also be capable of transmitting 911 calls made by persons
`with disabilities, e.g., through use of TrY equipment.
`
`Enhanced 911 Capabilities
`
`Phase 1:
`
`" Within 12 months of the effective date of the rules (i.e., by October 1, 1997), carriers
`must have initiated actions necessary to relay a caller's Automatic Number Identification
`(ANI) and the location of the cell site receiving a 911 call. These capabilities are
`designed to allow the PSAP to call back the phone placing the 911 call if disconnected,
`and help identify the location of the caller.
`
`" Within 18 months (i.e., by April 1, 1998) the carriers must have completed these
`actions.
`
`Phase II:
`
`0 Not later than five years after the effective date of the rules (i.e., by October 1, 2001),
`carriers are required to have the capability to identify the latitude and longitude of the
`mobile units making 911 calls within a radius of no more than 125 meters, using Root
`Mean Square calculations (which roughly equate to success rates of approximately 67
`percent).
`
`1 The definition of the terms "code
`infra.
`
`identification" and "user validation" are discussed in Section tlI.A.,
`
`22670
`
`Apple, Inc. Exhibit 1009 Page 7
`
`

`
`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 97-402
`
`Phase I and Phase II E911 Conditions:
`
`U The E911 requirements apply only if:
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`the carrier receives a request for such services from a PSAP capable of receiving
`and using the service, and
`
`a mechanism for the recovery of costs relating to the provision of such services is
`in place.
`
`B. Ex Parte Filings, Stay Order, and Additional Comments
`
`10. After the close of the formal pleading cycle for reconsideration petitions, several
`parties filed ex pane presentations in this proceeding. 3 In light of technical issues raised by
`a number of parties in their ex pane presentations, a Public Notice was issued by the Wireless
`Telecommunications Bureau on July 16, 1997, seeking additional comment regarding certain
`technical issues pertaining to the 911 availability requirements established in the E911 First
`Report and Order.'4 On July 28, 1997, twelve additional comments were filed in response to
`the July 16 Public Notice. 5 The Wireless E911 Coalition (Coalition) also filed ex pane
`presentations and a formal petition, requesting an extension of at least 18 months (in the case
`of digital systems) of the deadline for achieving compliance with TTY compatibility
`requirements.16 On September 16, 1997, the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) and
`Consumers Action Network (CAN) jointly filed their opposition to the Coalition's request for
`extension.' 7
`
`11. On September 25, 1997, CTIA, PCIA, APCO, NENA, and NASNA jointly filed
`In the
`an ex parte letter, proposing their consensus recommendations to the Commission.'
`
`'" See, e.g., Wireless E911 Coalition Ex Pare Filings (Apr. 22, 1997; June 2, 1997; June 18, 1997). The
`Wireless E911 Coalition consists of the following parties: Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile, BellSouth, Ericsson,
`Motorola, Nortel, Nokia, Omnipoint, Pacific Bell Mobile Services, PrimeCo, PCIA, and Siemens.
`
`July 16 Public Notice.
`
`" The list of comments filed in response to the July 16 Public Notice is included in Appendix A.
`
`' See, e.g., Wireless E911 Coalition Ex Pane Filing (June 4, 1997); Wireless E911 Coalition and PCIA,
`Request for Extension of Time To Implement E91 I/TTY Compatibility Requirement for Wireless Operators
`(filed Aug. 27, 1997).
`
`" NAD and CAN Opposition to Request for Extension of Eighteen Months To Implement E91 lI/TTY
`Compatibility Requirement for Wireless Operators (filed Sept. 16, 1997) (NAD and CAN Opposition).
`
`" Joint Letter.
`
`22671
`
`Apple, Inc. Exhibit 1009 Page 8
`
`

`
`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 97-402
`
`Joint Letter, the parties request the Commission (1) to revise Section 20.18(b) of its Rules to
`require carriers to "process all successfully validated 911 wireless calls and to process all 911
`wireless calls where requested by the 911 authority"; (2) to amend Section 20.18(b) to reflect
`that the exercise of PSAP choice regarding receipt of all 911 calls or only successfully
`validated 911 calls "may not be possible until the Phase II location technology is in place";
`(3) to extend the TTY implementation deadline in Section 20.18(c) of the Commission's Rules
`with respect to digital systems for 18 months until April 1, 1999; and (4) to defer any
`Commission decisions regarding "carrier liability, certain call-back capabilities, strongest
`signal technology, the use of temporary call-back numbers, and the status of uninitialized
`phones" until the relevant parties develop consensus positions.' 9 Congresswoman Eshoo and
`Alliance filed ex parte letters opposing the proposals.'
`
`12. Because the Commission had not completed its review of pending petitions for
`reconsideration, and in light of a number of ex parte filings recently made in this proceeding,
`on September 30, 1997, an Order was issued by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
`pursuant to its delegated authority, to stay the October 1, 1997 implementation date for
`subsections (a), (b), and (c) of Section 20.18 of the Commission's Rules through November
`30, 1997.2' Subsequently, on October 3, 1997, a Public Notice was issued by the Bureau
`seeking further comment concerning issues raised in the Joint Letter.Y2 Twelve comments and
`five reply comments were filed in response to the October 3 Public Notice.23 On November
`20, 1997. CTIA, PCIA, NAD, CAN, Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc. (TDI), and
`Gallaudet University filed a consensus ex panie letter, proposing a 15-month extension of the
`In the TTY Consensus
`TTY compatibility requirement deadline until January 1, 1999.2
`
`9 Id. at 2-4.
`
`20 See Letter from Congresswoman A. Eshoo, U. S. House of Representatives, to Chairman R. Hundt, FCC,
`Sept. 29, 1997 (Eshoo Lettcr); Alliance Ex Parte Filing (Sept. 30, 1997).
`
`"' See Revision of the Commission's Rules To Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling
`Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102, Order, DA 97-2119 (released Sept. 30, 1997) (Stay Qrder). A subsequent
`Order was issued by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, pursuant to its delegated authority, to clarify the
`rights and obligations of wireless carners until the revised rules adopted by the Commission take effect. See
`Revision of the Comussion's Rules To Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems,
`CC Docket No. 94-102, Order, DA 97-2530 (released Dec. 1, 1997).
`
`z October 3 Public Notice.
`
`:. The list of comments and reply comments filed in response to the October 3 Public Notice is included in
`Appendix A.
`
`u See Consensus of the CTIA, PCIA, NAD, TDI, Gallaudet University and CAN (filed Nov. 20, 1997)
`(TTY Consensus Agreement).
`
`22672
`
`Apple, Inc. Exhibit 1009 Page 9
`
`

`
`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 97-402
`
`Agreement, PCIA agrees to amend its initial request for an 18-month extension of time, and
`NAD and CAN also agree to withdraw their opposition to PCIA's extension request.2'
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`A. 911 Availability Without Customer Validation
`
`1. Background, Petitions and Further Pleadings
`
`13.
`In the E911 Notice, the Commission proposed requiring wireless carriers to
`transmit all 911 calls from service initialized handsets without a requirement for user
`validation.26 "'Service initialization" means that a user is purchasing service from a wireless
`carrier. In the E911 First Report and Order, the Commission decided this approach would
`unreasonably prevent a significant number of wireless customers from accessing 911 service
`and would result in customer confusion. 7
`
`14. To address this situation, the Commission required transmission of 911 calls from
`all handsets which transmit "'code identifications," so long as the handset is compatible with
`the carrier's air interface protocol. "Code identification" was defined in Section 20.3 of the
`Rules to mean a handset that transmits the 34-bit Mobile Identification Number (MIN)
`typically used by cellular or PCS licensees, or the functional equivalent of a MIN in the case
`of SMR services. 28 The Commission recognized that this approach could result in the
`delivery to PSAPs of 911 calls made by non-subscribers, but concluded the public interest
`would be best served by assuring that all code-identified 911 calls are transmitted without the
`delay and blocking that may result from the validation processes used to determine whether a
`handset is in service with a wireless carrier. 29
`
`In addition, the Commission required that carriers transmit all 911 calls, even
`15.
`those without code identification, if requested to do so by a PSAP Administrator. We
`recognized a strong case in favor of transmitting all 911 calls, but also acknowledged
`disadvantages to transmitting 911 calls without a code identification. These include the fact
`that ANI and call back features may not be available or usable, and hoax and false alarm calls
`might be facilitated. We concluded, however, that each public safety organization is in the
`
`TrY Consensus Agreement at 1.
`
`E911 Notice, 9 FCC Rcd at 6177 (para. 41).
`
`"E911 First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 18692 (para. 30).
`
`z Section 20.03 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R § 20.03.
`
`9 E911 Notice, II FCC Rcd at 18694 (para, 36).
`
`22673
`
`Apple, Inc. Exhibit 1009 Page 10
`
`

`
`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 97-402
`
`best position to determine for itself whether to accept calls without code identification.
`Further, we concluded that this requirement would not impose an unfair regulatory burden on
`wireless providers relative to wireline carriers. The Commission noted that major wireless
`carriers already process 911 calls without validation, and reasoned that users of public pay
`phones, the closest wireline analogy to a wireless handset, are able to place 911 calls without
`charge in many states as a result of state and local government requirements.3"
`
`16.
`In pleadings filed during the formal reconsideration pleading cycle, thirteen of the
`sixteen petitioners, primarily wireless carriers, urge the Commission to reconsider its rules
`governing the transmission of 911 calls to PSAPs.31
`In their petitions, some carriers support
`the original proposal to require transmission only of calls from service initialized phones.3 2
`CTIA, for example, proposes that carriers be permitted to validate and block calls from non-
`service initialized handsets when this can be done without a call processing delay."
`In
`support, the carriers claim that in some cases the code identification would not be unique to
`the phone, for example when (1) a manufacturer programs its handsets with "dummy" MINs
`and the customer uses the handset directly "out of the box" after purchase without initiating
`service, or a customer terminates service and the number is reassigned; (2) the phone number
`is "cloned"; 34 or (3) the handset is marketed and designed only for 911 use.35
`In these cases,
`parties assert, a code identification based on the MIN might not accurately identify the
`handset making the 911 call, and the PSAP might thus not be able to identify the handset and
`call back if disconnected, or might reach a different handset with the same MIN.36
`
`17. Some petitioners also reason that the rule would permit fraudulent and prank 911
`calls that may endanger public safety personnel and promote errors and mistakes in rendering
`
`3 Id. at 18695-96 (paras. 37-39).
`
`" See generally, e.g., Ameritech Petition; AT&T Petition; BANM Petition; BellSouth Petition; CTIA
`Petition; Nextel Petition; Nokia Petition; Omnipoint Petition; PCIA Petition; PrimeCo Petition; SBMS Petition;
`TIA Petition; XYPOINT Petition.
`
`3' See, e.g., Ameritech Petition at 10; AT&T Petition at 4-6; BANM Petition at 3-4; CTIA Petition at 4;
`XYPOINT Petition at 5-6.
`
`'" CTIA Petition at 4.
`
`' A cloned telephone is one that has been reprogrammed to transmit the identification (for a cellular phone.
`this is the electronic serial number (ESN) and the telephone number (MIN)) belonging to another (legitimate)
`telephone. A cloned telephone can then be used to make calls that will be billed to the subscriber of the
`legitimate telephone.
`
`" See Ameritech Petition at 7-8; AT&T Petition at 5; CTIA Petition at 5-6; TIA Petition at 10-11.
`
`' See. e.g., TIA Petition at 3-5.
`
`22674
`
`Apple, Inc. Exhibit 1009 Page 11
`
`

`
`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 97-402
`
`emergency services." Others argue that consumers could obtain phones for use in
`emergencies without subscribing to service or supporting the facilities used for emergency
`service, which, the carriers argue, would drive up the price of service for subscribers and
`reduce revenues.3" Carriers also raise a further technical concern regarding the Commission
`requirement that PSAPs be permitted to choose whether they want to receive 911 calls that
`have no code identification.39 Some carriers argue that, in many cases, a switch routes calls
`to more than one PSAP, and that differentiating between PSAPs that want non-code identified
`calls and those that do not could require complicated modifications in the switch software."0
`
`18. Nextel, an SMR provider, also supports requiring only that service-initialized calls
`be transmitted. It claims that (1) its digital SMR equipment can only be purchased in
`connection with SMR service, so the only unauthorized phones would be those stolen or
`otherwise illegally obtained; (2) handling all code-identified calls, not just service initialized
`calls, would require major upgrades to the switch and all mobile units; (3) the requirement
`would competitively disadvantage carriers using iDEN technology developed by Motorola;
`In its June 4, 1997 ex parte letter, Nextel
`and (4) fraudulent 911 calls could not be traced."
`also requests that the Commission delay the Section 20.18(b) implementation deadline for 911
`availability for one year, citing the complexity of customer education, marketing, and billing.42
`In comments filed on July 28, 1997, Nextel expands this to a request for a two-year delay.43
`
`19. On the other hand, public safety organizations and an alliance of consumer groups
`have opposed these petitions in pleadings filed in the formal reconsideration pleading
`cycle, supporting the Commission's current rules regarding the 911 calls that should be
`transmitted by carriers." The Joint Comments of NENA, APCO, and NASNA indicate that
`some PSAPs prefer to receive all calls -
`even if the lack of code identification means that
`call back is not possible - while others believe non-code-identified calls should not be
`
`7 See, e.g., Ameritech Petition at 8; CTIA Petition at 7; PCIA Petition at 5.
`
`38 See, e.g.. Ameritech Petition at 9-10.
`
`See, e.g., AT&T Petition 6; SBMS Petition at 4-6.
`
`SSBMS Petition at 4-6.
`
`" Nextel Petition at 4-6.
`
`42 Nextel Ex Parre Filing at 5-7 (June 4, 1997).
`
`43 Nextel Additional Comments at 3-7.
`
`" See generally Alliance Opposition; 1-95 Coalition Opposition; Joint Commenters Opposition.
`
`22675
`
`Apple, Inc. Exhibit 1009 Page 12
`
`

`
`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 97-402
`
`forwarded.' The latter view is based largely on the concern that hoax calls, made by persons
`intent upon disrupting 911 service, will increase as it becomes evident to potential
`perpetrators that PSAPs and wireless carriers are unable to trace calls placed from non-service
`initialized phones.'6 Alliance argues that the Commission should simply require all carriers to
`transmit all 911 calls to the PSAP without blocking, contending that prompt, unconditional
`7 Alliance contends
`connection of all 911 emergency calls is required by the public interest. 4'
`that many cellular carriers block emergency calls from non-subscribers and roamers whose
`carriers do not have roaming agreements.
`
`20. In later ex pane presentations, the Wireless 911 Coalition presented further
`information to the Commission regarding the technical aspects of processing 911 calls.49
`According to the Coalition, wireless switch technology does not offer the choice of
`forwarding only code identified calls to PSAPs. The only available options are to (1) forward
`all calls, or (2) forward only service initialized calls that have been successfully validated.'
`On July 16, 1997, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau requested further information on
`this issue and requested comments on the information submitted by the Coalition, as well as
`by Alliance and GTE. 5' Additional comments in response to the July 16 Public Notice
`generally agree with the Coalition that the Commission's 911 rules based on "code
`identification" are not technically feasible at this time.5 2 Some commenters argue that the
`Commission should revise its rules that require covered carriers to transmit non-code
`identified 911 calls based on PSAP choice or delay implementation of the rules.53 Public
`
`Joint Commenters Opposition at 2-3.
`
`6id.
`
`" Alliance Opposition at 6.
`
`4I d. at 2-7.
`
`"See Wireless E911 Coalition Ex Pane Filings (Apr. 22, 1997; June 4, 1997; June 18, 1997).
`
`oWireless E911 Coalition Ex Pane Filing (June 4, 1997).
`
`'1 See July 16 Public Notice.
`
`52 See, e.g., AirTouch Additional Comments at 2-3; AT&T Additional Comments at 1; BANM Additional
`Comments at 2; CTIA Additional Comments at 7-8; SBMS Additional Comments at 3-5; 360* Communications
`Additional Comments at I.
`
`" See. e.g., AirTouch Additional Comments at 5; AT&T Additional Comments at 3; BANM Additional
`Comments at 1-2; CTIA Additional Comments at 1; Nextel Additional Comments at 3-7; RCA Additional
`Comments at 4.
`
`22676
`
`Apple, Inc. Exhibit 1009 Page 13
`
`

`
`Federal Communications Commission
`
`FCC 97-402
`
`safety organizations and other commenters, however, urge the Commission not to defer
`implementation of the E911 rules or modify its policy goals.'
`
`21. The Joint Letter, submitted on September 25, 1997, also proposes that the
`Commission eliminate the definition of 'code identification" and change its rules to
`distinguish between "all wireless 911 calls" and "successfully validated wireless 911 calls."5"
`The parties filing the Joint Letter propose that licensees be required to process only
`successfully validated 911 calls except in cases in which PSAPs have requested the receipt of
`all 911 calls. 56 In addition, the Joint Letter requests that Section 20.18(b) be amended further
`to reflect that the choice of a PSAP authority to receive all wireless 911 calls or only
`successfully validated 911 wireless calls may not be possible until Phase II location
`technology is in place." The Joint Letter, however, further requests that the Commission's
`rules not preclude carriers who choose not to perform validation from passing all wireless 911
`calls. 8
`
`22. In response to the Joint Letter, Congresswoman E