Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bernard Levy who wrote (5185)	9/10/1999 11:08:00 PM
From: ftth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

I've recently been looking into 911 emergency services for the newer phone technologies, and came across a Cahners-Instat report from 3/99 by Joyce L. Putscher. Here is a snip from that report relative to cellular/PCS that gives historical background info and who the solution providers are: <begin snip> How Will E-911 Affect Cellular/PCS Technology? What is E-911 and Why Have It? The Enhanced 911, or E-911, mandate by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will be the vehicle for providing GPS-enabled location-based services, and hence open up opportunities for manufacturers of semiconductors and equipment and software developers. Most people don't think about it today. In an emergency, you call 911 and you think that even if you pass out or are prevented from further talking to the 911 operator, that they can locate you. In the wireless world that is not the case. If you call 911 on your cellular or PCS phone and cannot tell the operator where you are, you will probably be out of luck. This situation gave birth to the wireless E-911 initiative. To drive the point home on how important this issue is, the National Emergency Number Association expects that within five years the number of wireless 911 calls will represent over 50% of the number of 911 calls, and within ten years that percentage will grow to about 70 to 75%. E-911 Phase I: Generally speaking, Phase I of E-911 is the mandate of the FCC to require all US wireless carriers connecting to the public switched telephone network (PSTN) to provide basic 911 services that include identifying the nearest cell site to the caller and the 10-digit wireless phone number of the caller. This requirement was supposed to be in effect by April 1998. Under 5% of the Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) can currently handle these requirements. Has anyone been penalized for non-compliance so far? Not to our knowledge. The PSAPs don't seem to be asking carriers to become compliant and carriers are combating the FCC over liability and cost recovery issues. So, we don't have a full Phase I in place nationwide, and we're already on to Phase II. Since the carriers are already worried about liability, Phase II is not likely to change that concern. E-911 Phase II: E-911 Phase II mandates that by October 1, 2001 an additional requirement will be added. This requirement is being able to locate the wireless 911 caller within 410 feet, or 125 meters -- 67% of the time. This includes all wireless 911 calls, not just the service provider's own customers. So, this includes roamers in addition to non-activated subscribers. (I already had someone tell me last year that they advise anyone thinking about throwing away their old analog phone to give it to a relative. That way even though they don't activate a service, they can still use it for an emergency because of the requirement of connecting non-activated subscribers' 911 calls.) Could this feature curtail a certain number of new subscribers that only want a wireless phone for true emergencies? In order to comply with this more stringent location requirement, different approaches to E-911 solutions may open up a Pandora's Box in terms of compatibility issues from one service provider to another. This also means that approximately 67% of the provider's subscribers need to be supported with E-911 Phase II service (otherwise a 67% rate is basically not possible). The method of implementing Phase II E-911 with network-based, hybrid network/handset-based or handset-based solutions will directly affect the timeline possible of compliance. Hybrid- or handset-based solutions will require getting new handsets out to at least 67% of its subscribers -- with the cost born by the customer or the provider, or both. If carriers have not been penalized thus far for Phase I non-compliance, it doesn't seem likely that there will be an overriding fear of penalties for Phase II non-compliance. A number of carriers have applied to the FCC for waivers, or extensions, to delay their compliance date to 2004 -- IF they can provide better positioning accuracy than 125 meters. That will require a hybrid or handset solution. Thus, waviers have not set well with network-based solution suppliers. In fact, it has set off heated debates from these suppliers, such as TruePosition Inc., as it is certainly not in their best interest if carriers decide to go with a hybrid- or handset-based solution. How Will It Be Implemented? Solutions for E-911 range from network based to purely handset based. Network-based solutions include Angle of Arrival (AOA) and Time Distance of Arrival (TDOA) methods. The leading contenders for E-911 solutions that improve upon the 125 meter (410 feet) requirement are SnapTrack and SiRF. SnapTrack can be considered as a hybrid network/handset-based Solution. SiRF Technology Inc. has developed a full GPS chipset solution that does not need the network to determine its position. Although implementing a handset-based solution could be considered as being more expensive than a network solution, we assume that the operators will be able to retrieve the majority of network-based solution expenses through the subscriber fees imposed for wireless 911. For a hybrid solution, the network-based portion would be reimbursable, but what about the cost of new phones? Would the operator's cost of all new phones be reimbursable? Or, would only a portion be reimbursable -- that representing the new material cost to the handsets? <end snip>