A Federal Notice of Proposed Rule Making on wireless 911 and “E911″ requirements was published by the FCC in November 2010. The January 3, 2011 deadline was extended to January 19 after a coalition of major public safety and wireless industry groups requested one, arguing that ‘‘[a] short-term extension is in the public interest to allow interested parties to meaningfully address the issues raised in this proceeding.’’

The FCC seeks
•“comment on proposals to improve wireless location accuracy,”
•“comment on whether we should require interconnected VoIP service providers to automatically identify the geographic location of a customer without the customer’s active cooperation,” and
•“comment on the applicability of 911 and E911 requirements to additional wireless communications services, devices and applications.”

The notice highlights the “limitations of existing location determining technologies in use by carriers” which can “lead to variations of up to 300 meters, or more.” It covers questions of handset-based v. network-based technologies, 3G and 4G systems, indoor v. outdoor calls, the “z-axis” problem (pinpointing callers’ vertical locations in multi-story structures!), and E911 tracking problems as callers roam into areas using other wireless technology protocols.

VoIP calls in public areas seem to have a number of technical issues, and small to intermediate-size transmitting devices (femtocells, picocells, microcells, and distributed Antenna systems) present issues and opportunities: “Since carriers are deploying these network components, it may be very helpful to consider the prospect of leveraging these devices to enhance location accuracy…For example, a femtocell could be viewed as typically installed in a semi-permanent manner at a particular home or office, that could thus be programmed with an exact address, or even have an embedded A–GPS chip. If that address could be transported with a 911 call, that would lead to significant improvement in location accuracy, akin to the location quality of wireline networks. Similarly, the location of a picocell alone could provide greater location accuracy for 911 calls handled by a picocell. Are there opportunities for these network elements to provide a means to transmit more accurate location information? If so, how can we best incorporate these capabilities into the location information transmitted with a wireless 911 call?”

Anyone reading the FCC’s long list of questions and issues for technical study with respect to 911 and E911 calls should resolve to never have an emergency in locations where the only options are wireless or VoIP 911 calls.

NBC Nightly News also picked up on the Environmental Working Group’s just released report on cell phone radiation with a video segment last night. If you didn’t link to the USA Today article mentioned in yesterday’s post, go to the MSNBC site to find the link where you can check your cell phone’s radiation levels, or directly to the Environmental Working Group webpage.

Confirmed: Senator Arlen Specter will hold a September 14 Senate hearing on The Health Effects of Cell Phone Use, in conjunction with the Expert Conference on Cell Phones and Health, September 13-15 in Washington, D.C.

Glenn Workman, who submitted the appeal, expressed strong disappointment in the Planning Commission decision. “They should be there to support the community. I thought that was what they were there for!” he said. “If we have outside businesses who want to put these things up all over the county, the county should be involved in deciding where to place them.”

In previous hearings, Workman disputed Sprint-Nextel’s contention that they have a coverage gap. Workman went around with a Sprint phone and found excellent coverage in the area. He says the company’s claim of poor results doesn’t mesh with its own finding of a 96-97% coverage range.

Workman was outraged by the Commission’s allowing Sprint to talk about their network technicalities and the need for additional wireless 911 emergency coverage for almost half an hour, when he was allowed just two minutes to raise all his objections to the proposed site.

Wireless providers’ attempts to use 911 coverage is a red herring that the Glendale Organized Against Cell Towers group debunked. Wireless 911 coverage is inferior to landline 911 coverage; further, any cell phone (even one with a discontinued contract) will connect to any provider’s wireless signal if it attempts to connect to 911.

Workman also asked why the applicant wasn’t required co-locate on sites nearby, and listed several existing sites in his petition. He believes that government has to force providers to co-locate, because no telecommunications business (or any other business, for that matter) is going to willingly allow a competitor to use its own facilities and take advantage of its existing lease arrangements.

Dutton told me that the number works for local emergencies in the La Canada Flintridge and Crescenta Valley area (just to the border with Tujunga) and that CERT recommends programming it into cell phone speed dials (but not as the 911 number itself – reserve 911 for emergencies outside the area).

Cell phone 911 calls go to the California Highway Patrol; there is some delay in transferring them to local emergency dispatchers. For a local-area emergency callers could use speed dial instead and reach the dispatchers with less delay.

Dutton emphasized that 911 should not be replaced on land lines, because the wired phone system already routes land line calls to local dispatchers.

Those living and/or working in Crescenta Valley, Glendale, and other areas can call local police or fire departments and ask which number they can program into their cell phones for a direct connection to local emergency dispatch.

When out of the local area, and with only a cell phone available, use 911 to get help in an emergency.

If you place an emergency call through any phone or number, describe the nature of the emergency right away, as dispatchers need to know whether to direct your call to the local police or fire department.

This is odd, because 911 is a public service, and T-Mobile is a private company. Most of us would assume T-Mobile and other cell phone companies are constructing their towers and equipment to make money, not provide free services.

The company has used this argument in several communities, Glendale Organized Against Cell Towers has learned. Just across the border in Burbank, one of T-Mobile’s applications says that a new tower located on top of an apartment building will provide:

…the following community benefits: Alternative emergency response communication for police, paramedics…[and] the added safety and security brought to the community cannot be overlooked.

If you are calling 911, added safety and security can best be found by calling from a land line. Dispatchers can’t immediately trace cell phone 911 calls to a specific address. They may be able to call you back, but what if you can’t answer? Communities are not yet prepared to transition from land lines, which provide the critical safety and security 911 callers really need.

Further, one of GOACT’s members demonstrated that T-Mobile is making a specious claim about increasing 911 coverage. He printed AT&T and Verizon coverage maps showing that the area surrounding T-Mobile’s proposed tower in northwest Glendale has excellent coverage and noting that any cell phone, even one with an expired contract, can successfully connect to 911.