Wireless Subcommittee Minutes

Wireless Subcommittee Minutes

of the

E911 Advisory Committee

King County E911 Office

7300 Perimeter Road South, Seattle

June 26, 1997 – 9 a.m.

Present: Marlys Davis, Wireless Committee Chair, King County; Allen Jakobitz, Ken Back and Penelope Christopherson, State E911 Office; Joe Blaschka, Brad Stelner, ADCOMM; David Griffith, UTC; Doug Gehrke, US West; Tom Sharp, Pierce County; Ross Baker, AT&T Wireless; Charlie Van Zandt, Joe O=Neil, AirTouch; Diane Smith, State Senate; Ray Dellecker, Proctor & Associates; Jane Bissonnette, XYPOINT; Vanessa Pegueros, Nextel; Chuck Orr, Sprint PCS.

Conference Call Attendees: Thera Bradshaw, Clark County; Bob Oenning, State E911 Office.

Approval of May 16, 1997 meeting minutes

The minutes were approved as written and submitted.

In response to question posed at the 5/16 meeting by Charlie Van Zandt, AirTouch, regarding wireless call duration connection time, King County reports their average connection time on wireless calls for the past several months from the King County Police Department is 132 seconds. Thera Bradshaw reports that Clark County=s average connect time is 140 seconds compared to their wireline calls which average 39 to 80.4 seconds, which includes EMS priority 1 CPR calls. Doug Gerhke, US West, reports an average of approximately 60 seconds for wireline calls for all counties. The time reports begin when the call is answered (picked up off the hook) and end when the call is completed (placed back on the hook).

Report on National Emergency Number Association (NENA) Conference in Baltimore

Marlys Davis, King County, distributed a handout on Report on the New Jersey Wireless Enhanced 9-1-1 System Trial (January 22 to April 30, 1997) – The First 100 Days. Marlys also indicated that SCC put out a survey on wireless funding – results show that 80% of wireless subscribers would switch to location technology if it was available; over 70% of wireless subscribers would pay more for the location technology; and 60% said they would be willing to pay $10/month additional for that service.

Jane Bissonnette, XYPOINT, stated she has information from two focus groups also concerning wireless funding and could make the information available. However, she indicated that her survey said subscribers would be willing to pay only $1 per month more for this new technology.

Both New Jersey and Texas are doing Phase 2, but they are doing it differently. New Jersey has the wireless carrier install the location technology and sends it data. In Texas, the state will install the location equipment and require all carriers to utilize their system.

Joe Blaschka, ADCOMM, reported on the TR45 Committee Meeting saying the intelligent vehicle highway system did not support TDD communications digitally, but is working on May Day features.

Bob Oenning reported on NASNA conference. He stated the wireless service providers are having a hard time on a county-by-county, PSAP-by-PSAP basis. The carriers don=t know how to work with so many entities in providing connectivity. The wireless carriers want a centralized point in which to send a check.

Bob Oenning stated the Texas cost model projects it will cost Texas $92 million to install a single state-wide system. New Jersey did not have a good cost model. New Jersey was an experiment with much of the goods and services donated.

Ray Dellecker, Proctor, reported on a side trip he took to SCC. He learned that SCC wants to know how non-initialized phones should be handled. They are looking to the public safety community and wireless carriers for input.

Vanessa Pegueras, Nextel, said Phase 2 will be a significant undertaking with capital costs as the major issue.

Report on Estimated Cost of Phase 1 Service in Washington State

A handout was prepared by Marlys Davis, King County, and distributed entitled, Phase 1 Costs for 1998 (estimate only – based on preliminary cost information and network configuration assumptions that may change).

The estimated cost for Phase 1 implementation statewide is projected at $2 million.

Nextel reports that they need to do a major switch software upgrade as well as look at costs for trunks and other facilities, special interconnection requirements, IT upgrades, administration costs (suggests they will double over what Marlys projected) and potential site leasing. AirTouch indicated that the air time component is being reviewed.

Discussion on Funding of Phase 1 Service

A handout was distributed from the Washington State Attorney General opinion on ANI requirements for Cellular Telephone Companies. In essence, the informal ruling states Athe agreement of the cellular telephone companies to provide ANI without reimbursement or payment in any form is a large part of the intent behind RCW 38.52.500. Therefore, Washington law does not require reimbursement or payment for said costs to cellular telephone companies.@ Further-more, the informal ruling states A…no legally viable argument could be made by cellular companies that payment in any form for said costs is required under Washington or Federal law.@ A…cellular telephone companies must begin providing ANI to the E-911 operator immediately.@

Ross Baker, AT&T Wireless, said the location component of FCC Phase 1 is not reflected in the Attorney General Opinion and he would like clarification. Basically, he would like to see the Attorney General address what effect Phase 1 has on Washington law.

AirTouch feels new entrants into the industry are not bound by Washington law. Doug Gehrke states Washington law does not differentiate between seven-digit and 10-digit, it just says ANI which allows a 911 operator to automatically identify the number of the caller. However, US West is only offering interconnection for 10-digit ANI.

Marlys Davis received no reports back from the wireless carriers their response to the legal opinions.

A second handout was distributed entitled, Funding of Phase 1 Service in Washington State,

developed by Marlys Davis based on a conference call with four county 911 coordinators. The State E911 Office (Allen Jakobitz) will contact all the state 911 coordinators to get their concurrence on the funding of Phase 1. Marlys indicated that King County is ready to go with Phase 1 in additional to ANI. It will be funded based on the 25-cent tax already collected before this proposal funding mechanism is in place.

By the next meeting, both wireline and wireless carriers will look at Phase 1 components, determining which are ANI and which are cell sector location. Additionally, the carriers need to involve their attorneys in coming up with an agreement.

King County Representative Brian Thomas (R), Chair, House Appropriations House, and Spokane County Senator James West (R), Ways & Means were legislators identified to target to receive education on the wireless issue.

Bob Oenning reported that a scoping session for the Senator West study is scheduled for July 10.

The State E911 Office will also contact all wireless carriers one to two weeks prior to the next wireless committee to get their commitment to attend that meeting.

Report from UW West on Phase 1 Interconnection

Gehrke reported that in Clark County Cell Trace is being used with ANI only. US West is in the process on installing the Cell Trace unit at the tandem in King County.

Gehrke wanted to clarify a statement in made in a previous meeting. He said Cell Trace does not have to be used to interconnect wireless. US West will work with any wireless carrier, but they would be hesitant to use seven-digit ANI.

Report from GTE on Phase 1 Interconnection

Al Kear was not present at the meeting. Marlys Davis indicated that there was no change in GTE=s status since Kear=s report last month when he indicated that it would be done by Jan.>98.

Nextel reported that they still need to evaluate a vendor for Phase 1 and should have a vendor selected by the end of August.

Marlys Davis referred to an AT&T News Release (distributed at end of meeting) stating they have selected SCC as their third party vendor for Phase implementation.

Discussion on whether 911 calls should be processed from non-subscriber cellular phones or only from cellular phones with registered subscribers.

Marlys Davis reported there was no discussion when we had the telephone conference with the 911 coordinators. Discussion ensued as to whether counties could deny 911 service to non-initialized phones. As it is analogous with wireline warm lines where the 911 Advisory Committee left that decision up to the phone companies. The FCC says the decision is left up to the PSAPs as to whether or not they provide 911 service to non-initialized phones. Apparently a FCC clarifying order will be issued in October. The issue was tabled until then.

Report from Wireless Companies on Security Contact Numbers and Procedures for PSAPs

The wireless carriers will identify security personnel from their business, phoning in their contact to Janice Saari at (360) 923-4522 by July 11. Marlys will then put together a subcommittee to address this issue.

Discussion on PSAP Numbers to be provided to operator services when cellular caller dials AO@ instead of 9-1-1.

Marlys Davis wishes to document the procedure for transferring/processing emergency calls placed to A0″ and then routed by the operator to 911. Nextel and Sprint both indicated they will provide that procedure by the next meeting.

Allen Jakobitz indicated that the State E911 Office provides a listing of 10-digit emergency numbers for all PSAPs in a directory which can be accessed from that office upon request.

Update from Wireless Companies identifying which Washington state counties ordered Phase I implementation

Marlys Davis distributed a listing of those counties which ordered Phase 1 Implementation. San Juan Island needs to be added to the list. It was suggested that the carriers return to the next meeting with a list of who requested Acost of service@ and who Aordered service@.

Other

Marlys asked the wireless companies if they could identify a representative to join the Public Education Work Group of the State E911 Advisory Committee. Ross Baker, AT&T Wireless, volunteered Dan Youmans at 206-389-5208.

The next meeting is scheduled at the King County 911 Office at the King County Airport, 7300 Perimeter Road, South, Seattle on Thursday, July 24, 1997 from 9 a.m. to 12 noon. Subsequent meetings this year will be held from 9 to 12 at the King County 911 Office on August 21, September 18, October 16, November 13 and December 11.