States, Others Want Rules, Not Voluntary Wireless Resilience

Commenters disagreed whether the voluntary wireless network resiliency cooperative framework, launched in 2016, is working and whether to codify some or all of the framework, in reply comments posted in docket 21-346 through Wednesday. Commissioners approved a network resilience NPRM 4-0 in September, amid hints regulation could follow (see 2109300069). State and public interest groups want rules, which they say would make networks more resilient.

Verizon criticized comments made “without elaboration that disaster roaming is not occurring or is inadequate.” Initial comments were due in December (see 2112170065). “This reflects a myopic and outdated assessment of the commercial wireless marketplace and providers’ business and disaster preparation practices,” Verizon said. “Disaster roaming occurs regardless of whether the Framework is triggered,” the carrier said. Unlike 2016, “Today, the technical, security, and reliability challenges involved in supporting roaming between commercial LTE networks, including during disasters, are better understood and largely resolved for most users,” Verizon said.

Free Press said participation in the framework should be mandatory. “Creating mandatory obligations for communications providers before, during and after a disaster will create a much-needed federal regulatory floor for network resiliency and promote equitable outcomes for all communities,” the group said. “Codifying the Framework would essentially use what industry has already identified as best practices” but “subject participants and these practices to independent scrutiny or measurement for efficacy by the Commission,” Free Press said.

The voluntary framework is “woefully insufficient,” Public Knowledge said. Carriers have made “incremental improvements” since 2014, but “the inconsistent practices and viewpoints of wireless carriers on display in the comments, and the resulting consequences to their customers and neighboring carriers’ customers, lay bare the need for meaningful and binding protections for the public instead of continued reliance on inadequate and ad hoc industry measures,” PK said.

Resilience rules should be mandatory because a voluntary framework isn’t working, the California Public Utilities Commission said. “For years the CPUC and our sister agencies have relied on the voluntary efforts of communications service providers to ensure public safety,” the CPUC said: “After each disaster, we continue to experience among others, widespread outages, delayed restoration efforts, and difficulties reaching 911 for hundreds of thousands of people.”

“It is imperative that the FCC develop mandatory standards for network resiliency and power outages for providers to follow, such as battery back-up requirements and better response plans in emergencies, regardless of the technology used by the providers,” said the Michigan Public Service Commission.

Modify the framework to impose resiliency requirements on all service providers who handle 911 calls, the National Association of State Consumer Advocates urged. “The requirements should apply to both facilities-based wireless and wireline carriers, and to providers that offer backhaul service necessary to transport wireless, wireline and other communications services,” the group said.

T-Mobile encouraged the FCC to focus on the resilience of backhaul and power for cellsites. It proposed a separate framework for backhaul providers: “If backhaul providers improve their network resiliency, especially in the ‘last mile,’ the volume of wireless service outages caused by natural disasters will decrease.” Rather than imposing backup power requirements, T-Mobile suggested more focus on “improving the resiliency of the power grid.”

USTelecom said the FCC shouldn’t impose new resilience rules. “Additional regulation to promote network resiliency is unnecessary and would only serve to interrupt effective industry collaboration and market forces already at work to ensure reliable, resilient service,” it commented: “The record demonstrates that communications providers are already driven to ensure their networks remain up and running.”

Some “targeted improvements” to the framework may be needed but should “remain voluntary and … not be codified,” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said. The Chamber warned against “reflexively” extending wireless requirements to other networks: “Non-wireless networks have remarkably different technologies and structure and, as a result, forcing resiliency recommendations and/or commitments on such networks would have a disruptive effect and not generate any resiliency results that the Commission hopes to achieve.”