Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from Microsoft Word.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.
*****************************************************************
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
) File No. EB-05-SE-116
)
Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200632100010
) FRN # 0001699719
)
American Cellular Corporation ) NAL/Acct. No. 200632100011
) FRN # 0003767324
)
Subsidiaries of Dobson Communications Corp. )
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted: April 17, 2006 Released: April 18, 2006
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
that Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. ("DCS") and American Cellular
Corporation ("ACC") (collectively, "Dobson") apparently willfully and
repeatedly violated Sections 20.18(d) and (f) of the Commission's
Rules ("Rules"), by failing to provide Enhanced 911 ("E911") Phase I
service within six months of a valid request by the relevant Public
Safety Answering Point ("PSAP") in a total of nine (9) instances, and
failing to provide E911 Phase II service within six months of a valid
request by the relevant PSAP in a total of forty-one (41) instances.
For DCS's and ACC's apparent violations, we propose forfeitures
totaling Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($750,000).
II. BACKGROUND
2. The Commission's wireless E911 rules ensure that the important public
safety needs of wireless callers requiring emergency assistance are
met as quickly as possible. Under Phase I of the E911 rules, wireless
carriers must provide designated PSAPs with both the telephone number
of the mobile handset that originated the 911 call and the location of
the base station or cell site that received the 911 call. Wireless
carriers are required to provide such information within six months of
a valid request by a designated PSAP.
3. The E911 Phase II rules require wireless carriers to provide
designated PSAPs with the location of wireless 911 callers by
longitude and latitude, a capability referred to as Automatic Location
Identification ("ALI"). Wireless carriers may provide ALI information
by deploying either a network-based solution or a handset-based
solution. If the carrier chooses to deploy a network-based solution,
it must provide designated PSAPs with Phase II service to at least 50
percent of the PSAP's coverage area or at least 50 percent of its
population within six months of a valid PSAP request, and to 100
percent of the PSAP's coverage area or 100 percent of its population
within 18 months of such a request. In addition, carriers choosing a
network-based solution must provide the location information with an
accuracy of 100 meters for 67 percent of calls and 300 meters for 95
percent of calls.
4. A PSAP request for Phase I or Phase II service is deemed valid if the
PSAP can demonstrate that it will be capable of receiving and
utilizing the Phase I or Phase II data no later than six months after
its request. Specifically, a PSAP request is deemed valid if the PSAP
can demonstrate that: (i) a mechanism is in place for recovering the
PSAP's costs; (ii) it has ordered the equipment necessary to receive
and utilize the E911 data to be installed no later than six months
following its request; and (iii) it has made a timely request to the
appropriate local exchange carrier (LEC) for the necessary trunking
and other facilities, including any necessary ALI database upgrades. A
carrier may request documentation predictive of a PSAP's readiness to
receive and utilize the E911 Phase I or Phase II service it has
requested (commonly referred to as "Richardson documentation"). Where
a carrier requests such documentation from a PSAP within 15 days of
receiving the PSAP's request for E911 service, the PSAP must respond
within 15 days or the carrier's six-month implementation period will
be tolled until such documentation is provided.
5. DCS and ACC are mid-sized or Tier II carriers serving primarily rural
and suburban markets in a total of 16 states. The companies previously
relied primarily upon Time Division Multiple Access ("TDMA")-based
networks, but have since completed overlaying their TDMA networks with
Global System for Mobile Communications ("GSM")/General Packet Radio
Service ("GPRS") technology. The companies utilize a network-based
solution to provide Phase II service. In certain markets, DCS and ACC
provide Phase II service utilizing a hardware-based network solution
provided by Andrew Corporation ("Andrew"), while in other markets they
provide Phase II service utilizing a software-based network solution
provided by Polaris Wireless ("Polaris").
A. Informal Complaint
6. On April 14, 2005, the Enforcement Bureau received an informal
complaint from the 911 State Administrator, Michigan State Police, on
behalf of 14 Michigan PSAPs ("Complainant PSAPs"). The complaint
alleged that Dobson failed to timely implement E911 Phase I and Phase
II service to two Michigan PSAPs (Midland and Roscommon Counties) and
E911 Phase II service to 12 Michigan PSAPs (Alcona, Arenac, Baraga,
Gogebic, Iosco, Mackinac, Marquette, Mecosta, Menominee, Osceola,
Sanilac and Tuscola Counties). The complaint asserted that in early
2004, Dobson was in the process of purchasing NPI Wireless ("NPI").
The complaint further asserted that at that time, the Complainant
PSAPs had pending requests for Phase I or II service with NPI or
Dobson, and had met the readiness requirements under City of
Richardson. Prior to completion of the sale of NPI's assets to Dobson
on June 15, 2004, NPI sought an extension of time to fulfill the Phase
II requests from the Complainant PSAPs located in NPI markets until
December 31, 2004. Certain of the Complainant PSAPs granted this
request.
7. The complaint asserted, however, that in October 2004 Dobson requested
an additional extension of time to deploy the pending Phase II
requests for all of its Michigan market (including, in addition to the
14 Complainant PSAPs, numerous other Michigan PSAPs that had pending
Phase II requests) until March 31, 2005, because of "a lack of
corporate financial resources." The Michigan PSAPs denied this
extension request, but they agreed to refrain from lodging a complaint
with the FCC if Dobson met certain criteria. The criteria included:
(1) Dobson's active pursuit of an implementation schedule for Phase
II; (2) weekly updates on the progress and activity related to that
schedule; and (3) immediate application to Michigan's cost recovery
mechanism for CMRS providers. According to the complaint, Dobson
failed to meet these criteria. The complaint further noted that on
March 31, 2005, Dobson provided a revised deployment schedule, which
was for a statewide "uncalibrated" deployment followed by
accuracy-test driving. On April 11, 2005, the Michigan 911 State
Administrator notified Dobson on behalf of the Complainant PSAPs that
its schedule for an uncalibrated deployment was unacceptable and that
a complaint against Dobson would be lodged with the FCC.
8. On May 4, 2005, the Enforcement Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry
("LOI") to Dobson seeking information concerning its E911
implementation efforts with respect to the 14 Complainant PSAPs, as
well as in other markets where Dobson had E911 requests that had been
pending for more than six months. On May 24, 2005, Dobson submitted a
partial LOI Response addressing its E911 implementation efforts with
respect to the 14 Complainant PSAPs. On June 23, 2005, Dobson
submitted a Supplemental LOI Response addressing E911 requests in
other markets that had been pending for more than six months. On
August 25, 2005, Dobson submitted a Second Supplemental LOI Response
to provide an update on its E911 implementation efforts with respect
to the 14 Complainant PSAPs.
B. Complainant PSAPs
9. Dobson's May 24, 2005 LOI Response addressed its E911 implementation
efforts with respect to the 14 Complainant PSAPs. As discussed below,
Dobson's LOI Response indicated that it failed to implement Phase I
service within six months in response to a valid request from one of
these 14 PSAPs and that it failed to implement Phase II service within
six months in response to valid requests from eleven of these 14
PSAPs. Seven of these PSAPs are in markets that were acquired by
Dobson from NPI on June 15, 2004, three of these PSAPs are in markets
that have been solely owned by Dobson, and one PSAP is located in a
market owned by Dobson and in a market formerly owned by NPI. Dobson
stated that because it was aware prior to the acquisition that NPI's
facilities were not E911 compliant, it asked NPI to obtain extensions
from the relevant Michigan PSAPs to at least December 31, 2004 for all
outstanding Phase II requests in the NPI markets. NPI obtained
extensions of the Phase II deployment deadlines until December 31,
2004 for certain, but not all, of these markets.
10. Alcona County, Michigan. DCS acquired the Alcona County (GSM-only)
market when it purchased NPI's assets on June 15, 2004. Upon acquiring
this market, DCS obtained a copy of Alcona County's request for Phase
II service dated November 1, 2003, as well as an agreement between
Alcona County and NPI dated June 1, 2004, which extended the
deployment deadline until December 31, 2004. DCS treated the request
as valid and did not request Richardson documentation. Dobson stated
in its LOI Response that DCS "deployed" Phase II service in Alcona
County and initiated the transmission of ALI data on April 25, 2005.
However, in its November 1, 2005 E911 Quarterly Report, DCS stated
that it "considers a market as being E911 Phase II `deployed' after
[it] has completed testing of the installed hardware and software with
the PSAP to confirm that the PSAP is receiving latitude and longitude
information in the appropriate format." In its Second Supplemental LOI
Response, Dobson indicated that DCS completed testing on June 13, 2005
to demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude information is
being transmitted in the appropriate format. DCS's Quarterly Report
also indicated that it "completed testing on June 13, 2005 to
demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude information is
being transmitted in the appropriate format." We observe an apparent
inconsistency between Dobson's representations in its LOI Responses
and the Quarterly Reports filed by DCS regarding when it "deployed"
E911 service to Alcona County. We note, however, with respect to
either date, DCS apparently failed to timely deploy E911 service to
Alcona County. DCS apparently did not complete deployment of Phase II
service in Alcona County until at least April 22, 2005, almost four
months after the extended December 31, 2004 deployment deadline.
11. Arenac County, Michigan. DCS acquired the Arenac County (GSM-only)
market when it purchased NPI's assets on June 15, 2004. Upon acquiring
this market, DCS obtained a copy of Arenac County's request for Phase
II service dated October 31, 2003, as well as an agreement between
Arenac County and NPI dated April 30, 2004, which extended the
deployment deadline until December 31, 2004. DCS treated the request
as valid and did not request Richardson documentation. Dobson stated
in its LOI Response that DCS deployed Phase II service and initiated
the transmission of ALI data in Arenac County on April 21, 2005.
Dobson's Second Supplemental LOI Response indicated, however, that it
subsequently encountered technical issues regarding six sites and, on
June 10, 2005, the PSAP requested that it reinstate Phase I service
and turn off Phase II service until deployment and accuracy issues
were resolved. DCS's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that
it "completed testing on August 8, 2005 to demonstrate to the PSAP
that latitude and longitude information is being transmitted in the
appropriate format." Thus, DCS apparently did not complete deployment
of Phase II service in Arenac County until at least April 22, 2005,
almost four months after the extended December 31, 2004 deployment
deadline.
12. Baraga County, Michigan. The Baraga County market has been held solely
by ACC as part of the Michigan 1 RSA. ACC received a request for Phase
II service from Baraga County on September 19, 2003, requested
Richardson documentation from Baraga County on that same date, and
received documentation confirming that the request is valid on October
2, 2003. Dobson stated in its LOI Response that ACC deployed TDMA
Phase II service and initiated the transmission of ALI data in Baraga
County on May 5, 2005, but could not complete deployment of GSM Phase
II service until mid-July when a third party provider performed
necessary software upgrades. Dobson indicated its Second Supplemental
LOI Response that ACC completed installation of the software and
hardware necessary for the network-based Phase II solution for its GSM
facilities on July 8, 2005, and that ACC completed testing to
demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude information is
being transmitted in the appropriate format on July 12, 2005 for TDMA
and on July 14, 2005 for GSM. Thus, ACC apparently did not complete
deployment of Phase II service in Baraga County until at least July 8,
2005, almost 22 months after Baraga County made its valid Phase II
request.
13. Gogebic County, Michigan. The Gogebic County market has been held
solely by ACC as part of the Michigan 1 RSA. ACC received a request
for Phase II service from Gogebic County on February 24, 2004.
Although Dobson did not state that ACC requested Richardson
documentation from Gogebic County within 15 days of receiving the
Phase II request, it indicated that ACC received documentation
confirming that the request is valid on April 15, 2004. Dobson stated
in its LOI Response that ACC deployed TDMA Phase II service and
initiated the transmission of ALI data in Gogebic County on May 5,
2005, but could not complete deployment of GSM Phase II service until
mid-July when a third party provider performed necessary software
upgrades. Dobson indicated its Second Supplemental LOI Response that
ACC completed installation of the software and hardware necessary for
the network-based Phase II solution for its GSM facilities on July 8,
2005. ACC's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it
completed testing to demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and
longitude information are being transmitted in the appropriate format
on July 12, 2005 for TDMA and on July 18, 2005 for GSM. Thus, ACC
apparently did not complete deployment of Phase II service in Gogebic
County until at least July 8, 2005, almost 17 months after Gogebic
County made its valid Phase II request.
14. Iosco County, Michigan. DCS acquired the Iosco County (GSM-only)
market when it purchased NPI's assets on June 15, 2004. Upon acquiring
this market, DCS obtained a copy of Iosco County's request for Phase
II service dated August 18, 2003, as well as an agreement between
Iosco County and NPI dated May 4, 2004, which extended the deployment
deadline until December 31, 2004. DCS treated the request as valid and
did not request Richardson documentation. Dobson stated in its LOI
Response that DCS deployed Phase II service and initiated the
transmission of ALI data in Iosco County on April 22, 2005. Dobson
indicated in its Second Supplemental LOI Response that it completed
testing on June 10, 2005 to demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and
longitude information is being transmitted in the appropriate format.
Thus, DCS apparently did not complete deployment of Phase II service
in Iosco County until at least April 22, 2005, almost four months
after the extended December 31, 2004 deployment deadline.
15. Mackinac County, Michigan. DCS acquired the Mackinac County (GSM-only)
market when it purchased NPI's assets on June 15, 2004. Upon acquiring
this market, DCS obtained a copy of Mackinac County's request for
Phase II service dated February 3, 2003, as well as an agreement
between Mackinac County and NPI dated May 3, 2004, which extended the
deployment deadline until December 31, 2004. DCS treated the request
as valid and did not request Richardson documentation. Dobson stated
in its LOI Response that DCS deployed Phase II service and initiated
the transmission of ALI data in Mackinac County on April 28, 2005.
Dobson indicated in its Second Supplemental LOI Response that it
completed testing on July 7, 2005 to demonstrate to the PSAP that
latitude and longitude information is being transmitted in the
appropriate format. Thus, DCS apparently did not complete deployment
of Phase II service in Mackinac County until at least April 28, 2005,
almost four months after the extended December 31, 2004 deployment
deadline.
16. Marquette County, Michigan. The Marquette County market has been held
solely by ACC as part of the Michigan 1 RSA. ACC received a valid
request for Phase II service from Marquette County on April 13, 2004.
Dobson stated in its LOI Response that ACC deployed TDMA Phase II
service and initiated the transmission of ALI data in Marquette County
on May 4, 2005, but could not complete deployment of GSM Phase II
service until mid-July when a third party provided performed necessary
software upgrades. Dobson indicated in its Second Supplemental LOI
Response that ACC completed testing of its TDMA facilities on July 7,
2005 to demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude
information is being transmitted in the appropriate format. The Second
Supplemental LOI Response also indicated that ACC encountered
technical issues with the deployment of one GSM site and had to
re-schedule testing to demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and
longitude information is being transmitted in the appropriate format
for its GSM facilities. ACC's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report
indicated that it "completed installation of the necessary software
and hardware of the network-based E911 Phase II solution" on July 7,
2005 for TDMA and August 11, 2005 for GSM. Thus, ACC apparently did
not complete deployment of Phase II service in Marquette County until
at least August 11, 2005, almost 16 months after Marquette County
filed its valid Phase II request.
17. Midland County, Michigan (Phase I and II). DCS acquired the Midland
County market when it purchased NPI's assets on June 15, 2004. Midland
County requested Phase I service from NPI on August 16, 2000, and
requested Phase II service from NPI on January 27, 2004. DCS stated
that it did not receive a copy of Midland County's Phase I and Phase
II requests until November 3, 2004. DCS treated the requests as valid
and did not request Richardson documentation. Dobson stated in its LOI
Response that DCS expected to deploy Phase I on or around May 27,
2005, and that the timing of Phase II deployment would be determined
once Phase I is operational. Dobson's Second Supplemental LOI Response
indicated that DCS completed Phase I deployment and "began working on
Phase II deployment" on May 26, 2005. The Second Supplemental LOI
Response also indicated that DCS completed testing on June 15, 2005 to
demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude information is
being transmitted in the appropriate format. Thus, DCS apparently did
not complete deployment of Phase I service in Midland County until May
26, 2005, and did not complete deployment of Phase II service in
Midland County until June 15, 2005, more than six months after it
received the valid requests for Phase I and Phase II service.
18. Mecosta County, Michigan. DCS acquired the Mecosta County market when
it purchased NPI's assets on June 15, 2004. Upon acquiring this
market, DCS obtained a copy of Mecosta County's request for Phase II
service dated April 1, 2004, as well as an agreement between Mecosta
County and NPI dated April 28, 2004, which extended the deployment
deadline until December 31, 2004. DCS treated the request as valid and
did not request Richardson documentation. Dobson stated in its LOI
Response that DCS deployed Phase II service and initiated the
transmission of ALI data in Mecosta County on April 20, 2005. Dobson
indicated in its Second Supplemental LOI Response that DCS completed
testing on July 15, 2005 to demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and
longitude information is being transmitted in the appropriate format.
Thus, DCS apparently did not complete deployment of Phase II service
in Mecosta County until at least April 20, 2005, almost four months
after the extended December 31, 2004 deployment deadline.
19. Osceola County, Michigan. Osceola County lies in a market owned by DCS
as part of the Michigan 5 RSA and in a market formerly owned by NPI.
DCS received a request for Phase II service from Osceola County on May
4, 2004, but responded on May 24, 2004 that it did not currently
provide service in Osceola County and did not intend to do so until
the NPI transaction is complete. Upon acquiring NPI's assets, DCS
obtained a copy of Osceola County's request for Phase II service to
NPI dated April 1, 2004, as well as an agreement between Osceola
County and NPI dated April 28, 2004, which extended the deployment
deadline until December 31, 2004. DCS treated the request as valid and
did not request Richardson documentation. Dobson stated in its LOI
Response that DCS deployed Phase II service and initiated the
transmission of ALI data in Osceola County on April 19, 2005 for GSM
and on April 25, 2005 for TDMA. Dobson indicated in its Second
Supplemental LOI Response that DCS completed testing on June 2, 2005
to demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude information is
being transmitted in the appropriate format. Thus, DCS apparently did
not complete deployment of Phase II service in Osceola County until at
least April 25, 2005, almost four months after the extended December
31, 2004 deployment deadline.
20. Roscommon County, Michigan. DCS acquired the Roscommon County market
when it purchased NPI's assets on June 15, 2004. Upon acquiring this
market, DCS obtained a copy of Roscommon County's valid request for
Phase II service dated October 28, 2003. DCS acknowledged that it was
notified upon closing that NPI was unable to obtain an extension of
the Phase II deployment deadline from Roscommon. Dobson stated in its
LOI Response that DCS deployed Phase II service and initiated the
transmission of ALI data in Roscommon County on April 21, 2005. In its
Second Supplemental LOI Response, Dobson indicated that on June 9,
2005, the PSAP requested that it revert back to Phase I service on a
temporary basis, and turn off Phase II service, until deployment and
accuracy issues were resolved. The Second Supplemental LOI Response
further indicated that DCS completed testing on July 27, 2005 to
demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude information are
being transmitted in the appropriate format. However, on July 29,
2005, the PSAP again requested that DCS revert back to Phase I service
until such time as accuracy can be improved. Thus, DCS apparently did
not complete deployment of Phase II service in Roscommon County until
at least April 21, 2005, approximately ten months after it acquired
the market from NPI.
21. Dobson's Response. Dobson attributed its failure to timely implement
Phase II service for the Complainant PSAPs to several factors. First,
Dobson asserted that it failed to "adequately anticipate the enormous
technical effort that would be required to deploy E911 Phase II in a
relatively short time to satisfy so many requests due on the same
date." Specifically, Dobson noted that a number of PSAPs had requested
Phase II deployment with six month deadlines that would fall close
together. In addition, Dobson cited its acquisition of the NPI
markets. Dobson noted, in this connection, that NPI's facilities were
not E911 Phase II compliant and could not be upgraded to E911 Phase II
capability. Dobson indicated that it began to design, develop and
construct a new GSM switch in Michigan in May 2004, prior to
acquisition of NPI's assets; completed construction of the new GSM
switching facilities in September 2004; and finally completed
migration of all of its Michigan cell sites, including the 350+ newly
acquired NPI cell cites, to the new GSM switch in November 2004.
Dobson asserted that it was unable to begin Phase II deployment until
it completed this transition in November 2004.
22. Dobson further asserted that it failed to "anticipate vendor failures
in terms of key equipment." In this regard, Dobson indicated that
Andrew, the hardware-based E911 solution vendor on which it had
initially relied, was unable to deliver sufficient equipment to meet
deployment requirements by the deployment deadline, and Dobson
ultimately had to switch to Polaris to deploy a software solution in
the Michigan markets.
23. Moreover, Dobson stated that its E911 Project Manager apparently
misinterpreted the PSAPs' forbearance from filing complaints with the
FCC as "tacit approval" to Dobson's extending the deployment deadline.
Dobson stated that the E911 Project Manager met with representatives
of the Michigan PSAPs on October 21, 2004; informed the PSAPs that
even if its E911 solution vendor were able to timely deliver equipment
by the December 31, 2004 deployment deadline, the vendor would need
additional time to install the equipment; and requested an additional
three months extension of the deployment deadline until March 31,
2005. Dobson admitted that "[it] cannot be denied that the PSAPs
refused to agree to the extension for deployment." However, it
maintained that the PSAPs expressed their willingness to take no
action with the FCC if Dobson provided continued progress updates to
the PSAPs on a weekly basis and deployment occurred by the
then-promised March 31, 2005 deployment deadline. Dobson claimed that
the E911 Project Manager "viewed the PSAPs' forbearance as de facto
concurrence with an alternative deployment date and so reported to
Dobson's management." Dobson acknowledged that the E911 Project
Manager did not adequately communicate with the PSAPs and that
Dobson's management did not adequately challenge his reports that all
of the PSAPs were "on board" with the extended deadlines for
deployment.
24. Dobson further noted that upon receiving a copy of the Michigan 911
State Administrator's informal complaint to the FCC on April 14, 2005,
it immediately initiated an internal inquiry into its E911 compliance
efforts throughout Dobson's markets. This effort resulted, among other
things, in removing oversight of E911 matters from the E911 Project
Manager; re-establishing contacts with the PSAPs to confirm their
understanding of the current deployment schedule; engaging outside
counsel to investigate the status of all of the Michigan Phase I and
Phase II requests pending before Dobson; and a restatement and
clarification of Dobson policies with respect to the treatment of E911
requests.
C. Other PSAPs
25. Dobson's June 23, 2005 Supplemental LOI Response identified additional
PSAPs in Michigan and in several other states which had requests for
Phase I or Phase II service that had been pending for more than six
months. As set forth below, Dobson's Supplemental Response indicated
that it failed to implement Phase I service within six months of a
valid request from eight PSAPs and that it failed to implement Phase
II service within six months of valid requests from 30 PSAPs.
26. Clare County, Michigan. DCS acquired the Clare County market when it
purchased NPI's assets on June 15, 2004. Upon acquiring this market,
DCS obtained a copy of Clare County's request for Phase II service
dated March 8, 2004, as well as an agreement between Clare County and
NPI dated April 29, 2004, which extended the deployment deadline until
December 31, 2004. DCS treated the request as valid and did not
request Richardson documentation. With respect to Clare County and the
other non-Complainant Michigan PSAPs discussed below, Dobson
referenced its LOI Response but did not otherwise discuss the steps it
took to implement E911 service. Dobson stated in its Supplemental LOI
Response that DCS completed internal testing of its E911 Phase II
solution on April 21, 2005, and completed its "formal acceptance" on
June 7, 2005. Dobson further noted, however, that DCS subsequently
encountered technical difficulties and would work to resolve the
issues. DCS's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it
"completed installation of the necessary software and hardware of the
network-based E911 Phase II solution" on April 21, 2005, and that it
"completed testing on July 8, 2005 to demonstrate to the PSAP that
latitude and longitude information is being transmitted in the
appropriate format." Thus, DCS apparently did not complete deployment
of Phase II service in Clare County until at least April 21, 2005,
almost four months after the extended December 31, 2004 deployment
deadline.
27. Crawford County, Michigan. DCS acquired the Crawford County market
when it purchased NPI's assets on June 15, 2004. Upon acquiring this
market, DCS obtained a copy of Crawford County's request for Phase II
service dated October 23, 2003, as well as an agreement between
Crawford County and NPI dated April 28, 2004, which extended the
deployment deadline until December 31, 2004. DCS indicated it treated
the request as valid and did not request Richardson documentation.
Dobson stated in its Supplemental LOI Response that DCS deployed Phase
II service on April 27, 2005, and completed its formal acceptance on
June 15, 2005. DCS's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that
it "completed installation of the necessary software and hardware of
the network-based E911 Phase II solution" on April 27, 2005, and that
it "completed testing on July 6, 2005 to demonstrate to the PSAP that
latitude and longitude information is being transmitted in the
appropriate format." Thus, DCS apparently did not complete deployment
of Phase II service in Crawford County until at least April 27, 2005,
almost four months after the extended December 31, 2004 deployment
deadline.
28. Dickinson County, Michigan. ACC received a request for Phase II
service from Dickinson County on February 5, 2004, requested
Richardson documentation on February 6, 2004, and received
documentation confirming that the request was valid on February 19,
2004. Dobson stated in its Supplemental LOI Response that ACC deployed
TDMA Phase II service to Dickinson County on May 5, 2005, and was
currently working to complete testing by June 24, 2005. Dobson
indicated that ACC would not be completing deployment of GSM Phase II
service until mid-July, when an equipment vendor performed software
upgrades for its cell sites. ACC's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report
indicated that it "completed installation of the necessary software
and hardware of the network-based E911 Phase II solution" on July 12,
2005 for TDMA and on July 14, 2005 for GSM. Thus, ACC apparently did
not complete deployment of Phase II service to Dickinson County until
July 14, 2005, more than 17 months after Dickinson County made its
valid Phase II request.
29. Houghton County, Michigan. ACC received a request for Phase II service
from Houghton County on January 9, 2004, requested Richardson
documentation on January 14, 2004, and received documentation
confirming that the request was valid on January 21, 2004. Dobson
stated in its Supplemental LOI Response that ACC deployed TDMA Phase
II service to Houghton County on May 5, 2005, and was currently
working to complete formal acceptance by June 24, 2005. Dobson
indicated that it would not be completing deployment of GSM Phase II
service until mid-July, when an equipment vendor performed software
upgrades for its cell sites. ACC's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report
indicated that it "completed installation of the necessary software
and hardware of the network-based E911 Phase II solution" on July 12,
2005 for TDMA and on July 14, 2005 for GSM. Thus, ACC apparently did
not complete deployment of Phase II service to Houghton County until
at least July 14, 2005, more than 18 months after Houghton County made
its valid Phase II request.
30. Isabella County, Michigan. DCS acquired the Isabella County (GSM-only)
market when it purchased NPI's assets on June 15, 2004. Upon acquiring
this market, DCS obtained a copy of Isabella County's request for
Phase II service dated April 21, 2004, as well as an agreement between
Isabella County and NPI dated April 28, 2004, which extended the
deployment deadline until December 31, 2004. DCS treated the request
as valid and did not request Richardson documentation. Dobson stated
in its Supplemental LOI Response that DCS deployed Phase II service on
April 20, 2005, and that DCS intended to complete its formal
acceptance on June 22, 2005. However, Dobson noted that it encountered
difficulties with two base stations and would continue to work to
resolve the problem. DCS's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated
that it "completed installation of the necessary software and hardware
of the network-based E911 Phase II solution" on April 20, 2005, and
that it "completed testing on July 7, 2005 to demonstrate to the PSAP
that latitude and longitude information is being transmitted in the
appropriate format." DCS further stated in its Quarterly Report that
it reverted back to Phase I on July 8, 2005, at the request of the
PSAP. Thus, DCS apparently did not complete deployment of Phase II
service in Isabella County until at least April 20, 2005, almost four
months after the extended December 31, 2004 deployment deadline.
31. Kalkaska County, Michigan. DCS received a valid request for Phase II
service from Kalkaska County on October 14, 2004. Dobson stated in its
Supplemental LOI Response that DCS completed internal testing of its
E911 Phase II software solution on April 22, 2005, and completed its
formal acceptance with the PSAP on June 14, 2005. DCS's November 1,
2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it "completed installation of the
necessary software and hardware of the network-based E911 Phase II
solution" on April 25, 2005, and that it "completed testing on July 8,
2005 to demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude
information is being transmitted in the appropriate format." Thus, DCS
apparently did not complete deployment of Phase II service in Kalkaska
County until at least April 25, 2005, more than five months after
Kalkaska County made its valid Phase II request.
32. Keweenaw County, Michigan. ACC received a valid request for Phase II
service from Keweenaw County on November 24, 2004. Dobson stated in
its Supplemental LOI Response that ACC deployed TDMA Phase II service
to Keweenaw County on May 5, 2005, and was currently working to
complete formal acceptance by June 24, 2005. Dobson indicated that ACC
would not be completing deployment of GSM Phase II service until
mid-July, when an equipment vendor performed software upgrades for its
cell sites. ACC's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it
"completed installation of the necessary software and hardware of the
network-based E911 Phase II solution" on July 14, 2005 for GSM and on
July 17, 2005 for TDMA. Thus, ACC apparently did not complete
deployment of Phase II service to Keweenaw County until at least July
17, 2005, more than seven months after Keweenaw County made its valid
Phase II request.
33. Lake County, Michigan. DCS received a request for Phase II service
from Lake County on October 29, 2003, requested Richardson
documentation on December 22, 2003, and received documentation
confirming that the request was valid on January 29, 2004. Dobson
stated in its Supplemental LOI Response that DCS deployed Phase II
service to Lake County on April 19, 2005, and completed its formal
acceptance on June 1, 2005. DCS's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report
confirmed that it "completed installation of the necessary software
and hardware of the network-based E911 Phase II solution" on April 19,
2005, and that it "completed testing on June 1, 2005 to demonstrate to
the PSAP that latitude and longitude information is being transmitted
in the appropriate format." Thus, DCS apparently did not complete
deployment of Phase II service to Lake County until at least April 19,
2005, almost 18 months after Lake County made its valid Phase II
request.
34. Leelanau County, Michigan. DCS received a request for Phase II service
from Leelanau County on February 2, 2004, requested Richardson
documentation on February 6, 2004, and received documentation
confirming that the request was valid on February 14, 2004. Dobson
stated in its Supplemental LOI Response that DCS deployed Phase II
service to Leelanau County on April 25, 2005, and completed its formal
acceptance on June 14, 2005. DCS's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report
indicated that it "completed installation of the necessary software
and hardware of the network-based E911 Phase II solution" on April 25,
2005, and that it "completed testing on July 12, 2005 to demonstrate
to the PSAP that latitude and longitude information is being
transmitted in the appropriate format." Thus, DCS apparently did not
complete deployment of Phase II service to Leelanau County until at
least April 25, 2005, more than 14 months after Leelanau County made
its valid Phase II request.
35. Mason and Oceana Counties, Michigan. DCS received a request for Phase
II service from Mason-Oceana 911 on October 3, 2003, requested
Richardson documentation on October 7, 2003, and received
documentation confirming that the request was valid on October 17,
2003. Dobson stated in its Supplemental LOI Response that DCS deployed
Phase II service to Oceana County on April 19, 2005, and completed its
formal acceptance with Oceana County on June 1, 2005. Dobson further
noted, however, that DCS had encountered difficulties with one site in
Mason County and was working to resolve the issue. DCS's November 1,
2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it "completed installation of the
necessary software and hardware of the network-based E911 Phase II
solution" on April 19, 2005, and that it "completed testing on July 6,
2005 to demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude
information is being transmitted in the appropriate format." Thus, DCS
apparently did not complete deployment of Phase II service to Mason
and Oceana Counties until at least April 19, 2005, more than 17 months
after Mason-Oceana 911 made its valid Phase II request.
36. Newaygo County, Michigan. DCS acquired the Newaygo County (GSM-only)
market when it purchased NPI's assets on June 15, 2004. DCS stated
that it did not receive a copy of the Phase II request from NPI in
2003; rather, it received a valid request directly from the PSAP
during a meeting with various Michigan PSAPs on October 21, 2004.
Dobson stated in its Supplemental LOI Response that DCS deployed Phase
II service on April 29, 2005, and that it completed its formal
acceptance on June 2, 2005. DCS's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report
indicated that it "completed installation of the necessary software
and hardware of the network-based E911 Phase II solution" on April 29,
2005, and that it "completed testing on June 3, 2005 to demonstrate to
the PSAP that latitude and longitude information is being transmitted
in the appropriate format." Thus, DCS apparently did not complete
deployment of Phase II service in Newaygo County until at least April
29, 2005, more than six months after it received the valid Phase II
request from Newaygo County.
37. Ontonagon County, Michigan. ACC received a request for Phase II
service from Ontonagon County on April 23, 2004, requested Richardson
documentation on May 14, 2004, and received documentation confirming
that the request was valid on May 20, 2004. Dobson stated in its
Supplemental LOI Response that ACC deployed TDMA Phase II service to
Ontonagon County on May 5, 2005, and was currently working to complete
formal acceptance by June 24, 2005. Dobson indicated that ACC would
not be completing deployment of GSM Phase II service until mid-July,
when an equipment vendor performed software upgrades for its cell
sites. ACC's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it
"completed installation of the necessary software and hardware of the
network-based E911 Phase II solution" on June 23, 2005 for TDMA and on
July 14, 2005 for GSM. Thus, ACC apparently did not complete
deployment of Phase II service to Dickinson County until at least July
14, 2005, more than 15 months after Ontonagon County made its valid
Phase II request.
38. Anchorage, Alaska (Phase I and II). DCS received valid requests for
Phase I and Phase II service from the Anchorage Police Department on
May 4, 2004. Dobson indicated in its Supplemental LOI Response that
DCS attempted to deploy Phase I service on May 27, 2005, but
discovered that it did not have the necessary connectivity in place.
Dobson stated that to rectify the problem, DCS would have to re-order
additional SS7 lines. DCS's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report
indicated that the necessary trunks were ordered from the LEC on July
25, 2005, DCS received the trunks in August 2005, and deployed Phase I
service on August 18, 2005. DCS's Quarterly Report further indicated
that it "completed installation of the necessary software and hardware
of the network-based E911 Phase II solution" on October 28, 2005.
Thus, DCS apparently did not complete deployment of Phase I service to
Anchorage until August 18, 2005, more than 15 months after Anchorage
made its valid Phase I request, and did not complete deployment of
Phase II service to Anchorage until at least October 28, 2005, more
than 17 months after Anchorage made its valid Phase II request.
39. Montgomery County, Kansas. ACC received a request for Phase II service
from Montgomery County on July 15, 2002, requested Richardson
documentation from the PSAP on October 29, 2002, and received such
documentation confirming that the request was valid on November 25,
2002. Dobson noted in its Supplemental LOI Response that Andrew
provided ACC with a market plan for delivering a potential Phase II
solution on October 20, 2003; that Andrew and ACC representatives
corresponded regularly from at least January 2004 until July 2004
regarding the need for a population map to identify what type of
coverage Andrew's solution would reach, but the map was not produced;
and that it is no longer using Andrew in this market, but has instead
shifted to utilizing Polaris. Dobson further noted that it expected to
complete all internal testing of the implemented solution by July 15,
2005, after which it would schedule formal acceptance. ACC's November
1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it "completed deployment of
the necessary software and hardware of the network-based E911 Phase II
solution" on August 30, 2005. Thus, ACC apparently did not complete
deployment of Phase II service to Montgomery County until at least
August 30, 2005, more than three years after Montgomery County made
its valid Phase II request.
40. Barren and Metcalfe Counties, Kentucky. ACC received a request for
Phase II service from the Barren-Metcalfe E9-1-1 for Barren and
Metcalfe Counties on May 4, 2004, requested Richardson documentation
from the PSAP on May 14, 2004, and received documentation confirming
that the request was valid on May 27, 2004. Dobson noted that ACC only
operates one cell site in these counties, making use of the Andrew
solution impractical, but did not otherwise discuss what steps it took
to implement Phase II service in these counties. Dobson stated in its
Supplemental LOI Response that ACC completed internal testing of the
Polaris solution on June 13, 2005, and had scheduled formal acceptance
for Barren County on June 23, 2005 and for Metcalfe County on June 28,
2005. ACC's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it
"completed deployment of the necessary software and hardware of the
network-based E911 Phase II solution for both Barren and Metcalfe
Counties" on July 27, 2005. Thus, ACC apparently did not complete
deployment of Phase II service in Barren and Metcalfe Counties until
at least June 13, 2005, more than 13 months after receiving a valid
Phase II request from Barren-Metcalfe E9-1-1.
41. Adair County, Kentucky. ACC received a request for Phase II service
from Adair County on May 19, 2004, requested Richardson documentation
from the PSAP on May 19, 2004, and received documentation confirming
that the request was valid on May 26, 2004. Dobson noted that ACC only
has two cell sites in this county, making Phase II deployment
technically problematic, but did not otherwise discuss what steps it
took to implement Phase II service in Adair County. Dobson stated in
its Supplemental LOI Response that ACC completed internal testing of
the Polaris solution on June 13, 2005, and completed formal acceptance
on June 21, 2005. However, during acceptance testing, ACC and the PSAP
encountered a problem relating to one particular sector of testing,
and both parties were working to resolve the issue. ACC's November 1,
2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it "completed deployment of the
necessary software and hardware of the network-based E911 Phase II
solution" in Adair County on July 20, 2005. Thus, ACC apparently did
not complete deployment of Phase II service until at least June 13,
2005, more than 13 months after receiving a valid Phase II request
from Adair County.
42. Hardin County, Kentucky. ACC received a request for Phase II service
from Hardin County on June 1, 2004, requested Richardson documentation
from the PSAP on June 3, 2004, and received documentation confirming
that the request was valid on July 7, 2004. Dobson stated that it
attempted to call Hardin County to discuss ACC's current deployment
efforts multiple times in June 2005 with no success, but did not
otherwise discuss what steps it took to implement Phase II service in
Hardin County. Dobson stated in its Supplemental LOI Response that ACC
completed internal testing on June 13, 2003, and attempted to complete
formal acceptance on June 21, 2005, but encountered technical
difficulties. ACC's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that
it "completed deployment of the necessary software and hardware of the
network-based E911 Phase II solution" in Hardin County on July 14,
2005. Thus, ACC apparently did not complete deployment of Phase II
service until July 14, 2005, more than 12 months after receiving a
valid Phase II request from Hardin County.
43. Green County, Kentucky. ACC received a valid request for Phase II
service from Green County on July 17, 2003. On February 10, 2004,
Dobson's E911 Project Manager notified Green County that ACC was
preparing a market plan, noting however that an alternative solution
might be required since ACC only operated one cell site in the county.
In March 2004, Andrew completed the market plan, which demonstrated
the lack of viability with only one operating cell site in the county.
In July 2004, the E911 Project Manager requested a meeting to discuss
the problems associated with the single cell density problem but did
not receive a response from the PSAP. Dobson stated that ACC completed
internal testing of the Polaris solution on June 13, 2003, and
completed formal acceptance on June 16, 2005. However, ACC encountered
technical difficulties with one particular TDMA cell site and planned
to continue to work to resolve it. ACC's November 1, 2005 Quarterly
Report indicated that it "completed deployment of the necessary
software and hardware of the network-based E911 Phase II solution" in
Green County on July 19, 2005. The Quarterly Report noted that ACC
encountered technical difficulties that it has resolved. Thus, ACC
apparently did not complete deployment of Phase II service until July
19, 2005, approximately two years after receiving a valid Phase II
request from Green County.
44. Frederick County, Maryland (Phase I and II). DCS received a request
for Phase I service from Frederick County on June 7, 2004, and a
request for Phase II service on June 14, 2004. On June 14, 2004, DCS
requested information regarding a nondisclosure agreement for Phase I,
as well as Richardson documentation, and received a signed NDA and the
requested Richardson documentation on July 19, 2004. Dobson indicated
in its Supplemental LOI response that DCS encountered difficulty in
establishing trunks to the selective router and had not yet deployed
Phase I or Phase II service in Frederick County. DCS's November 1,
2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it deployed Phase I service on
October 20, 2005, and that it also "completed deployment of the
necessary software and hardware of the network-based E911 Phase II
solution" on October 20, 2005. Thus, DCS apparently did not complete
deployment of Phase I and II service to Frederick County until at
least October 20, 2005, more than 15 months after Frederick County
made its valid Phase I and II requests.
45. Carroll County, Missouri (Phase I and II). DCS received valid requests
for Phase I and II service from Carroll County on August 4, 2004.
Dobson noted that, between December 2004 and February 2005, its E911
Project Manager repeatedly received incomplete cell site data from
internal Dobson sources, which delayed deployment of Phase I. Dobson
also noted that DCS ordered the necessary trunks from the LEC in
mid-March 2005, but the LEC did not provide the trunks on the
scheduled May 16, 2005 delivery date, pushing the Phase I deployment
date back further. DCS's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated
that it deployed Phase I service on July 15, 2005, and that it
"completed testing to demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and
longitude information is being transmitted in the appropriate format"
on September 26, 2005. Thus, DCS apparently did not complete
deployment of Phase I service to Carroll County until July 15, 2005,
almost a year after Carroll County made its valid Phase I request, and
did not complete deployment of Phase II service to Carroll County
until September 26, 2005, more than 13 months after Carroll County
made its valid Phase II request.
46. Schoharie County, New York (Phase I and II). ACC received a valid
request for Phase II service from Schoharie County on September 20,
2004. Dobson stated that ACC identified technical difficulties in
implementing Phase II service since it operates on only two cell sites
in Schoharie County and initially worked with Andrew to develop a
market plan that would provide a viable Phase II solution.
Subsequently, ACC shifted to the Polaris solution in this market.
Dobson indicated in its Supplemental LOI Response that ACC deployed
TDMA Phase II service on May 24, 2005, and also attempted to deploy
GSM Phase II service on that date but encountered technical
difficulties which it was trying to remedy. On June 17, 2005, Dobson's
E911 Project Manager discovered that due to an oversight he had not
scheduled any activities relating to GSM Phase I deployment in this
county. ACC's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it
deployed TDMA Phase II service on May 24, 2005. The Quarterly Report
also indicated that ACC deployed GSM Phase I service on October 20,
2005, and, on that same date, "completed deployment of the necessary
software and hardware of the network-based E911 Phase II solution" for
GSM Phase II service. Thus, ACC apparently did not complete deployment
of Phase I and Phase II service until October 20, 2005, more than a
year after Schoharie County made its valid Phase II request.
47. Otsego County, New York. ACC received a valid request for Phase II
service from Otsego County on February 20, 2004. Dobson stated that
ACC identified technical difficulties in implementing Phase II service
due to a `string-of-pearls' cell site configuration and initially
worked with Andrew to develop a market plan that would provide a
viable Phase II solution. Subsequently, ACC shifted to the Polaris
solution in this market. Dobson indicated in its Supplemental LOI
Response that ACC deployed Phase II service, including formal
acceptance, on May 24, 2005. However, ACC's November 1, 2005 Quarterly
Report indicated that it deployed GSM Phase II service on May 24,
2005, but that it "completed deployment of the necessary software and
hardware of the network-based E911 Phase II solution" for TDMA Phase
II service on July 19, 2005. Thus, ACC apparently did not complete
deployment of Phase II service until July 19, 2005, almost 17 months
after Otsego County made its valid Phase II request.
48. Steuben County, New York (Phase I and II). DCS received a valid
request for Phase I and II service from Steuben County on November 3,
2004. On December 1, 2004, Dobson's E911 Project Manager requested
necessary cell site data from internal Dobson personnel and received
an incomplete version of the cell site data on February 8, 2005, which
was not finalized until May 12, 2005. DCS subsequently ordered trunks
from the LEC and was still awaiting delivery of the trunks at the time
it submitted its Supplemental LOI Response. DCS's November 1, 2005
Quarterly Report indicated that it had difficulties establishing
connectivity with the LEC, and finally deployed both Phase I and Phase
II on October 26, 2005. Thus, DCS apparently did not complete
deployment of Phase I or Phase II service until October 26, 2005,
almost one year after Steuben County made its valid Phase I and II
requests.
49. Barbour County, West Virginia (Phase I). ACC received a valid request
for Phase I service from Barbour County on June 8, 2004. Dobson
asserted that its E911 Project Manager contacted Barbour County and
set a tentative deployment date of March 18, 2005, to which Barbour
County orally consented. Dobson further asserted that in early May
2005 (after Dobson's tentative deployment date), the E911 Project
Manager began accumulating cell site data for Barbour County. Dobson
noted that ACC was awaiting delivery of the only open item, the p-ANIs
which had been ordered from the LEC, before it could test for final
deployment. ACC's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it
deployed Phase I service in Barbour County on July 19, 2005. Thus, ACC
apparently did not complete deployment of Phase I service until July
19, 2005, more than one year after Barbour County made its valid Phase
I request.
50. Lewis and Gilmer Counties, West Virginia (Phase I and II). ACC
received valid requests for Phase I and II service on behalf of both
Lewis and Gilmer Counties on December 20, 2004. Dobson asserted that
its E911 Project Manager communicated with Lewis and Gilmer Counties
regarding the technical difficulties it faced in implementing Phase II
service due to a string-of-pearls cell site configuration in Lewis
County and the fact that there is only a single cell site in Gilmer
County. In early May 2005, Dobson's E911 Project Manager began
accumulating cell site data necessary for deployment of the Polaris
Phase II solution. Dobson stated in its Supplemental LOI Response that
ACC was awaiting certain technical data ordered from the LEC before it
could test for final deployment and that it expected to schedule final
Phase I testing on or around June 24, 2005. Dobson stated that ACC
expected to complete internal Phase II testing by July 31, 2005, after
which it would schedule formal acceptance. ACC's November 1, 2005
Quarterly Report indicated that it completed deployment of Phase I
service in Lewis and Gilmer Counties on July 19, 2005. ACC's Quarterly
Report also indicated that it "completed installation of the necessary
software and hardware of the network-based E911 Phase II solution" and
"completed testing to demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and
longitude information is being transmitted in the appropriate format"
in both Lewis and Gilmer Counties on October 31, 2005. Thus, ACC
apparently did not complete deployment of Phase I service in Lewis and
Gilmer Counties until July 19, 2005, approximately seven months after
receiving valid requests for Phase I service for these two PSAPs, and
that it did not complete deployment of Phase II service in Lewis and
Gilmer Counties until October 31, 2005, approximately ten months after
receiving valid requests for Phase II service for these two PSAPs.
51. Harrison, Marion, Monongalia, Preston, and Taylor Counties, West
Virginia. ACC received valid requests for Phase II service from the
North Central West Virginia MECCA 911 on behalf of Harrison, Marion,
Monongalia, Preston and Taylor Counties on September 2, 2003. In light
of difficulties anticipated due to low cell site density in these
counties, Dobson's E911 Project Manager met with all five of the
individual county PSAP directors on March 26, 2004. At this meeting,
the E911 Project Manager requested and received oral agreement from
the five PSAPs to extend the deployment schedule until July 1, 2004.
Dobson noted that ACC ordered Phase II equipment from Andrew and
necessary GPS antennas in June 2004; that the GPS antennas were
delivered on July 1, 2004 and installed in October 2004; and that the
Andrew equipment was delivered in September 2004 and installed in
November 2004. Dobson further noted that ACC ordered additional
required equipment in December 2004, and completed installation of
this equipment in June 2005. Dobson stated that ACC expected to
complete all internal testing by July 1, 2005, after which it would
schedule formal acceptance. ACC's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report
indicated that it "completed installation of the necessary software
and hardware of the network-based E911 Phase II solution" and
"completed testing to demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and
longitude information is being transmitted in the appropriate format"
in all five counties between August 22 and August 24, 2005. Thus, ACC
apparently did not complete deployment of Phase II service in these
five counties until between August 22 and 24, 2005, approximately two
years after receiving valid Phase II requests for these five PSAPs and
eleven months after Dobson's extended deployment deadline of July 1,
2004.
III. DISCUSSION
52. Under Section 503(b)(1)(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended ("Act"), any person who is determined by the Commission to
have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of
the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission
shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. To
impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice
of apparent liability and the person against whom such notice has been
issued must have an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such
forfeiture penalty should be imposed. The Commission will then issue a
forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the
person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. As set forth in
detail below, we conclude under this standard that Dobson is
apparently liable for forfeiture for its apparent willful and repeated
violations of Section 20.18(d) and (f) of the Rules.
53. The fundamental issue in this case is whether Dobson apparently
violated the Commission's rules by willfully or repeatedly failing to
timely provide E911 Phase I and Phase II service in response to valid
PSAP requests. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, we conclude
that DCS and ACC are each apparently liable for a forfeiture of
$375,000 for a total forfeiture in the amount of $750,000 for
apparently willfully and repeatedly violating Section 20.18(d) and (f)
of the Rules.
A. Failure to Timely Provide E911
54. As noted above, the E911 Phase I rules require wireless carriers to
provide designated PSAPs with both the telephone number of the mobile
handset that originated the 911 call and the location of the base
station or cell site that received the 911 call, within six months of
a valid request by a designated PSAP. Under the E911 Phase II rules,
wireless carriers must provide designated PSAPs with the location of
wireless 911 callers, using either a network-based or handset-based
solution. Carriers, such as Dobson, which choose to deploy a
network-based Phase II solution must provide Phase II service to at
least 50 percent of the PSAP's coverage area or at least 50 percent of
its population within six months of a valid PSAP request, and to 100
percent of the PSAP's coverage area or 100 percent of its population
within 18 months of such a request. With respect to the Complainant
PSAPs, the record before us establishes that Dobson apparently failed
to timely provide Phase I service in response to one valid PSAP
request and failed to timely deploy Phase II service in response to
eleven valid PSAP requests. With respect to the other PSAPs, the
record establishes that Dobson apparently failed to timely provide
Phase I service in response to eight valid PSAP requests and failed to
timely deploy Phase II service in response to 30 valid PSAP requests.
Accordingly, based on the preponderance of the evidence, we find that
Dobson apparently failed to timely provide Phase I service in response
to valid PSAP requests in violation of Section 20.18(d) of the Rules
in nine instances, and apparently failed to timely provide Phase II
service in response to valid PSAP requests in violation of Section
20.18(f) of the Rules in 41 instances. We note that 25 of these 50
violations occurred in markets in which DCS is the system licensee,
and 25 occurred in markets in which ACC is the system licensee.
B. Proposed Forfeiture
55. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide
that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the
provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture
penalty. Based upon the record before us, Dobson's apparent violations
of Section 20.18(d) and (f) of the Rules were willful and repeated.
56. Under Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act, we may assess a common carrier
a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation, or for each day of
a continuing violation up to a maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act
or failure to act. Additionally, in assessing an appropriate
forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors set forth in Section
503(b)(2)(D) of the Act , which includes "the nature, circumstances,
extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator,
the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to
pay, and such other matters as justice may require," as well as
guidelines set forth in the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement.
57. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the
Rules do not establish a base forfeiture for violation of Sections
20.18(d) and 20.18(f). Nevertheless, the Commission has stated that
the "omission of a specific rule violation from the list ...
[establishing base forfeiture amounts] should not signal that the
Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or
unimportant. The Commission expects, and it is each licensee's
obligation, to know and comply with all of the Commission's rules."
Thus, the Commission retains its discretion to issue forfeitures on a
case-by-case basis, and has assessed forfeiture liability, for rule
violations irrespective of whether corresponding base forfeiture
amounts have been established.
58. The record establishes that Dobson apparently failed to timely provide
E911 Phase I service in nine instances and to timely provide E911
Phase II service in 41 instances. Thus, Dobson apparently failed to
timely provide E911 service in a total of 50 instances. As noted
above, 25 of these 50 violations occurred in markets in which DCS is
the system licensee, and 25 occurred in markets in which ACC is the
system licensee.
59. Having considered the statutory factors enumerated above, we conclude
that a substantial proposed forfeiture is warranted. First, we find
that the violations here are egregious. Violations of E911
requirements are extremely serious, given the critical function these
requirements serve in promoting and safeguarding life and property.
Further, we note that nine of the 50 violations involved Dobson's
failure to timely provide Phase I service. The Phase I requirements
set forth in Section 20.18(d) have been in effect for over seven
years. We also believe that a substantial proposed forfeiture is
warranted based on the continuous and repeated nature of the
violations. In this regard, we take into account the substantial
number of violations and the fact that a number of the violations
involved valid PSAP requests that had been pending for as long as two
or three years. Finally, we take into account Dobson's size and
ability to pay a forfeiture in determining the appropriate forfeiture
amount. We note, in this connection, that Dobson is the largest
independent rural wireless carrier and the ninth largest wireless
carrier in the country. Dobson owns more than sixty wireless markets
in 16 states and serves more than 1.6 million subscribers. Dobson
generated more than $1 billion in revenue in 2004, and for the first
nine months of 2005 showed a 17% increase in revenues over the
previous nine months. As the Commission made clear in the Forfeiture
Policy Statement, large or highly profitable communications entities,
such as Dobson, could expect forfeitures higher than those reflected
in the base amounts. In view of Dobson's size and ability to pay, we
believe that a substantial proposed forfeiture is appropriate in order
for the proposed forfeiture to serve as an effective deterrent to
future violations the E911 requirements.
60. We recognize that Dobson has encountered some difficulties in
developing its Phase II solution, including delays in the delivery of
equipment and necessary facilities, which impeded timely deployment.
It is well established that "an assertion that a vendor, manufacturer,
or other entity was unable to supply compliant products will not
excuse noncompliance" with E911 requirements. On the other hand, a
carrier's "concrete and timely actions" taken with a vendor,
manufacturer, or other entity may be considered as possible mitigation
factors in an enforcement context. Based on the record before us, we
conclude that Dobson has not shown that it exercised the level of
diligence expected of carriers in addressing the deployment of E911
services to warrant any mitigation. Rather, the record indicates that
Dobson may not have dedicated sufficient resources and attention to
E911 implementation at a time when it was actively expanding its
wireless market holdings and converting its network from TDMA to GSM
technology. Moreover, it appears that many of the violations stemmed,
in part, from a lack of corporate oversight of the Dobson employee
charged with the important function of managing Dobson's deployment of
E911. We also note that nine of the 50 apparent violations involved
Dobson's failure to timely provide Phase I service, which does not
present the same technical challenges as Phase II deployment.
61. Accordingly, based on the egregious, continuous and repeated nature of
the violations and Dobson's ability to pay a forfeiture, we propose an
aggregate forfeiture of $750,000 for Dobson's apparent willful and
repeated violations of Section 20.18(d) and (f) of the Rules. While
the proposed forfeiture amount is substantial, we note that it is
significantly lower than the straightforward application of the
applicable maximum statutory forfeiture amount. Because DCS and ACC
each apparently failed to timely provide E911 service in 25 instances,
each system licensee is apparently liable for half of the total
proposed forfeiture amount, $375,000.
IV. CONCLUSION
62. We conclude that DCS and ACC both apparently willfully and repeatedly
violated Section 20.18(d) and (f) of the Rules by failing to fulfill
valid requests for Phase I and Phase II E911 service to the
above-listed PSAPs within six months of the date of the request. For
these violations, we propose forfeitures totaling $750,000.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
63. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. and
American Cellular Corporation are each NOTIFIED of its APPARENT
LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE for willful and repeated violations of
Section 20.18(d) and (f) of the Rules as follows:
(a) Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. in the amount of three hundred seventy
five thousand dollars ($375,000); and
(b) American Cellular Corporation in the amount of three hundred seventy
five thousand dollars ($375,000).
64. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules,
within thirty days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. and American
Cellular Corporation SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed
forfeitures or SHALL FILE written statement(s) seeking reduction or
cancellation of the proposed forfeitures.
65. Payment of the forfeitures shall be made in the manner provided for in
Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
If the forfeitures are not paid within the period specified, the case
may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant
to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeitures must be made
by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
Communications Commission. Payment by check or money order may be
mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 358340,
Pittsburgh, PA 15251-8340. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to
Mellon Bank/LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 1540670, Pittsburgh, PA
15251. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 043000261,
receiving bank Mellon Bank, and account number 911-6106. Requests for
payment of the full amount of the NAL under an installment plan should
be sent to: Associate Managing Director - Financial Operations, 445
12^th Street, S.W., Room 1A625, Washington, D.C. 20554. The payments
should note the following:
(a) Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. -- NAL/Acct. No. 200632100010 and FRN #
0001699719; and
(b) American Cellular Corporation -- NAL/Acct. No. 200632100011 and FRN #
0003767324.
66. The response(s), if any, must be mailed to the Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau - Spectrum
Enforcement Division, and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in
the caption.
67. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in
response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits:
(1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; (2)
financial statements prepared according to generally accepted
accounting practices; or (3) some other reliable and objective
documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's current
financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically
identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial
documentation submitted.
68. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail
return receipt requested to Ronald L. Ripley, Senior Vice President
and General Counsel, Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. and American
Cellular Corporation, 14201 Wireless Way, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
73134, and to Lawrence J. Movshin, Esq., and Timothy J. Cooney, Esq.,
Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP, 2300 N Street, N.W., Suite 700,
Washington DC 20037-1128.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. and American Cellular Corporation are sister
companies and wholly-owned subsidiaries of Dobson Communications
Corporation.
47 C.F.R. S 20.18(d) and (f).
47 C.F.R. S 20.18(d).
47 C.F.R. S 20.18(e).
See 47 C.F.R. S 20.18(f) and (g). Network-based location solutions employ
equipment and/or software added to the wireless carrier networks to
calculate and report the location of handsets dialing 911. These solutions
do not require changes or special hardware or software in wireless
handsets. See 47 C.F.R. S 20.3, Network-based Location Technology.
Handset-based solutions employ special location-determining hardware
and/or software in wireless handsets, often in addition to network
upgrades, to identify and report the location of handsets calling 911. See
47 C.F.R. S 20.3, Location-capable Handsets.
47 C.F.R. S 20.18(f). In 2002, the Commission temporarily stayed certain
E911 Phase II deadlines for Tier II and Tier III carriers. Revision of the
Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency
Calling Systems, Phase II Compliance Deadlines for Non-Nationwide CMRS
Carriers, Order to Stay, CC Docket No. 94-102, 17 FCC Rcd 14841 (2002)
("Order to Stay"). For Tier II carriers choosing to deploy a network-based
Phase II solution, the Commission provided that carriers must provide
Phase II service to at least 50 percent of the PSAP's coverage area or
population beginning March 1, 2003, or within six months of a PSAP
request, whichever is later; and to 100 percent of the PSAP's coverage
area or population by March 1, 2004, or within 18 months of such a
request, whichever is later. Id. at 17851, P 26.
47 C.F.R. S 20.18(h)(1).
See 47 C.F.R. S 20.18(j)(1), (2); see also Revision of the Commission's
Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems,
Petition of City of Richardson, Texas, Order, 16 FCC Rcd 18982, 18982 P 1
(2001) ("City of Richardson"), recon. granted in part, denied in part,
Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced
911 Emergency Calling Systems, Petition of City of Richardson, Texas,
Order on Reconsideration, 17 FCC Rcd 24282 (2002) ("Richardson
Reconsideration").
See Richardson Reconsideration, 17 FCC Rcd at 24283, P 5.
47 C.F.R. S 20.18(j)(3); see also Richardson Reconsideration, 17 FCC Rcd
at 24284, P 10. A wireless carrier is free to request readiness
documentation from a PSAP more than 15 days after receipt of the PSAP's
E911 service request, but in this event, the PSAP's failure to provide the
documentation within 15 days will not toll the six-month implementation
period. Id.
The Commission has defined "Tier II" carriers to include Commercial Mobile
Radio Service ("CMRS") carriers that had over 500,000 subscribers as of
the end of 2001. Order to Stay, 17 FCC Rcd at 14848, P 22.
Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. E911 Quarterly Report, CC Docket No. 94-102,
filed February 1, 2006.
Letter from Harriet Miller-Brown, State 911 Administrator, Michigan State
Police, to Kathryn Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
Enforcement Bureau (April 14, 2005) ("Informal Complaint").
The Michigan PSAPs formally denied Dobson's extension request and outlined
the criteria for refraining from filing a complaint with the FCC in
letters to the E911 Project Manager dated November 1, 2004 and November
30, 2004. Informal Complaint, Attachments A and B.
Informal Complaint, Attachment I. The March 31, 2005 deployment schedule
explained that an "uncalibrated" deployment means that the caller's
latitude and longitude information may or may not be within the FCC's
accuracy standards. Id.
Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement
Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Ronald L. Ripley, Senior Vice President
and General Counsel, Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. (May 4, 2005).
Letter from Ronald L. Ripley, Senior Vice President and General Counsel,
Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. (May 24, 2005) ("LOI Response").
Letter from Ronald L. Ripley, Senior Vice President and General Counsel,
Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. (June 23, 2005) ("Supplemental LOI
Response").
Letter from Lawrence J. Movshin and Timothy J. Cooney (August 25, 2005)
("Second Supplemental LOI Response").
We note that the Michigan 911 State Administrator's informal complaint
alleged that Dobson had failed to timely implement Phase I service to two
Michigan PSAPs and Phase II service to 14 Michigan PSAPs. However,
Dobson's LOI response indicated that Phase I service had in fact been
deployed in Roscommon County, Michigan prior to its acquisition of this
market on June 15, 2004. LOI Response, Attachment A, at 1. Further,
Dobson's LOI Response indicated that it treated Phase II requests from
Menominee County, Sanilac County, and Tuscola County, Michigan as invalid,
because it made timely requests for Richardson documentation from these
counties, but did not receive responses from these counties demonstrating
their readiness to receive and utilize Phase II information. Id. at 3-4.
Thus, we find herein that Dobson apparently failed to implement Phase I
service within six months in response to a valid request from one of the
Complainant PSAPs and to implement Phase II service within six months in
response to valid requests from eleven of the Complainant PSAPs.
LOI Response, Attachment A, at 2-4.
LOI Response at 4. Under Section 20.18(j)(5) of the Rules, a carrier and a
PSAP may establish, by mutual consent, Phase I and Phase II deployment
deadlines different from those imposed in the rules. 47 C.F.R. S
20.18(j)(5).
LOI Response, Attachment A, at 2-4.
Id. at 2.
Id. at 12.
Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. E911 Quarterly Report, CC Docket No. 94-102,
filed November 1, 2005 ("DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report"), at 1.
ACC's November 1, 2005 E911 Quarterly Report includes a similar statement.
American Cellular Corporation E911 Quarterly Report, CC Docket No. 94-102,
filed November 1, 2005 ("ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report"), at 1.
Tier II carriers, such as Dobson and ACC, are required to submit quarterly
reports to the Commission providing detailed information regarding the
status of all pending Phase I and Phase II requests and their compliance
with applicable provisions of the E911 rules. Order to Stay, 17 FCC Rcd at
14851-53 PP 28-31.
Second Supplemental LOI Response at 1.
Id., Appendix A, at 3.
Likewise, with respect to other PSAPs discussed below, we observe an
apparent inconsistency between Dobson's representations in its LOI
Responses and the Quarterly Reports filed by DCS and ACC regarding when
they "deployed" E911 service. As with Alcona County, we find that, using
either date, DCS or ACC apparently failed to timely provide E911 service
to these PSAPs.
LOI Response, Attachment A, at 2.
Id. at 12.
Second Supplemental LOI Response at 1.
DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 4.
LOI Response, Attachment A, at 2.
Id. at 12.
Second Supplemental LOI Response at 1.
LOI Response, Attachment A, at 2.
Id. at 12.
Second Supplemental LOI Response at 1.
ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 9.
LOI Response, Attachment A, at 2.
Id. at 12.
Second Supplemental LOI Response at 2. Dobson also indicated that the PSAP
subsequently requested that Dobson revert back to Phase I until such time
as accuracy can be improved. Id.
LOI Response, Attachment A, at 3.
Id. at 12.
Second Supplemental LOI Response at 2.
LOI Response, Attachment A, at 3.
Id. at 12.
Second Supplemental LOI Response at 2.
Id.
ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 7. ACC's November 1,
2005 Quarterly Report did not address when it completed testing to
demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude information is being
transmitted in the appropriate format.
LOI Response, Attachment A, at 1.
Id. at 1, 3.
Id. at 5, 12.
Second Supplemental LOI Response at 2.
Id.
LOI Response, Attachment A, at 3.
Id. at 12.
Second Supplemental LOI Response at 3.
LOI Response, Attachment A, at 3.
Although Dobson stated in its LOI Response that DCS informed Osceola
County that it did not currently provide service in Osceola County and did
not intend to do so until the NPI transaction was complete, DCS's November
1, 2005 Quarterly Report indicated that it received a request for Phase I
service from Osceola County on September 1, 2000, and deployed Phase I
service in Osceola County on April 25, 2002. DCS November 1, 2005
Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 5. Thus, DCS apparently had previously
provided service in Osceola County.
LOI Response, Attachment A, at 13.
Second Supplemental LOI Response at 3.
LOI Response, Attachment A, at 4.
Id. at 13.
Second Supplemental LOI Response at 3.
Id.
Id.
LOI Response at 2.
Id. at 3-4.
Id., Appendix A, at 6.
Id.
Id., Appendix A, at 6-7.
Id.
Id. at 4.
Id., Appendix A, at 7-8.
Id.
Id.
Id. at 4.
Id.
Id. at 4-5.
Although Dobson's Supplemental LOI Response identified numerous other
Phase I and Phase II requests that had been pending for more than six
months, some of these requests appeared to be invalid because the PSAP
failed to provide Richardson documentation in response to a timely request
from DCS or ACC. In addition, some of the PSAPs had entered into
agreements with DCS or ACC to extend the six-month implementation
deadline. Finally, in some cases, there was insufficient information in
the record to find that DCS or ACC failed to timely implement Phase I or
Phase II service in apparent violation of the rules.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 19.
Dobson indicated that Clare County's Phase II request was incorrectly
addressed to T-Mobile, which subsequently informed Clare County that the
request should have been sent to NPI. Dobson stated that it has not seen
any evidence that the request was in fact re-addressed to NPI.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 20.
However, given that Clare County entered into an agreement with NPI to
extend the deployment deadline until December 31, 2004, it is reasonable
to presume that the request was re-addressed to NPI.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 20.
Dobson does not explain in the Supplemental LOI Response what it means by
"formal acceptance." However, it appears that this means that it has
completed testing to demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude
information is being transmitted in the appropriate format and presented
this testing to the PSAP for acceptance.
DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 5.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 19.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 20.
DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 5.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 22.
Id.
ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 8. ACC's November 1,
2005 Quarterly Report did not address when it completed testing to
demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude information is being
transmitted in the appropriate format.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 23.
Id.
ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 8. ACC's November 1,
2005 Quarterly Report did not address when it completed testing to
demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude information is being
transmitted in the appropriate format.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 20.
Id.
DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 4.
See paragraph 52 infra.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 18.
Id.
DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 1.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 23.
Id.
ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 8. ACC's November 1,
2005 Quarterly Report did not address when it completed testing to
demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude information is being
transmitted in the appropriate format.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 19.
We note that a wireless carrier may request readiness documentation from a
PSAP more than 15 days after receipt of the PSAP's E911 service request,
but in this event, the PSAP's failure to provide the documentation within
15 days will not toll the six-month implementation period. See 47 C.F.R. S
20.18(j)(3); see also Richardson Reconsideration, 17 FCC Rcd at 24284,
P 10. Thus, Lake County's failure to provide Richardson documentation
within 15 days of DCS's untimely request did not toll the six-month
implementation period.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 19.
DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 1.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 19.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 19.
DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 1.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 18.
Although Dobson indicated that DCS owned and operated this market prior to
June 2004, when it acquired NPI's assets in Michigan, it also stated that
DCS obtained a copy of the Phase II request made by Mason-Oceana 911 to
NPI on January 29, 2003, along with an agreement, dated April 29, 2003, to
extend NPI's Phase II deployment deadline until December 31, 2004. Id. It
is unclear from this statement whether DCS relied on this extension
granted to NPI, or what the basis for such reliance was, given that it
owned and operated the market prior to its acquisition of NPI's assets.
Id.
DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 1.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 21.
Id.
DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 5.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 22.
Id.
ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 8. ACC's November 1,
2005 Quarterly Report did not address when it completed testing to
demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude information is being
transmitted in the appropriate format.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 1.
Id. at 2.
DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 1.
Id. DCS's November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report did not address when it
completed testing to demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude
information is being transmitted in the appropriate format.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 27.
Id. at 28.
ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 11. The Quarterly
Report did not address when it completed testing to demonstrate to the
PSAP that latitude and longitude information is being transmitted in the
appropriate format.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 6.
Id.
ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 1.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 10.
Id.
ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 3.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 12.
Because Hardin County did not provide the Richardson documentation within
15 days of ACC's request, the six-month implementation period was tolled
briefly, until it provided the documentation on July 7, 2004. See 47
C.F.R. S 20.18(j)(3).
Id.
ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 3.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 13.
Id.
ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 3.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 4.
Id. at 4-5.
DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 9. DCS's Quarterly
Report did not address when it completed testing to demonstrate to the
PSAP that latitude and longitude information is being transmitted in the
appropriate format.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 2.
Id. at 3.
DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 9.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 28.
ACC received a valid request for Phase I service from Schoharie County on
November 4, 2002, and deployed TDMA Phase I in Schoharie County on
November 11, 2003. ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at
11. When ACC subsequently overlayed its TDMA network with GSM technology
in Schoharie County, it apparently failed to deploy GSM Phase I service.
ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 11.
Id. The Quarterly Report did not address when ACC completed testing for
GSM Phase II to demonstrate to the PSAP that latitude and longitude
information is being transmitted in the appropriate format.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 28.
ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 11.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 29.
DCS November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 10.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at 17.
Pseudo-Automatic Number Identification or "p-ANI" is "a number, consisting
of the same number of digits as ANI, that is not a North American
Numbering Plan telephone directory number and may be used in place of an
ANI to convey special meaning." The special meaning assigned to the p-ANI
is determined by agreements between the system originating the call,
intermediate systems routing and handling the call, and the destination
system. 47 C.F.R. S 20.3.
ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 11.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at
14-15.
Id. at 15.
ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 7.
Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment B, Response to Question 13, at
16-17.
Id. at 17.
ACC November 1, 2005 Quarterly Report, Appendix A, at 5-6.
47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(a)(1). Section 312(f)(1) of the
Act defines "willful" as "the conscious and deliberate commission or
omission of [any] act, irrespective of any intent to violate" the law. 47
U.S.C. S 312(f)(1). The legislative history of Section 312(f)(1) of the
Act clarifies that this definition of willful applies to both Sections 312
and 503(b) of the Act, H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97^th Cong. 2d Sess. 51
(1982), and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section
503(b) context. See, e.g., Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd
4387, 4388 (1991) ("Southern California"). The Commission may also assess
a forfeiture for violations that are merely repeated, and not willful.
See, e.g., Callais Cablevision, Inc., 16 FCC Rcd 1359 (2001) ("Callais
Cablevision") (issuing a notice of apparent liability for forfeiture for,
inter alia, a cable television operator's repeated signal leakage). The
term "repeated" means that the act was committed or omitted more than
once, or lasts more than one day. Callais Cablevision, 16 FCC Rcd at 1362,
P 9; Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, P 5.
47 U.S.C. S 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(f).
See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591, P 4 (2002).
See discussion at paragraphs 9-20, supra. Following receipt of Dobson's
LOI responses, the Enforcement Bureau received additional complaints from
the Michigan 911 State Administrator and the Michigan Communication
Directors Association which asserted that Dobson's Phase II deployment in
Michigan has not yielded a level of accuracy that the PSAPs can rely upon
or that meets the FCC's accuracy standards. We note that the issue of
location accuracy as a general matter is being addressed via the Network
Reliability and Interoperability Council ("NRIC") process. See NRIC VII
FOCUS GROUP 1A, Near Term Issues for Emergency/E9-1-1 Services, Final
Report, December 16, 2005, available at http://www.nric.org/fg/index.html.
Accordingly, we do not address this issue herein.
See discussion at paragraphs 25-51, supra.
47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(B). The Commission twice amended Section 1.80(b)(3)
of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3), to increase the maxima forfeiture
amounts, in accordance with the inflation adjustment requirements
contained in the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. S
2461. See Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and
Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221
(2000) (adjusting the maximum statutory amounts from $100,000/$1,000,000
to $120,000/$1,200,000); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's
Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 19 FCC Rcd
10945 (2004) (adjusting the maximum statutory amounts from
$120,000/$1,200,000 to $130,000/$1,325,000); see also 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(c).
47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(D).
See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section
1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd
17087, 17115 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture
Policy Statement").
Id. at 12 FCC Rcd at 17099 P 22.
Id.
See Callais Cablevision, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 22626, 22630 PP 19-20 (2002)
(assessing an aggregate $133,000 forfeiture irrespective of the absence of
an established base forfeiture for violations of the cable signal leakage
standards); Midwest Television, Inc., 20 FCC Rcd 3959 (Enf. Bur. 2005)
(assessing a $20,000 proposed forfeiture irrespective of the absence of an
established base forfeiture for failure to broadcast emergency information
accessible to hearing impaired viewers); A-O Broadcasting Corp., 31
Communications Reg. (P&F) 411 P 22 (2003), forfeiture ordered, 20 FCC Rcd
756 (2005) (assessing a $28,000 forfeiture, inter alia, irrespective of
the absence of an established base forfeiture for violations of radio
frequency exposure limits).
See Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with
Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Second Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 14 FCC Rcd 20850, 20852 P 2 (1999), clarified, 16 FCC Rcd 18982
(2001); see also T-Mobile USA, Inc., 18 FCC Rcd 3501, 3504 P 7 (2003);
Sprint Spectrum LP d/b/a Sprint PCS, 19 FCC Rcd 19901, 19906 P 12 (Enf.
Bur. 2004), consent decree ordered, 20 FCC Rcd 12328 (Enf. Bur. 2005).
Dobson Communications Corporation 2004 Annual Report to Shareholders,
www.dobson.net.
Dobson Communications Corporation Form 424B3 (Prospectus), February 10,
2006, at 25.
Specifically, the Commission stated:
[O]n the other end of the spectrum of potential violations, we recognize
that for large or highly profitable communication entities, the base
forfeiture amounts ... are generally low. In this regard, we are mindful
that, as Congress has stated, for a forfeiture to be an effective
deterrent against these entities, the forfeiture must be issued at a high
level .... For this reason, we caution all entities and individuals that,
independent from the uniform base forfeiture amounts ..., we intend to
take into account the subsequent violator's ability to pay in determining
the amount of a forfeiture to guarantee that forfeitures issued against
large or highly profitable entities are not considered merely an
affordable cost of doing business. Such large or highly profitable
entities should expect in this regard that the forfeiture amount set out
in a Notice of Apparent Liability against them may in many cases be above,
or even well above, the relevant base amount.
Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099-100.
See paragraphs 40-41, 43, 46-47 and 50-51 supra.
Order to Stay, 17 FCC Rcd at 14854 P 37; Revision of the Commission's
Rules to Ensure Compatibility of Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems,
Request for Waiver by Sprint Spectrum LP d/b/a Sprint PCS, 16 FCC Rcd
18330, 18340 P 32 (2001); Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure
Compatibility of Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Request for
Waiver by AT&T Wireless Services, 16 FCC Rcd 18253, 18261 P 26 (2001).
Id.
See paragraph 56 supra.
47 U.S.C. S 504(a).
See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.
Id.
Continued from previous page
(continued ...)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-48
2
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-48