Wireless Subcommittee Minutes

King County E911 Office

7300 Perimeter Road South, Seattle

December 11, 1997 – 9 a.m.

Present: Marlys Davis, Wireless Committee Chair, King County; Allen Jakobitz, Bob Oenning, Ken Back, State E911 Office; Lynn Mell, XYPOINT; Al Kear, GTE; Andre Sterling, GTE Wireless; Patty Johns, Lewis County 911; Rod Proctor, Proctor & Associates; Ross Baker, Lisa Verner, AT&T Wireless; Dan Preston, Joe Preston, Jim Vroman, Bruce Lyons, Adam Herr, George Lightbody, IDC; Lori Roth, Air Touch; Vanessa Pegueros, NEXTEL; Chuck Orr, Sprint PCS; Dave Griffith, WUTC. Conference Call Attendees: Tom Wilkinson, US West; Tramell Alexander, GTE Wireless; Tony Cook, WUTC; Phil Romanow.

1. Approval of November 13, 1997 meeting minutes.

Approved as written.

2. Demonstration of Phase II Technology – IDC (Integrated Data Communications).

Bruce Lyons and Dan Preston from IDC demonstrated their Phase II location technology, which very accurately provides latitude, longitude, altitude, velocity, and direction of travel. This system utilizes a GPS chip which can be added to a wireless phone battery without adversely affecting size or power consumption. The location data travels within the voice band with the voice transmission to the PSAP where it is extracted and displayed. Keeping the technology within the voice network could realize significant savings in implementing Phase II. IDC is doing a test in Oregon that should be concluding in February 1998.

3. 1998 Legislation Discussion.

Based on cost projections for implementing Phase I and Phase II that have been developed by this Workgroup, excise tax rates of 75¢ at the local level for wireline and wireless and 20¢ at the state level for wireline and wireless had been recommended. However, attempts to gain support for increasing the local tax rate have been totally unsuccessful at both the state and local level. In addition, the E911 Advisory Committee voted to not support an increase in the local tax due to the fact that this effort could adversely affect the ability of the existing state bill which establishes 20¢ for both wireline and wireless at the state level. It is recommended that everyone get behind the existing bill to establish tax parity between wireline and wireless at the state level, and then go back to the legislature in 1999 to establish parity at the local level. By that time, more information will be known about the costs of implementing Phase II as well.

4. Report from Wireless Companies on Definition of Washington State ANI Service versus Phase I Service.

will provide Washington State ANI as required by the 1994 law at no cost to the counties. They are working on providing 10-digit ANI, since 10-digits are now required to process calls. Any county that has Airtouch and wishes to receive wireless ANI should contact Charlie Van Zandt. Airtouch is still researching the best solution for Phase I.

will also provide ANI at no cost under the Washington State law. They have also defined ANI as being 10-digit. Ross Baker indicated that they will convert those counties currently receiving 7-digit ANI to 10-digit ANI. Any county that has AT&T Wireless and wishes to receive wireless ANI should contact Ross Baker. Due to the fact that ANI is required by Washington State law, AT&T has priced Phase I for Washington State at $1 per customer non-recurring and 12¢ per customer per month, which is significantly less than that rate that will be charged in the rest of the country.

– no report.

– no report.

will provide 10-digit Washington State ANI at no cost, but indicated that they are having difficulty acquiring 9-1-1 trunks from the LECs to implement the system. They are currently pricing full Phase I as an incremental cost to Washington State ANI. Andre Sterling is in the process of contacting all the county coordinators where GTE Wireless does business.

– no report.

believes they are only obligated to follow the FCC rules, and are not obligated to comply with the Washington State law by providing ANI at no cost. They chose SCC as their vendor for Phase I and will be ready 4/1/98 to begin delivery of this service. A major software upgrade is beginning in January.

believes they are only obligated to follow the FCC rules, but are reviewing the Washington State law. They will use Cell Trace for Phase I. They are currently pricing Phase I.

– no report.

will provide Washington State ANI at no cost the end of 1998 when they begin offering service. They are currently pricing Phase I as an incremental cost to Washington State ANI.

: RCW 38.52.560 “Any person as defined in RCW 82.04.030 owning, operating, or managing any facilities used to provide wireless two-way telecommunications services for hire, sale, or resale which allow access to 911 emergency services shall provide a system of automatic number identification which allows the 911 operator to automatically identify the number of the caller.

5. AT&T Presentation of Phase I Service.

Ross Baker showed a video that indicates how they plan to provide Phase I service with their partner, SCC. They are planning tests in Portland and Austin (or Denver). A copy of this video can be obtained from Ross.

6. Report from Wireless Companies on Implementation of Security Procedures.

A sample of Wireless Security Procedures PSAP Identification was presented by Marlys Davis. It suggests a simple table containing PSAP Name, Alternate Name, Call Back Contact (by title) and Call Back Number. Any suggestions for changes to the form by either wireless companies or PSAPs should be directed to Marlys.

7. Report from Wireless Companies on Delivery of WA State ANI/Phase I Service.

See Item 4 above.

8. Report on ALI Display of Phase I Information.

Marlys distributed a sample on an existing display screen with recommendations for where wireless ALI information should be displayed in these fields. These recommendations had been developed earlier this year by a subcommittee of this Workgroup. Al Kear provided a copy of NENA Recommended Format For Data Exchange – version 2. It is believed that each vendor will need to address these new standards individually. Since NENA is currently not working to develop a standard for how this data should display on the ALI screen at the PSAP, this workgroup will continue to work to create a recommended standard display for Washington State.

Bob Oenning reported that the CAD costs used in the cost projection spreadsheets were verified by Hank Cramer and John Wilding.

Marlys Davis reported that the security subcommittee has completed their work, and no other sub-committee meetings to discuss security issues are planned.

Al Kear provided a copy of NENA’s version 2 for data exchange standards.

Bob Oenning reported that the FCC has no expectation of how ALI records should be standardized.

The next meeting is scheduled at the King County 911 Office at the King County Airport, 7300 Perimeter Road, south, Seattle on Thursday, February 12, 8 from 9 a.m. to 12 noon. Future meetings will be held from 9 to 12 at the King County 911 Office on:

March 12, 1998

April 9, 1998