Analytics for Business, Policy and Law in a Comparative Review of Enhanced Wireless Emergency Number Call Services Systems in the European Union and United States


ANALYTICS FOR BUSINESS, POLICY AND LAW IN
A COMPARATIVE REVIEW OF

ENHANCED WIRELESS EMERGENCY NUMBER
CALL SERVICES SYSTEMS

IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND UNITED STATES*

James E. Holloway**

Elaine Seeman***

Margaret O'Hara****

Arno Forst*****

I. INTRODUCTION

Imagine you are attending a conference at a resort somewhere in North
America, Europe or another continent. While relaxing in your spacious
bungalow or room, your right arm starts to shake, with numbness running from
your fingers to your elbow, and you hear your heart pounding loudly in your
chest. You just know that you need immediate emergency medical assistance.
Responding like a creature of habit, you quickly grab your cellular telephone
and dial the local emergency call number that is near the nightstand in your
room. You scream "please help me, I am dying of a heart attack!" Immediately
thereafter, you give your first name and then lose consciousness before you can
give your precise location. The emergency center receives your cellular
telephone number but is not equipped to determine your location. Based on
this small center's past experiences with local emergencies, it gives the resort
your first name and cellular telephone number in about three minutes. In
approximately four minutes, the resort finds your first name and number in its
database and enters your bungalow or room. Fortuitously, your numbness and
pounding are just a bad case of intestinal gas. You are alive and well. Of
course, others have not been as fortuitous.'

* An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the

MidAtlantic Academy of Legal Studies in Business in April 2005, at Peirce College,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. We give thanks to our colleagues at this meeting for their
suggestions and comments on the paper. Professor Holloway was awarded a Research
Fellowship by the College of Business, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina.
Thank you to the Dean and Distinguished Research Professor Frederick Niswander, Ph.D., for
the financial support and release time to complete the research, writing, and editing of this
article.

** Professor, Business Law, Department of Finance, East Carolina University,
Greenville, North Carolina. B.S., North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University,
1972; M.B.A., East Carolina University, 1984; J.D., University of North Carolina at Chapel



IND. INT'L & COMp. L. REV.

Against the backdrop of the global dependence on wireless, mobile or
cellular technologies and their imminent public policy implications are
excruciating needs for effective public safety, telecommunications, privacy,
liability and economic policies. National or regional regulation and policies
would obligate wireless carriers to transmit timely, accurate location
information to establish and implement enhanced wireless emergency call
number systems that receive wireless callers' requests for emergency medical,
fire, police and rescue services and assistance.2 The 911 emergency wireline

Hill, 1983.
*** Assistant Professor, Management Information Systems, Department of

Management Information Systems, East Carolina University, Greenville, North
Carolina. B.A., Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 1973; M.B.A., East Carolina
University, 1997; Ph.D., Indiana State University, 2002.

**** Associate Professor. Management Information Systems, Department of
Management Information Systems, East Carolina University, Greenville, North
Carolina. B.S. Secondary Education, 1973, Seton Hall University, PhD, University of
Georgia, 1996.

***** Ph.D. Candidate, Accounting, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond,
Virginia; Assessor jur., Germany, 1999; MLI., University of Wisconsin, 1996.

1. See Anne Marie Squeo, Cellphone Hangup: When You Dial 911, Can Help Find
You?, WALL ST. J., May 12, 2005, at Al. There have been numerous incidents where wireless
subscribers or callers have suffered or died unnecessarily because emergency centers could not
determine their precise location. See id. Ms. Squeo reports that "[in March [2004], a man died
in a Long Island snowstorm after calling 911 form an older cellphone that couldn't transmit his
coordinates, even though the local call center had satellite-locator technology." Id. at 2. In the
aftermath of that incident, New York City installed an enhanced wireless call number system
that receives the wireless callers' telephone numbers and locations. Id. at 5. The global use of
wireless telephones means that the Long Island incident can occur anywhere in the world that
does not require wireless carriers or operators, to transmit to emergency centers both the
telephone number and location information of emergency callers.

2. See MARTn LuMIo, EUROPEAN COMMUNITY, TELECOMMUNICATIONS IN EUROPE,

(2006), available at http://observatorio.red.es/documentacion/actualidad/boletines/statistics.pdf
[hereinafter EU Telecommunications Statistics]. The European Community publication finds
that:

[t]he rapid growth of mobile telephony continued in 2004. In absolute numbers,
it even accelerated. In relative terms, however, it slowed down. The average
annual growth rate of 36.2% over the eight year period 1996-2004 is still
impressive. The largest markets in terms of the total number of subscriptions
were Germany (71.3 million), Italy (62.8 million) and the UK (61.1 million).

The number of operators has in general slightly risen, but in some cases the
opposite is true. In 2004, every Member State had more than one operator,
which should guarantee a degree of competition throughout EU.

Id. Another communications problem facing the global society is blurring of telecommunication
and information technology boundaries. See id. Communication from the Commission to the
Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions, On the Review of the EU Regulatory Framework for Electronic
Communications Networks and Services, at 6, COM (2006) 334 final (June 29, 2006)
[hereinafter Communication on Regulatory Framework of Telecommunications] (discussing the
need for convergence of markets in a single European market). New services will provide voice,
TV, and internet. Id. at 6. Finally, the telecommunications regulatory frameworks must be
capable of addressing new technologies, such as the Voice over Internet Provider (VOIP). See

[Vol. 18:2



20081 WIRELESS EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICES IN THE EU AND U.S. 327

call services system originated on the European continent in 19373 In fact,
England created the first emergency call services system.4 In the 1960s,
Haleyville, Alabama adopted the first American 911 wireline emergency call
number services system.5 European national and American state governments
had adopted the wireline emergency call services system that required wireline
carriers to transmit to emergency personnel the telephone numbers of callers
who need emergency medical, fire, police and other services.6 Presently, the
wireline carriers must transmit to emergency personnel both telephone numbers
and locations for emergency callers who request emergency services or
assistance in the European Union7 (EU) on call number 112, or in the United
States8 on 911. Transmitting both telephone number and location information
creates enhanced wireline emergency call number systems that are E911 and
El 12 of the U.S. 9 and EU, 10 respectively.

This Article compares and contrasts public safety, business and
telecommunications policy guidance, policies and regulation to establish,
implement and sustain enhanced wireless E91 1 or E 112. Part I outlines and
explains the scope of the article as a comparative analytical review of U.S. and
EU policy guidance, policies and regulation of business and markets to secure
and provide public safety.

A. Illustrating the Impact of Policies, Business, Market and Laws on EU
and U.S. Emergency Call Systems

This Article first uses a macro-analytical framework of policy or
environmental forces and their interests and then uses micro-analysis of

id. The EU and U.S. policy-makers are both reviewing and considering regulation of VOIP.
See European Telephone Network Operators, Annual Report 2004, at 16, available at
http://www.ETNO%2OAnnual%20Report%202004.pdf.

3. Peter P. Ten Eyck, Dial 911 and Report a Congressional Empty Promise: The
Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, 54 FED. COMM. L.J. 53, 55 (2001)
(citing Betran A. Maas, Comment, "911" Emergency Assistance Call Systems: Should Local
Governments Be Liable for Negligent Failure to Respond?, 8 GEO. MASON U. L. REv. 103, 103
n.l (1985)).

4. Ten Eyck, supra note 3, at 53.
5. Id. at 56 (citing Implementation of 911 Act: The Use of N 1I Codes and Other

Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements; Compatibility with 911 Emergency Calling Systems, 65
Fed. Reg. 56752, 56752 (Sept. 19, 2000)).

6. See Council Decision 91/396, Introduction of a Single European Emergency Call
Number, 1991 O.J. (L 217), [hereinafter Decision 91/396/EEC]; See infra Part IV and
accompanying notes (examining European Community communications and public safety
policies and laws establishing and implementing emergency call services numbers); see Wireless
Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, Pub. L. No. 106-81, 113 Stat. 1286 (1999)
(codified at 47 U.S.C. § 251 and other sections of 47 U.S.C.); see infra Part V and
accompanying notes (examining United States communications and public safety policies and
laws establishing and implementing emergency call services numbers).

7. See Decision 91/396/EEC, supra note 6, at 2.
8. See 47 U.S.C. § 251 (2006).
9. See id.

10. See Decision 91/396/EEC, supra note 6, at 2.



IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REv.

business, legal and policy criteria to conduct a comparative review of EU and
U.S. policy guidance, policies and regulations establishing and implementing
enhanced wireless emergency number call systems. The comparative review
illustrates how wireless telecommunications technology, and its regional
business-market concerns and state public safety needs, create similarities and
differences in designing and enforcing El12 and E911 policy guidance,
policies and regulation. Collectively, it is public safety, telecommunications,
personal privacy, tort liability and economic policies that establish and
implement enhanced wireless emergency call number regulatory scheme in the
U.S. and EU. These emergency call number schemes impact the lives, welfare
and security of tens of millions of wireless subscribers who are not permanently
fixed at any one location but who make millions of wireless emergency calls
from various locations in the U.S. and EU." In terms of the impact of these
schemes on business and markets, wireless E9 11 and E 112 regulatory schemes
force wireless carriers or telecom operators to absorb the cost of developing,
deploying, and diffusing location acquisition, networking and other
communication technologies. These carriers or operators must transmit to
public safety answering ports (PSAPs) or emergency call centers the telephone
numbers and locations of wireless subscribers or callers in the EU 12 and U.S.13

1. Nature of the Analytics Utilized to Review the Use of
Telecommunications Regulation to Address Public Safety Needs

This Article uses environmental and policy forces and business and
policy criteria of macro- and micro-analytical frameworks, respectively, to

11. COORDINATION GROUP ON THE ACCESS TO LOCATION INFORMATION FOR EMERGENCY

SERVICES (CGALIES), FINAL REPORT: REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES RELATED TO ACCESS

TO LOCATION INFORMATION BY EMERGENCY SERVICES (112) IN THE EUROPEAN UNION, 10 (2002)
[hereinafter CGALIES Report] (an inquiry by an EU Coordinating Group consisting of public
and private sector members to study the implementation of 112 in the EU). The CGALIES
Report found 40 million calls were made from cellular phones in the EU. Id.; see DALE N.
HATFIELD, A REPORT ON TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL ISSUES IMPACTrING THE PROVISION OF

WIRELESS ENHANCED 911 SERVICES, ii, (2002), available at
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native or.-pdf=pdf&id-document=65 13296239
(an inquiry by a Telecommunications Consultant for the Federal Communication Commission
(FCC) as to the technical and operational issues affecting the deployment of wireless Enhanced
911 (E-9 11) services in the United States, recognizing 130 million wireless subscribers existed
in the United States).

12. See Commission Recommendation 2003/558, Processing of Caller Location
Information in Electronic Communication Networks for the Purpose of Location-Enhanced
Emergency Call Services, 2003 O.J. (L 189) 49 (EC) [hereinafter Recommendation
2003/558/EC]; Council Directive 2002/22, art. 26,2002 O.J. (L 108), 51,65 (EC) [hereinafter
Directive 2002/22/EC].

13. See 47 U.S.C. § 251 (2006) (providing pertinent parts of the Wireless
Communications and Public Safety Act of 1991); Ensuring Needed Help Arrives Near Callers
Employing 911 Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-494, Title I, 118 Stat. 3986 (codified at47 U.S.C.
§ 615 and other parts of 47 U.S.C.).

[Vol. 18:2



2008] WILEss EMERGENCY NUMBER SERvIcES IN THE EU AND U.S. 329

review how U.S. and EU policies address conflicting interests present in
regulating wireless carriers, accommodating member states, coping with
emerging digital technologies, considering the telecommunications industry,
and providing public safety for wireless subscribers. Implementing wireless
E911 and E112 for the U.S. and EU has proven long and drawn out, if not
elusive, in that contributing policy-making and environmental forces are not,
and have never been, totally subservient to public safety and other social needs.
This Article examines policy guidance, public policy and regulation by using
business, legal and policy analytics to conduct a comparative analytical review
of U.S. and EU enhanced wireless emergency call services systems. Against a
global backdrop and the certain universal need for emergency call number
systems, this Article applies these analytics to show how EU and U.S.
technological, political, economic, social and public policy forces and their
most dominant interests influence U.S. and EU legislative, agency and other
policy-making in establishing and implementing enhanced wireless emergency
call service system policy guidance, policies and regulation.

2. Finding Policy Guidance and Business and Market Concerns in
Establishing El12 and E911

This comparative review finds and examines similarities and differences
caused by the most pertinent underlying interests of economic, social,
technological, political, and public policy forces, singly or jointly, influencing
the design, enactment and implementation of U.S. and EU enhanced emergency
services policies. With an eye toward identifying EU and U.S. policy-making
flaws and troublesome conflicts between public and business interests, this
Article examines public policy, legislative findings and objectives, and business
and market decisions and strategies that have been made in designing,
establishing, implementing and sustaining U.S. and EU enhanced wireless
emergency systems. Both EU and U.S. telecommunications and public safety
policy-making and business and market regulation impact the
telecommunications, information management systems and information
technology industries and the ability of state and local governments to provide
emergency services and other public safety services. This Article identifies
business concerns and market restraints that influence strategic industry
programs and operational business decisions, such as developing and marketing
new communications technology. Thus, this Article sets forth public policy
guidance to address public policy failures and ineffective regulation, such as the
business costs of providing public safety benefits.

B. Outlining the Nature and Analytics of Policy-Making Approaches and
Policies in a Review of U.S. and EU Emergency Call Number Systems

This Article consists of seven parts that set forth and apply legal, policy
and business market analytics to find and examine how and why similarities
and differences exist in the influence and impact of economic, social,



IND. INT'L & CoMp. L. REV.

technological, political and public policy forces. Specifically, this application
uses pertinent underlying interests and business and policy criteria of these EU
and U.S. forces to ascertain how economic, industry and other forces might
impact establishing, implementing and sustaining U.S. and EU enhanced
emergency services policies. Part I introduces these forces, interests, and
criteria as the analytics of a comparative review of policy guidance business,
regulation and public policy. Part I is the Introduction and raises a question
regarding the global policy, legal and business implications of similarities and
differences in U.S. and EU policy guidance, policies and regulation for
enhanced wireless emergency call service systems to locate and assist wireless
or cellular subscribers requesting emergency assistance on the ubiquitous
cellular or wireless phone. The question is a global policy concern for national
and regional governments that presently rely on cellular or wireless phones to
bring communications to isolated and undeveloped regions. In these areas, the
lack of automatic location technology for emergency assistance means that
visitors and local citizens may not be able to rely on cellular phones to request
emergency assistance in all circumstances.

1. Nature of Business, Regulation and Public Policy in Conducting
a Comparative Review

Part II discusses the nature of seminal public and private interests,
identifies pertinent regional policy-making forces and introduces the
management of policy-making, policies and regulation to establish and
implement enhanced wireless emergency services in the EU and U.S. Part [HI
discusses the state of cellular and automatic location information (ALI)
technologies and the nature of EU and U.S. policy-making schemes. It also
creates and establishes an analytical framework to find and examine the impact
of technology, public policy, economics, social and political forces and their
most pertinent underlying force-specific interests on U.S. and EU enhanced
wireless emergency number call services policy-making and policies. Parts H
and [HI build the analytical framework that identifies forces and elements used
to compare and contrast EU and U.S. policy guidance, policies, and regulation
set forth in Parts IV and V. Part IV summarizes pertinent EU public policy-
making that includes EU decisions, recommendations and committee actions14

establishing and implementing an El 12 or enhanced wireless emergency call
service by relying primarily on the use of a single wireless cellular standard and
one type of ALI technology. Part V summarizes pertinent U.S.
telecommunication and public safety policy-making that includes U.S.
legislative acts, agency regulation and their public objectives and purposes for
establishing and implementing an E911 or enhanced wireless emergency call
system that voluntarily relies on competing wireless standards and ALI
technologies.

14. See infra Part Il.C and accompanying notes.

[Vol. 18:2



2008] WIRELESS EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICES IN THE EU AND U.S. 331

2. Reviewing Dissimilarities of Government Means and Public
Ends by Using Comparative Analytics for Legislative Substance

Parts IV and V examine inherent substantive differences or dissimilarities
of EU and U.S. policy guidance, policies and regulation by legislatures and
agencies establishing and implementing enhanced wireless emergency services
systems. Moreover, Part VI compares and contrasts U.S. and EU policy
guidance, policies and regulation establishing and implementing E911 and
El 12, respectively, using the comparative public policy-business market
analytical framework. 15 This analytical framework recognizes, finds and then
examines the most pertinent policy or environmental influences on legislative
and agency policy-making and ascertains how one or more force-specific
interests shaped and dominated the direction of U.S. and EU emergency call
services policy-making and policies.' 6 The application of this public policy-
business market analytical framework to EU and U.S. public safety policies
established under telecommunications policy and regulation leads to two
seminal conclusions as source of business and market suggestions and public
policy guidance for establishing and implementing enhanced wireless
emergency call number systems.

Part VII, the Conclusion, contains suggestions that have national and
global policy implications for the need to establish and implement emergency
number call systems. The first conclusion is that location-based and wireless
business, market competition, technology development, intergovernmental
relations, telecommunications and public safety are more likely the most
dominant interests, but are also conflicting interests substantially influencing
the policy-making shaping the direction of U.S. and EU policies and substance
of regulations to establish and implement enhanced wireless emergency call
number services systems. The first conclusion encompasses the fact that the
telecommunications and location information technologies needed to
implement enhanced wireless emergency call systems present business and
market concerns that presently exist under both U.S. telecommunication policy
to preserve interstate competition and EU telecommunication policy to create
inter-European market and competition. In fact, EU and U.S. communication
policy-making and policies illustrate an emerging global policy concern
between the use of cellular or wireless phones to provide basic rural and urban
communications and the need to establish enhanced emergency call number
services in developing and underdeveloped countries.

The second and ultimate conclusion is that any similarities and
differences in U.S. and EU policies and regulation result primarily from the fact
that U.S. and EU public interests and their respective policy forces may be
accorded different weights or priorities in U.S. and EU public safety, national
security, fiscal and telecommunications policy-making. The second conclusion

15. See infra Part Ill.A and accompanying notes.
16. See infra Part VI and accompanying notes.



IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REV.

may result from the fact that EU and U.S. policy-makers who establish El 12
and E911 have shown much deference or comity to sovereign states that must
manage municipal governments and PSAPs to implement enhanced emergency
call services systems and that must console Local Exchange Carriers (LECs)
and wireless carriers to develop, deploy and diffuse telecommunications
technology to transmit timely, accurate emergency calls by wireless subscribers.

A comparative analytical review of E9 11 and E 112 emergency call
systems requires an analysis of business and market situations and policy-
making and policy environments of unique or entirely different regions. This
analytical review compares and contrasts broad environmental forces and their
interests that impact the design, enactment and implementation of emergency
call number service policy guidance, policies and regulation. This analytical
review compares and contrasts policies and regulation but does not always
attribute differences and similarities to public needs and welfare. This
analytical review identifies and examines policy or environmental forces and
their interests and relies on business, market and policy criteria to examine and
explain the impact of a force-specific interest on policy guidance, policies and
regulation of a region's emergency call number service.

C. Recognizing the Nature of U.S. and EU Emergency Call Services
Systems

This comparative analytical review of U.S. and EU public policy and
their business and market impacts necessarily identifies, analyzes and weighs
pertinent European and American technological, political, economic, social and
public policy forces and then identifies their most dominant or pertinent
interests from an examination of EU and U.S. business and market
commentaries and studies, legislative hearings and acts and agency reports and
regulations. These interests support and justify establishing and implementing
policies and regulation to create emergency call services systems. These
policies and regulation are telecommunications policies and legislation to
govern telecommunication, information management and information
technology organizations and their industries, such as wireless carriers and
location information providers.

In making policies and regulation, similar or different types of
governments, such as confederalisms17 and federalisms,18 may pursue entirely

17. JOHN McCoRMIcK, UNDERSTANDING THE EUROPEAN UNION: A CONCISE INTRODUCTION
6-7 (2d ed. 2002). Mr. McCormick states, "[c]onfederalism is a loose system of administration
in which two or more organizational units keep their separate identities but give specified
powers to a central authority for reasons of convenience, mutual security or efficiency." Id. In
confederalism, the central government makes laws for the states, but exists solely at the
discretion of the states. Id. at 7.

18. Id. at 9. Federalism is a "system... in which at least two levels of government -
national and local - coexist with governments separate or shared powers, each having clearly
defined and independent functions but neither having supreme authority over the other." Id.

[Vol. 18:2



2008] WIRELESS EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICES IN THE EU AND U.S. 333

different public policy and business-market approaches that lead to different
government means and objectives to establish and implement legislative

20policies.19 The EU fits neither the confederalism nor federalism designation,
and even if both the EU and the U.S. are federalisms, they may not necessarily
share similar public policies, legislative means and business and market
objectives to establish and implement enhanced wireless emergency number
call services policies. Both the U.S. and EU can impose regulatory mandates
on business organizations, namely wireless carriers21 and local exchange
carriers (LECs),22 and impose voluntary and a few mandatory obligations for

23governments, namely states, municipalities and counties, including their
public safety answering points (PSAPs).24 In applying elements of both
approaches, this comparative analytical review uses environmental, business
and legal analytics to examine and weigh the impact of emergency call number
services policies and regulation on the policy guidance and policies and
business and markets of telecommunications, information management and
information technologies.

The United States of America is a federal system.
19. See id. at 12-18; See WALTER VAN GERVEN, THE EUROPEAN UNION: A POLITY OF

STATES AND PEoPLES 34-35 (2005). Professor van Gerven explains the recognition of an EU
policy and its implementation through legislative acts by stating:

[Iln the European Union sovereign powers that are enjoyed by the Union are
exercised by EU institutions with the participation of Member State authorities.
That is particularly the case of the Council of Ministers, which is part of the
Union's legislative branch, in which national ministers participate, as members of
the Council in making and preparing Union law and policies.

VAN GERVEN, supra, at 35. Moreover, the EU is a regional integration bringing together
countries at different social, economic, and political levels for various reasons. MCCORMICK,
supra note 17, at 12-13. The EU has achieved some level of economic integration through the
development of a single market for trade and monetary system. Id. at 13, 167-68. The EU has
achieved a level political integration as a weak or lesser confederalism. Id. at 13. Political
integration exists in EU institutions or central governments sharing some lawmaking, judicial,
and enforcement powers with member states. See id. at 13, 118-19. Thus the central
government has the power to recognize European public policy and address it with legislative
acts. See id. at 118-19. The obvious difference in U.S. and EU levels of political and economic
integration is a determinant of the nature of public safety and other social policies and their
relationship with business markets in the development of a single market. Id. at 13-14. One
example is the creation of cross border competition within Europe among wireless carriers and
other telecommunication operators.

20. See MCCORMICK, supra note 17, at 8-10. The United States is a federation. Id. at 9-
10. The EU is neither a federation nor confederation and shares qualities of both types of
governmental systems. See id. at 8-9, 11.

21. See 47 U.S.C. § 222 (2006); Decision 91/396/EEC, supra note 6.
22. See Hatfield, supra note 11, at 32 (recognizing the role of local exchange carriers

(LECs) as the interface between wireless carriers or operators and public safety answering points
(PSAPs)); see CGALIES Report, supra note 11, at 26 (addressing the need for interface and
interoperability between Telecom Operators or LECs and PSAPS).

23. See 47 U.S.C. § 615 (2006) (not permitting the FCC to impose obligations or costs);
see infra Part VI and accompanying notes (contrasting and comparing EU and U.S. policy
guidance, policies, and regulation).

24. See 47 U.S.C. § 615 (2006).



IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REv.

1. Describing Policy-Making Approaches of Public Needs and
Objectives

One policy-making approach is a business-market approach that supports,
accommodates and weighs favorably the private interests of business
organizations, commercial markets and technology industries while it furthers
or advances various public interests, such as public safety.2 5 This business-
market approach identifies, examines and weighs the impact of the business and
market on specific legislative policies, where such business and markets include
wireless carriers and location-based providers. These policies and regulation of
legislatures and agencies or commissions establish, implement and sustain
public programs, such as enhanced wireless emergency call number services.
Foremost, the business market approach and its public policy objectives
determine whether public programs, such as E911 or El12 systems, are
partially or totally dependent on another business or industry and are subject to
its policies for implementation and sustainability, such as the development of
ALI and telecommunications technologies and their impact on the
implementation of El 12. Next, the business-market approach determines
whether regional policy-makers are supporting the dominant business and
markets at the expense of the subservient market for economic and other
reasons, such as to bolster both domestic and international competition.
Furthermore, the business-market approach determines how business restraints
and indifference to market solutions, such as commercialization of ALl
technology, in the dominant business and markets, namely the
telecommunications industry, affect the less dominant or subservient public
policy, namely public safety. Under the business-market approach, a
comparative review explains how policy guidance, policies, regulation
favorable to business and markets, such as the telecommunications industry,
impact establishing and implementing a public safety program, such as E 112
and E911.

Another policy-making approach is a public policy approach that includes
public objectives that further public interests with little emphasis on finding
business solutions and market ideas to preserve an economic force and its force-
specific interests, such as the economic system and competition among
competitors. 26 Foremost, the public policy approach identifies, examines and
weighs social needs, political interests and other force-specific or policy
concerns of regional policy-making to establish and implement public
programs, such as E 112 and E9 11. Next, the public policy approach
determines how policies and laws designed to protect a public interest by
establishing and implementing a public program, such as public safety, relate to
other public policy and interests, such as telecommunications policy.
Furthermore, the public policy approach determines the importance and priority

25. See infra Part II. C. 2 and accompanying notes.
26. See id.

[Vol. 18:2



2008] WIRELESS EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICES IN THE EU AND U.S. 335

assigned pertinent social needs, economic wants and other public or private
interests in policy-making to establish policies, such as telecommunications
legislation. Finally, a comparative review of a public policy-centered approach
explains the weight or emphasis government policies and regulation of
competing public and private interests place on or give to business or industrial
and commercial or market interests in legislative and agencies policy-making to
establish and implement E9 11 and E 112.27 This comparative analytical review
examines business-market and public policy approaches to explain the nature
and impact of policy forces and their dominant interests on E 112 and E9 11
policy guidance, policies and regulation.

2. Examining Public Policy and Business and Commercial
Markets

Giving greater weight to public interests in regional or national policy-
making usually produces policy choices, namely legislative mandates, to
provide for social welfare and political needs, such as emergency services,
though economic and technology forces may have other needs and demand
other policy choices. As set forth below in Part mI.C, a comparative analytical
framework of Eli2 and E911 policy guidance, policies and regulation
identifies and examines broad domestic policy forces and dominant force-
specific interests28 to evaluate the impact of these forces on region-specific
policies and regulation and business and commercial markets. As demonstrated
in Part VI, the analytical framework analyzes and ascertains the likelihood that
any one or more policy or environmental forces and their interests, such as
politics and its form of government, respectively, causing or exerting a
substantial level of influence on establishing or implementing enhanced
emergency call services policies and regulation. As set forth below in Part
Ul.C, the comparative analytical framework examines narrow interests among
and within economic, political and other forces using business, market and
public policy criteria to evaluate the role, nature and influence of these narrow
interests, such as industrial competitiveness, commercial markets and public
safety, in the design of telecommunications, information management and
information technology policies.

This comparative analytical framework considers public and private
forces and the most influential interests that could be minimized by giving
greater weight or priority to emerging public safety needs created by the
deployment and diffusion of new technologies. Weighing particular force-
specific interests such as competitiveness in wireless carrier markets, reveals
the tension between business interests of the technology industry and public

27. See 47 U.S.C. § 615. The pertinent language of Section 102 of the Act states, "for the
sake of our Nation's homeland security and public safety, a universal emergency telephone
number (911)... should be available...." Id.

28. See infra Part III.C and accompanying notes.



IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REv.

safety interests of society. To illustrate, the deployment, adoption and diffusion
of cellular standards and location information technology do not make E 112 or
E911 services accessible to all subscribers who purchase and use cellular
phones. 29 Legislative and agency policy-makers must consider economic,
technology and other interests, such as the protection of individual privacy, the
cost of developing technology and detection of national security threats, in the
policy-making process of increasing accessibility to emergency number call
services. A comparative analytical review of El 12 and E911 policy-making
and policies needs a comparative analytical framework powerful enough to
recognize the influence of policy-making and policy forces and their respective
force-specific interests. Moreover, this framework uses narrower business,
market and policy or political criteria to examine policy guidance, policies and
regulation enacted and implemented to address public policy, business and
market concerns raised by less harmonizing state government and wireless
carrier needs.

II. POLICY FORCES AND THEIR INTERESTS AND
COMPARATIVE ANALYTICS OF EMERGENCY CALL SERVICES

POLICIES

The U.S. and EU have established and implemented enhanced wireless
emergency call services policies that were made using policy-making to
consider and weigh the impact of U.S. and EU politics, economics, social,
technology and public policy and their underlying interests in the need for
public safety mandates for wireless E 112 and E9 11. This policy-making affects
business organizations and product and service markets of the
telecommunication industry, which must develop, adopt and diffuse wireless
cellular standards (WCS), 30 automatic location information 3' (ALI) and
telecommunications technologies. 32 The business of the communications and
telecommunication industry includes providing the software and hardware used
to locate subscribers and transmit location and other information for enhanced
wireless emergency call services. Establishing and implementing the E91 1 or
enhanced wireless emergency call system policy must advance public safety
interests, but must also accommodate business development and market
interests, further technology development and other technology interests, and
meet intergovernmental and other political interests.

29. See Squeo, supra note 1, at 1.
30. See 47 U.S.C. § 615 (2006).
31. See infra Part II.B and accompanying notes.
32. See infra Part lI.C and accompanying notes.

[Vol. 18:2



2008] WIRELESS EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICES IN THE EU AND U.S. 337

A. Governmental Nature of Policy Forces and Their Interests Influencing
EU and U.S. Policy Making and Policies

The nature of economic, social, political, technological and public policy
environments consists of American and European forces influencing U.S. and
EU , respectively, policy-making and policies and business development and
markets. Examining these forces, interests and their impact on private business
and markets and government policies and regulation involves legislative and
agency policy-making to further public safety and welfare needs, recognize the
business and market impact on the telecommunication industry and affect state
lawmaking to implement municipal or county emergency call number services.
As stated above, our comparative analytical framework is a public policy-
business market approach.33 However, this approach shows that EU and U.S.
policies and national and state policy-making forces and their underlying
interests may be given different weights and priorities in legislative or agency
policy-making under unique territorial circumstances, such as culture, history,
economic status and others. Under this approach, any reference to state means
a U.S. state or EU member state that has a mandatory or voluntary obligation to
implement emergency call number services under U.S. or EU communication
policies.

33. See infra Part Il.A and accompanying notes. The analytics include an analytical
framework that is applied to ascertain the most pertinent policy-making and policy forces and
their business market interests impacting E91 1 and E 112 policy-making. The analytics include
the consideration and weighing of policy choices made by legislative, agency, and quasi public
policy-makers in choosing among competing and conflicting policy forces and their respective
interests. See infra Parts IV, V and accompanying notes. The analytical framework analyzes
public policy, legislative law, policy and agency regulations of public safety and communication
fields, and the impact of public safety and telecommunication policy guidance, policies, and
regulation on the business and market interests of the telecommunications industry. See infra
Part VI and accompanying notes.
These analytics are a qualitative analytical approach to examining the more significant impact of
economic, social, technological, political, and public policy forces and their most pertinent
underlying interests on U.S. and EU public policy-making and policy to establish and
implement enhanced wireless emergency services. Of course, an empirical or quantitative
analysis would more readily identify these forces and their respective interests and their most
likely impact on EU and U.S. public safety and communication policy-making and policies for
emergency call services. But that is no guarantee that policy-makers would make other policy
choices.
We see the need for the quantitative or empirical analysis of the impact and use of new and
emerging telecommunication technologies on the relationship between public policy and
business and market interests. See supra note VI and accompany text (recognizing the impact of
new telecommunication technology on the erosion of privacy). In the meantime, our qualitative
approach provides usable indicators of the most likely impact of political, social, economic,
technological, and public policy forces and their underlying interests on establishing and
implementing U.S. and EU emergency call services policies and laws.



IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REV.

1. State Forces and Their Interests in the Design of Regional or
Federal Policy-Making and Policies

All policy-making and policy forces and their interests at work in the U.S.
and the EU may not be exclusively American or European, such as national
security, or even exert a total EU or U.S. territorial need, such as monetary
policy. The U.S. and EU consist of sovereign governments that have different,
if not unique, cultures, demographics, economies and other policy forces.
These forces are state, regional and municipal, in many instances, in their
policy-making impact or influence on public and business interests and
commercial markets. However, state forces can impact U.S. and EU public
policy-making depending on the nature and importance of an underlying
interest of the state force, such as ethnic identity underlying cultural force.
State forces may include culture, politics, privacy, economy and other matters
of limited national influence and often overlapped by U.S. and EU
environmental or policy forces. In fact, a state force and its underlying interests
may eventually point out weakness in EU and U.S. policy-making and their
relationship with technology, economics, social, politics and public policy.34

2. Impact of Intergovernmental Politics and State Needs and
Interests on Regional Policy-Making

Government documents, such as treaties and constitutions, establish
intergovernmental relations and how the existence of economic, social and
other policy forces and their interests will impact regional policy-making and its
policies and regulations.35 Thus the political force of states in the U.S. and EU
may have more than a marginal impact on U.S. and EU policy-making; 36

however, the impact of state financial interests, such as a lack or
mismanagement of public funds, may have a limited or marginal, if any,
influence on EU and U.S. regional wireless enhanced emergency call services
or public safety interests.37 The U.S. and EU do not avoid legislative and
agency policy-making simply because one or more states cannot comply for
fiscal policy reasons or choose to delay compliance for political, fiscal or other
reasons.38 A state political or other force may signal a broader underlying
problem in U.S. and EU policies or economies, which means we cannot always

34. See infra Part V.C and accompanying notes (discussing U.S. legislation that attempts
to encourage state to implement wireless E91 1).

35. See infra Part I.A. 1 and accompanying notes.
36. See id.
37. See id. One must recognize that an EU recommendation is not a ringing endorsement

of federal or regional implementation. See infra Part IVA and accompanying notes. Likewise,
the U.S. carrot approach to induce state implementation of E911 is not strident. See infra Part
V.C.2 and accompanying notes.

38. See infra Part V.B and accompanying notes (finding that Congress chose not to
mandate any state fiscal obligations).

[Vol. 18:2



2008] WmELEss EMERGENCY NUMBER SERvicEs iN THE EU AND U.S. 339

ignore the status or condition of similar state and EU or U.S. policy forces. In
state policy-making, unemployment, tax, privacy, fiscal or another state force
may influence state policy choices and priorities of state legislative or policy-
making bodies assign to implementing a non-mandatory EU and U.S. public
policy or public interest, such as public safety.3 9 Addressing how U.S. and EU
enhanced wireless emergency call services policies could be greatly influenced
by a state force, such as culture, fiscal or economy, is not within the scope of
this paper, but a state's delay in implementing U.S. and EU enhanced
emergency services policies may deny emergency assistance to wireless
subscribers. 40

B. Recognizing Conflict between Public Safety Needs and Business and
Market Interests of Telecommunications in U.S. and EU Policy-Making

U.S. and EU policy-making approaches and their business impact on the
telecommunication industry in establishing and implementing public safety
needs involve primarily four policy-making and business concerns and their
interrelationships. These concerns also involve the interrelationships among
public interests and business market interests that underlie policy forces
influencing or impacting government policy-making.

In this comparative analysis, the four seminal policy-making and business
and market concerns are: (1) government policy-making to regulate the
telecommunication industry that develops competing and incompatible WCS
and ALI technologies; (2) government regulation of deployment, adoption and
diffusion of ALI and WCS technologies to protect public safety; (3) the
business impact of public or government policy-making, namely regulation, on
the telecommunications or communications industry that is mandated to protect
public safety and welfare; and (4) the business advantage of commercializing
ALI technologies to support the furtherance of public obligations and corporate
market objectives.4 ' In the interrelationship among these concerns, business
interests and public needs are not inherently antagonistic in public policy-
making. Legislative and agency policy-makers can establish and implement
public safety and directly related telecommunication policies to provide
enhanced wireless emergency call number services. At the same time, these
policy-makers must minimize unmanageable or unreasonable financial,
product, service and other market disadvantages that could be faced by the
telecommunication industry in developing, adopting and diffusing cellular
standards, location information and other technologies under public mandates.

39. See infra Part V.C and accompanying notes (explaining that Congress offered
unfunded financial incentives to state governments that had delayed implementation of E9 11).

40. See Anne Marie Squeo, Cellphone Hangup: When You Dial 911, Can Help Find
You?, THE WALL ST. J., May 12, 2005, at Al.

41. See infra Part 1IH and accompanying notes (explaining the nature and structure of
government, the nature and kinds of technologies and policy forces in a comparative analysis of
two federated groups of states).



IND. INT'L & Comp. L. REv.

1. Finding a Business Market Solution in Regulating an Industry to
Provide for Public Safety Needs

Mandating or obligating the telecommunication industry to develop,
adopt and diffuse technologies solely to provide a public safety need furthers
public policy that is often a demand of society or the public. Obviously, these
EU or U.S. mandates are not corporate business objectives that will require
market and financial decisions to increase profit or market share. Wireless
carriers and LECs comply with enhanced wireless 911 emergency services
obligations or mandates to further emergency call services policies at their own
expense. However, if they can commercialize ALI and other technologies, they
can offset corporate costs of development, adoption and diffusion of ALl and
other technologies, especially the next generation of E112 and E911
technologies, such as video cellular phone, telematics and other devices. This
market solution is not new. For example, the commercialization of caller
identification (Caller ID) services by wireline carriers is too obvious to ignore.
The commercialization of Caller ID by wireline carriers was a business or
market interest that now has commercial value. Caller ID provides timely and
accurate subscriber number identification in enhanced wireless and wireline
emergency call service systems and fulfills wireless and wireline carriers'
obligation to transmit the caller or subscriber's telephone number to the
PSAPs.

42

This comparative review explores and reveals how U.S. and EU policy-
making and policies deal with conflicting business, market and public interests
that include commercializing location information technology and creating a
workable interface among PSAPs, LECs and wireless carriers that may use
different technology standards.

2. Regulating the Telecommunications Policy to further Public
Safety Policies and Needs

U.S. and EU enhanced wireless emergency call number services policy-
making addresses public safety needs or concerns but depends intractably on
the design of telecommunication and information technology policies.43 These
needs are dependent on the deployment, adoption and diffusion of wireless
standard, ALl and other technologies. EU and U.S. public safety needs want
timely and accurate location information to assist wireless subscribers who must
depend on public safety officers to find and assist them by providing emergency
assistance. Public safety needs touch or overlap national security policy that
relies on emergency services and assistance to deter and respond to acts of

42. See 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(d) (2006).
43. See id. (setting wireless technology and public safety policy for E91 1); see Directive

2002/22/EC, supra note 12 (setting EU telecommunication policies and establishing the El 12).

[Vol. 18:2



2008] WIRELESS EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICES IN THE EU AND U.S. 341

terrorism.44 Moreover, national security and public safety are dependent on a
ubiquitous communication system and directly implicate telecommunication
policy.

Public safety interests are not the only public policy that EU and U.S.
policy-makers must address and implement to provide public safety needs,
namely emergency services. This comparative review examines how the EU
and U.S. policy-makers amend and implement telecommunication policies
influencing the operations of the communication industry, including both
wireline and wireless carriers. 45 EU and U.S. policy-makers directly influence

44. See 47 U.S.C. § 615. Specifically, Section 102 states: "[tihe Congress finds that-
(1) for the sake of our Nation's homeland security and public safety, a universal emergency
telephone number (911) that is enhanced with the most modem and state-of-the-art
telecommunications capabilities possible should be available to all citizens in all regions of the
Nation." Id. Likewise, Recommendation 2003/558/EC recognizes the impact of
telecommunication policies on public safety policy in establishing and implementing El 12.
Recommendation 2003/558/EC, supra note 12. Recommendation 2003/558/EC states that:
"[hiaving regard to the Directive 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic
communications and services (the 'Framework Directive') (1), and in particular Article 19
thereof," Recommendation 2003/558/EC, supra note 12.

45. See Directive 2002/22/EC, supra note 12. The EU Commission, Council and
Parliament in Directive 2002/22/EC illustrates the nature of EU telecommunication policy. Id.
Directive 2002/22/EC states that:

Whereas:
(1) The liberalisation of the telecommunications sector and increasing
competition and choice for communications services go hand in hand with
parallel action to create a harmonised regulatory framework which secures the
delivery of universal service. The concept of universal service should evolve to
reflect advances in technology, market developments and changes in user
demand. The regulatory framework established for the full liberalisation of the
telecommunications market in 1998 in the Community defined the minimum
scope of universal service obligations and established rules for its costing and
financing.

Id. The EU is reviewing its telecommunication policies and regulation for the creation of a
single market. See Communication on Regulatory Framework of Telecommunications, supra
note 2. The European Commission seeks to review the telecommunication regulatory
frameworks that have set forth the telecommunication policies of the EU single market. See id.
Summary, 3n., citing Directives 2002/19/EC, 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC, 2002/22/EC (OJ L 108,
24.4.2002, p. 7) and 2002/58/EC (OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37). The Communication on
Regulatory Framework of Telecommunications addresses the need to revise or change the
telecommunications and information technology policies of the EU. Communication on
Regulatory Framework of Telecommunications, supra note 2. Id. at 3. The European
Commission states that:

Creating a single European information space with an open and competitive
internal market is one of the key challenges for Europe [footnote omitted], within
the broader strategy for growth and jobs. Electronic communications underpins
the whole of the economy, and at EU level is supported by a regulatory
framework that entered into force in 2003. The aims of the framework are to
promote competition, consolidate the internal market for electronic
communications and benefit consumers and users. It is designed to take account
of convergence, in that it deals with markets and not technologies. Markets are
defined according to competition law principles, based on general demand and



IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REV.

the development, adoption and diffusion of cellular standards, automatic
location and other technologies necessary to implement public safety policies.
Enhanced emergency call number regulatory schemes demand wireless carriers,
LECs and PSAPs, to provide both the telephone number and location of
wireless subscribers requesting emergency services or assistance. This
comparative analysis examines how EU and U.S. policy-makers balance public
safety, communication, national security and other policies in establishing and
implementing enhance wireless emergency call services by creating demands
and imposing mandates on LECs, PSAPs and wireless carriers. Eventually,
private and public entities must conform to or comply with state-imposed
schedules to meet central government, both U.S. and EU, public safety
obligations.

C. Establishing E112 and E911 Policies Under Conflicting Public Safety
and Telecommunications Interests

Reviewing EU and U.S. policy guidance, policies and regulation to find
similarities and differences in establishing and implementing enhanced wireless
emergency number call services systems requires an analysis of the weight and
influence of social, economic, political, technology and public policy forces and
their underlying interests, such as public safety, privacy and technology
development. Specifically, ascertaining the weight and influence includes
describing the nature of these forces and their interests, examining the roles and
impact of dominant interests, and weighing the likely impact of an interest on

supply side considerations, and are independent of changes in the underlying
technology. The framework provides for the progressive removal of regulation as
and when competition becomes effective.

Id. 1, Background, 3.
The telecommunications policy of the United States has undergone a recent change to reflect
global and domestic changes in the telecommunication and information technologies and their
respective industries. See Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56
(1996), (amending and repealing parts in 47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.) (2006). The
Telecommunications Act was a complete overhaul of the Communications Act of 1934, Pub. L.
No. 73-416, § 1 48 Stat. 1064 (1934) (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.) (2006). Congress
states that the purpose of the Telecommunication Act is "to promote competition and reduce
regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American
telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications
technologies." 47 U.S.C. § 157. Moreover, Section 1 sets forth the purposes and policies of the
Communications Act by stating:

For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication
by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of
the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion,
national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and
radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for
the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life
and property through the use of wire and radio communication, and for the
purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing
authority....

47 U.S.C. § 251 (2006).

[Vol. 18:2



20081 WIRELESS EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICES IN THE EU AND U.S. 343

public safety and technology development and business and market growth.
This analysis or review of legislative acts, administrative regulations and policy
guidance and business development and commercial markets requires business,
legal and policy analytics.

1. Policy Making and Setting Objectives for the Public Interests
and National Competition

Public policy approaches and objective setting recognize public safety
needs and other interests and decide whether to establish and implement
legislative policies and acts and create agency regulations to further the interests
underlying these policies and acts.46 Legislative or policy objectives recognize
a public interest and its importance, nature and state.47 Once legislative
findings show sufficient harm or a substantial enough threat to an important
public interest, such as public safety or access to emergency care, the legislature
establishes objectives and enacts legislation to protect this interest.48 Public
policy objectives justify the need to protect one or more public interests, such as
safety, privacy or domestic competition, by regulating behavior or conduct of
wireless carriers and location-based services providers.49 These objectives
justify legislation and agency regulations 50 that resolve policy conflicts existing
among competing public interests, such as protecting wireless subscribers and
preserving competition among wireless carriers, by giving greater weight to or
protecting one or more public interests in a regulatory scheme.5'

Judicial and legislative conflict between public needs arises when
wireless carriers do not want to pass on to subscribers the administrative,
research and implementation costs of developing, deploying and diffusing
newer technologies needed solely to implement emergency wireless call

46. See Directive 2002/22/EC, supra note 12 (recognizing the nature of the EU
telecommunication and public safety services policy environments for El 12 policy-making); See
47 U.S.C. § 251 (2006)(recognizing the nature of US telecommunication and public safety
policy environments for establishing E911 policy-making).

47. See Directive 2002/22/EC, supra note 12 (setting forth purposes to provide universal
service and create a harmonized regulatory environment in the EU); See 47 U.S.C. § 251
(setting forth purposes to provide for public safety and national defense and establish universal
services in the US).

48. See 47 U.S.C. § 615 (2006)(setting forth US national needs for the development of
wireless emergency call services); see infra Parts V and accompanying notes (discussing US or
federal policies and regulation establishing wireless emergency call services).

49. See 47 U.S.C. § 942 (2006) notes (listing the purposes of Ensuring Needed Help
Arrives Near Callers Employing [ENHANCE] 911 Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-494, Title I,
118 Stat. 3986 (codified at scattered parts of 47 U.S.C.)).

50. See 47 U.S.C. § 942 (2006) notes; see infra Part IV.B and accompanying notes
(examining and explaining the Enhanced 911 Act of 2004).

51. See In re Revision of the Comm 'n's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911
Emergency Calling Sys., 12 FCC Rcd 22665,15 &123 (1997) (hereinafter In re Revision, 12
FCC Rcd) (establishing emergency call services but promoting technology neutral standards in
regulatory scheme to avoid interference with competition).



IND. INT'L & CoMP. L. REv.

services. 52 In managing competing public interests, public policy-making must
address policy conflicts that impact development, deployment and diffusion of
telecommunications technologies and effect managerial, market and financial
stability of wireless carriers that are quintessential in establishing and
implementing enhanced wireless emergency call services or other public
interests.53 Legislative acts and agency regulations are either supportive or
restrictive of business market interests that include the entry, growth,
profitability and sustainability of an industry, market or technology, such as
location information or acquisition technologies. Therefore, the public policy
approach includes justifying and weighing competing and conflicting public
interests and then enacting voluntary or mandatory public safety and
telecommunications legislation that obligates business organizations and
imposes restraints on market activities.54

2. Business and Markets and Setting Objectives for Business and
Technology Development

The business-market approach and objective setting include the impact of
public safety interests and regulation on the commerce or business and markets
of wireless carriers and telecommunications industry.55 Legislative acts and
agency regulations impose public obligations on LECs, wireless carriers and
operators, as well as automatic location and other services. Yet, LECs, wireless
carriers and PSAPs rely on telecommunications, information and information
management technologies of the telecommunications industries.

If legislative and regulatory policy-makers weigh favorably how new
obligations impact American business and market needs, the imposition of
public safety, namely E911 or E 112, obligations may leave wireless carriers in
the telecommunications industry more discretion to manage the development,
deployment and diffusion of wireless, location information and other
technology.56 These obligations can affect how wireless carriers, location-based
services or telecommunication businesses: (1) develop new information and
telecommunications technologies; (2) meet competition in domestic product
and service markets; (3) meet the competition of global inventors and producers
of telecommunications products and services; and (4) adapt to the market,
financial and other regulatory burdens of implementing enhanced wireless

52. See U.S. Cellular Corp. v. FCC, 254 F.3d 78, 86 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (rejecting to force
the FCC to impose a cost recovery mechanism).

53. See infra Parts IV, V, and accompanying notes (discussing EU and U.S. public policy-
making for enhanced emergency call services and its business impact).

54. See id.
55. See infra Part Ill.B and accompanying notes (discussing cellular standards and ALI

technologies used by wireless carriers that must connect to the emergency call services systems).
56. See infra Part IV and accompanying notes (discussing EU wireless enhanced

emergency call services policies that permit wireless carrier to use existing technologies whiling
developing and commercializing new technologies).

[Vol. 18:2



2008] WIRELESS EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICES IN THE EU AND U.S. 345

emergency call services systems. Normally, public safety and
telecommunications policies and regulation govern business and markets to
effect the development, deployment and diffusion of telecommunications and
information technologies.58

The impact of regulation on wireless cellular, location and other
telecommunications services implicates business and market interests that are
business-market concerns. These concerns arise when business organizations
and the telecommunications industry must commercialize location and other
technologies already subject to stringent public obligations, compete globally
with competitors subject to fewer obligations in the global market, execute
corporate business strategies subject to new public needs and regulation and
adapt to the financial impact of new policies and regulation on market and
business performances to provide public benefits.59 Business and market policy
concerns show limits or restraints on business performance and markets caused
by mandates that can (1) create entry hurdles for new domestic competitors that
must meet the obligations of new regulation, (2) reduce the ability or survival of
domestic competitors competing in a global market, (3) curtail the development
and eventual growth of services and products by imposing heavy public costs
and benefits and (4) dampen business growth and market performance that
delay the deployment and diffusion of new wireless and other technologies.
These restraints and limitations mean that business and market interests
underlying both El12 and E911 can antagonize and conflict with public
interests under U.S. and EU policy-making.

The comparative analysis used to contrast and compare U.S. and EU
enhanced wireless emergency services systems rely on a business market-public
policy analytical framework. 6° In this framework, this combination of business,
legal and policy analytics find, examine and explain U.S. and EU policy-
making forces and examine or evaluate underlying force-specific public
interests and business and market concerns. In fact, one or more public
interests or business interests exert, jointly or singly, a dominant influence on
the design and implementation of U.S. and EU policy guidance, policy and
regulation to establish and implement enhanced wireless emergency call
number services systems, namely E 112 and E91 1.

57. See infra Parts IV, V, and accompanying notes (discussing economic objectives of EU
and U.S. policy-making for wireless enhanced emergency call services policies).

58. See infra Parts IV, V, and accompanying notes (discussing the EU and U.S. enhance
wireless emergency number call system mandates on wireless carriers and operators).

59. See id.
60. See supra Part I.C. and accompanying notes (combining business, market, and public

policy analytics to create a business market-public policy approach to examine and explain
dissimilar forms of EU and U.S. policy guidance, policies, and regulation).



IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REV.

1II. NATURE OF POLICY-MAKING, TECHNOLOGIES AND
ANALYTICS OF REVIEWING U.S. AND EU EMERGENCY CALL

NUMBER SYSTEMS

This comparative analysis focuses on the development of public policy
that culminates in mandatory or voluntary obligations in enhanced wireless
emergency call number services systems. The comparative analysis must
consider the nature of U.S. and EU government policy-making and the U.S. and
EU state of telecommunication technologies. The comparative analysis relies on
an analytical framework to recognize, find and examine economic, social,
political, technological and public policy forces and their underlying interests of
the U.S. and EU. Of these policy forces, technology and politics may play the
more dominant roles. Specifically, the nature of EU and U.S. political or
policy-making structures determines or greatly affects the choice of policies,
regulation and state guidance establishing and implementing both mandates and
voluntary obligations for emergency call services. In addition, the state of U.S.
and EU telecommunications industries or technologies greatly determines the
availability of cellular and ALI technologies to wireless subscribers and PSAPs
and also affects the accessibility of PSAPs and LECs to wireless carriers'
location information. The nature of policy-making and state of technologies
play major roles in establishing and implementing public safety,
telecommunications, information technology and other policies.

A. The Nature of EU and U.S. Public Policy-Making and Law-Making

The EU and the U.S. use different political systems to establish and
implement enhanced wireless emergency call number services systems under
state emergency call services policies, incompatible cellular standards and
different location technologies. In these political or governmental systems, the
EU and U.S. central governments share powers with their respective states,6 1

61. See U.S. CONST. amend. X. The Tenth of Amendment of the United States
Constitution states that all powers not delegated to the Federal government are reserved by
people or states. Id.
The EU Constitution has not been approved by a majority of member states. Economist, Survey:
Constitutional Conundrum, June 17, 2007,9 (stating that voters in France and the Netherlands
may have temporarily stopped any efforts of creating an EU constitution). The EU was created
and presently operates under treaties. See Treaty Establishing the European Community (Nice
Consolidated Version), Official Journal C 325, 24/12/2002 P. 0033 - 0184 or Official Journal C
340 , 10/11/199 Consolidated version (hereinafter Treaty Establishing EU). The Treaty
Establishing the EU delegates powers to EU institutions, namely the European Commission,
Parliament, and Council. Id.
EU members tried to amend the Treaty Establishing the EU by adopting and ratifying the EU
Treaty of Lisbon in December 2007. See Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Amending the Treaty on European Union and The Treaty Establishing the European
Community, OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 2007/C306/010 (December 12,
2007)(hereafter Treaty on the Functioning of the EU). On June 12, 2008 or thereabout, 18 of
the 27 EU members had ratified the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU when Irish voters

[Vol. 18:2



2008] WIRELESS EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICES IN THE EU AND U.S. 347

and thus do not always have authority to issue mandates on all policy-making
matters and instead must often issue policy guidance aimed at encouraging
states to establish and implement policies.

1. EU Policy Guidance and Substantive Policy and Regulation

The nature and types of substantive law and policy guidance enacted by
the European Union Commission, Parliament and Council 62 reveal the nature
and use of EU policy-making to establish and implement public policy by
regulation, policy and policy guidance in member states.63 EU legislative
actions include three kinds of law and one type of policy guidance, and thus EU
lawmaking has varying degrees of coverage and enforceability in establishing
and implementing EU legislative policies. 64 First, EU regulations are mandates
with the force of law. are binding on all member states.65 No transformation of
the EU regulation into national law is necessary as a prerequisite for its
applicability. By contrast, the second form of EU legislative action, the EU
directive, requires member states to engage in legislative actions to implement

voted not to ratify this treaty. World News: European Union Softens Stance on Ireland Over
Treaty Rejection; Conciliatory Sarkozy Sees No Need For Two-Tier Bloc, WALL ST. J., Jun. 17.
2008. pg. A13

62. See, e.g., EUROPEAN UNION COMMISSION DELEGATION TO THE UNITED STATES, THE

EUROPEAN UNION: A GUIDE FOR ALL AMERICANS 6-9,
http://www.eurunion.org/infores/euguide/euguide2008.pdf, (last visited on Apr. 15,
2008)(hereinafter EU Guide). "Legislation is drafted by the Commission and requires approval
by the Council and, in most cases, the Parliament. The Commission considers legislation only
when it believes an EU-level remedy is necessary for a problem that cannot be solved by
national or local governments." Id. at 9. The EU Commission drafts laws or regulations, which
is one form of EU legislation. Id. The EU Parliament and Council must approve these laws or
regulations, which that are legislative bodies of the EU Community. Id. They enact the laws,
decisions, and directives and can provide policy guidance for member states by
recommendations. Id.

63. See Treaty Establishing EU, supra note 61, at Part V, Title I, Section I, Art. 249, c. 2.
Article 249 of the Treaty Establishing EU states that "[iun order to carry out their task and in
accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, the European Parliament acting jointly with the
Council, the Council and the Commission shall make regulations and issue directives, take
decisions, make recommendations or deliver opinions." Id. Although the Treaty on the
Functioning of the E U has not been ratified by all EU members, it would have amended
pertinent sections or parts of Art. 249. Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, supra note 61, at
2007/C306/113. One amendment states that:

235) Article 249 shall be amended as follows:

(a) the f'rst paragraph shall be replaced by the following:

'To exercise the Union's competences, the institutions shall adopt regulations,
directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions.';

Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, supra note 61, at 2007/C306/113,
64. See Treaty Establishing EU, supra note 61, at Art 249; see also EU Guide, supra note

61; and see vAN GERVEN, supra note 19, at 12-18.
65. Treaty Establishing EU, supra note 61, at Art 249.



IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REv.

its policies.66 EU directives set forth particular EU policies or public objectives
that must be transposed into national law to become effective. Member states
are obligated to take the necessary legislative actions to ensure that national law
is in compliance with the mandates of the directive by the deadline specified in
the directive.67 Within the framework set forth in the directive, member states
are, however, at liberty to exercise discretion and own judgment in determining
how to implement the directive into national law. EU directives are often the
approach of choice to harmonize conflicting national laws. EU regulations, by
contrast, lead to a convergence of national laws towards one pan-European
legal standard.

Third, EU decisions are particular mandates with the force of law
addressed to member states or organizations and individuals. 6

1 Thus, like

66. Id.
67. Id. If a member states fail to implement a directive into national law by the specified

date, the European Commission will initiate legal proceedings against the member state before
the European Court of Justice generally resulting in fines being imposed on the member state.
See VAN GERvEN, supra note 19, at 27 & n.79 ("On the Community courts, and various
procedures that can be initiated before them, see Articles 22-45 EC [Treaty] .... VAN GERVEN,
supra note 19, at 27 n.79). In addition, the directive is frequently treated as having direct
applicability after the transposition date has passed; i.e., citizens can claim rights conferred upon
them by the directive even if their home state has failed to adopt it. In this respect, EU
directives upon passage of the implementation deadline often become similar to EU regulations.
See also VAN GERVEN, supra note 19, at 27-28 (discussing the powers of the European Court of

Justice to resolve disputes between EU institutions and member states and EU citizens and
national states). Details of the doctrine of direct applicability of EU directives are complex and
beyond the scope of the brief summary that can be provided in this Article.

68. Treaty Establishing EU, supra note 61,, at Art 249; see Treaty Establishing EU, supra
note 61, art. 256. Article 256 of the Treaty Establishing EU states that:

Decisions of the Council or of the Commission which impose a pecuniary
obligation on persons other than States, shall be enforceable. Enforcement shall
be governed by the rules of civil procedure in force in the State in the territory of
which it is carried out. The order for its enforcement shall be appended to the
decision, without other formality than verification of the authenticity of the
decision, by the national authority which the government of each Member State
shall designate for this purpose and shall make known to the Commission and to
the Court of Justice.

Treaty Establishing EU, supra note 61, art. 256. The Treaty of the Functioning of the EU would
have amended pertinent a part of Article 249 of the Treating Establishing EU., Treaty of the
Functioning of the EU, supra note 61, at 2007/C360/113. The amendment states that:

235) Article 249 shall be amended as follows:

(b) the fourth paragraph shall be replaced by the following:

'A decision shall be binding in its entirety. A decision which specifies those to
whom it is addressed shall be binding only on them.'.

Treaty of the Functioning of the EU, supra note 61, at 2007/C360/113.

[Vol. 18:2



2008] WmELss EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICEs IN THE EU AND U.S. 349

regulations, EU decisions are binding and do not require member states to

engage in legislative actions. However, unlike regulations and directives, EU

decisions lack general applicability and are only binding upon those to whom

they are addressed. Moreover, the EU Parliament and Council can provide

policy guidance 69 to member states by issuing EU recommendations and

opinions. EU recommendations and opinions are not binding on member states

but set forth policy objectives that member states should consider in developing

national policies, objectives and priorities.70 As recommendations and opinions

reflect the EU's position on the subject, recommendations and opinions often

serve as important indicators for the EU's future course of action. In

concluding, the EU Commission and Parliament and Council impose mandates,

set forth voluntary obligations and provide policy guidance to member states. 7'

Part IV reviews the nature and force of major EU legislative regulation,

directives, decisions and policy guidance to establish and implement EU policy

and law for enhanced wireless emergency call services.

2. U.S. Policy Guidance and Substantive Policy and Regulation

The nature and types of U.S. legislative laws and policy guidance enacted
by Congress and promulgated by federal agencies 72 reveal the nature and use of
U.S. policy-making to establish and implement public safety and
telecommunication policies.73 The U.S. government is federalist, dividing
power between states and federal or central government74 and dividing the
federal powers among branches of the central government.75 U.S. federalism
permits each state to develop a public policy that could be substantively

76different from federal policies and implemented at an entirely different pace.
In the Constitution, Congress is the federal legislature and enacts legislation

69. Id. State policy guidance is provided by the legislative body of the EU and U.S.
central governments. However, legislative or policy guidance is not binding or forceful and,
thus, cannot be enforced by an executive agency or body. Policy guidance identifies a particular
U.S. or EU policy, such as enhanced wireless emergency call services. This guidance often sets
forth public needs, objectives, and benefits of a particular EU or U.S. state. See 47 U.S.C. § 615
(2006); Recommendation 2003/558/EC, supra note 12. However, policy guidance purposely
encourages states to establish and implement a policy program. See 47 U.S.C. § 615 (2006);
Recommendation 2003/558/EC, supra note 12. The EU and the United States pass policy
guidance to encourage states to implement a central government policy when the EU or U.S.
legislative body does not possess constitutional or governing authority to impose mandates on
the states.

70. Treaty Establishing EU, supra note 61, art. 256.
71. Id.
72. See U.S. CONST. art. I (enumerating the powers Congress can exercise to make law and

policy).
73. See infra Part IV and accompanying notes.
74. See U.S. CONST. amend. X.
75" See U.S. CONST. arts. 1, 11, & 11I (enumerating that the people of Congress to make law

and public policy).
76. Treaty Establishing EU, supra note 61, at Art 249; U.S. CONST. amend. X.



IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REv.

establishing federal policies 77 and implementing federal policy by statutes, such
as the Communications Act of 1934.78 Congress uses specific legislative
powers, such as the Commerce Clause,79 to implement federal policies, such as
telecommunication policy.80 Congress also has standing legislative committees
that conduct investigative hearings on public policy concerns and government
matters within their authority, including telecommunications.8  These
committees prepare and issue hearing reports that often consist of findings,
recommendations and proposals on legislations.8 2 Committees often refer bills,
proposed legislation, to the House of Representatives or Senate for floor debate
and voting. 3 Legislative acts or statutes establish federal policy and impose
obligations or mandates on corporations 84 and state governments when

77. See U.S. CONST. art. I.
78. 47 U.S.C. § 615 etseq. (2005).
79. U.S. CONST. art. VIU, cl. 1.
80. See Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56;

Communications Act of 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-416, § 1, 48 Stat. 1064, 1064.
81. See, e.g., The EU Constitution and U.S. and U.S.-EU Relations: The Recent

Referenda in France and The Netherlands and the U.S.-E.U Summit: Hearing Before the
Subcomm on Europe and Emerging Threats of the Comm. on International Relations, 100 h

Cong., 1I' Sess., 1, (June 22, 2005)(hereinafter U.S.-E.U. Relations); U.S.-E.U. Regulatory
Cooperation on Emerging Technologies: Hearing before the Subcomm. on European Affairs of
the Comm. on Foreign Relations, 100"h Cong., Ist Sess., 1, (May 1, 2005)(hereinafter U.S.-E.U
Regulatory Cooperation).

82. See U.S.-E.U. Relations, supra note 81, at 2. A congressional hearing was conducted
to assess the impact of the rejection of the EU Constitution by French and Dutch voters on US
reliance on EU support of counterterrorism and peace initiatives. The Honorable Elton
Gallegly, Representative from California and Chairman, Subcommittee on Europe and Emerging
Threats, describes events leading up to the hearing. Id. Representative Gallegly states that:

At the U.S.-EU Summit on Monday, European leaders sought to reassure the
President that the recent constitutional turmoil would not stop the EU from
playing a strong role on important issues such as Iraq, Iran, the Middle East
peace process and counterterrorism.

Considering all these issues, and all that has happened in the past month, the
Subcommittee has invited our two distinguished witnesses, Ambassador
Conzemius and Ambassador Bruton, to discuss these developments and to
perhaps shed some light on what we expect the future may hold.

Id.
83. See H.R. 3403, 110 th Cong., 1st Sess. (2007), H.R. 3403 was introduced by Mr.

Gordon of Tennessee and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Id. The
objectives of H.R. 3403 are "to promote and enhance public safety by facilitating the rapid
deployment of IP-enabled 911 and E-911 services, encouraging the nation's transition to a
national IP enabled emergency network and improve 911 and E-911 access to those with
disabilities." Id. This proposed legislation would be referred to as the "911 Modernization and
Public Safety Act of 2007" Id.

84. 47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq. (2005). Congress enacted the Federal Communications Act
to govern the telecommunication industry. Id.

[Vol. 18:2



2008] WIRELESS EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICES IN THE EU AND U.S. 351

constitutional authority permits Congress to impose obligations on the states.85

Congress may choose to preempt state law in the same field as federal law, such
86as telecommunications.

If Congress cannot or chooses not to impose mandates on state
governments, then federal legislative acts or statutes merely encourage U.S.
states to comply with federal policy and thus may be no more than federal
policy guidance. 87 Moreover, U.S. legislative acts or statutes also create U.S.
administrative agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission 88

(FCC), that implement U.S. telecommunication and communications policies
by conducting investigations, conducting hearings and making regulations.89

Part IV reviews the nature and force of major U.S. legislative acts and
administrative regulations establishing and implementing U.S. policy and law
regulating enhanced wireless emergency call services and telecommunications.

B. Nature of Wireless Cellular Standards and Automatic Location
Technologies

In the U.S. and EU, tens of millions of wireless subscribers make millions
of wireless emergency calls. 90 Wireless carriers deploy different wireless
cellular standards so that wireless subscribers do not use the same wireless
cellular technology to call PSAPs that will need different equipment or
technologies to receive emergency calls transmitted to it by LECs. PSAPs and
LECs are public and private entities, respectively, in the enhanced wireless
emergency services system. The PSAPs are public agencies operated by law
enforcement or emergency personnel and contain communication and location
equipment necessary to receive wireless emergency calls.9' PSAPs provide

85. See U.S. CONST. amend XI.
86. 47 U.S.C. § 414 (2006). The Federal Communications Act provides "except that this

paragraph shall not prohibit a State from regulating the other terms and conditions of
commercial mobile services." See 47 U.S.C. § 414

87. See 47 U.S.C. § 615 (2006).
88. 47 U.S.C. § 151 (2006). The Federal Communications Act creates the Federal

Communications Commission (FCC). Id. The FCC shall "make available... a rapid, efficient,
Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at
reasonable charges .... 47 U.S.C. § 151 (1994).

89. 47 U.S.C. § 303 (1997). The FCC is also invested with rulemaking and other
functions to implement federal telecommunications policies. See 47 U.S.C. § 303 (1997). The
FCC has the authority to regulate mobile services. 47 U.S.C. § 332(a) (2002).

90. Id. In the United States, roughly 68 million Americans subscribed to a wireless
telephone service in 1999. Id. at 57 (citing 145 Cong. Rec. H728, 732 (daily ed. Feb. 24, 1999)
(statement of Rep. Green)). These subscribers placed 43 million wireless 911 calls that year -
double the amount of similar calls made in 1996 - and in 2001. Moreover, the experts predict
the total number of cellular calls placed in the United States will exceed all wireline calls. Id.

91. Id. "PSAPs are inundated with more than eighty calls per minute, and fueled by the
explosion in the number of cellular subscribers, an exponentially increasing number of these
calls are placed from wireless phones." Id. at 57 (citing 145 Cong. Rec. H728, 733 (daily ed.
Feb. 24, 1999) (statement of Rep. Green; Comm'r Gloria Tristani, Address at the Association of



IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REv.

emergency assistance by dispatching and directing emergency services to the
locations of the callers.92 PSAPs need location information that may not be
automatically provided by wireless carriers. Finally, PSAPs receive calls from
the wireless subscribers whose calls are transmitted through the LECs. LECs
are local wireline carriers that own switching and signaling equipment that
recognizes and relays the emergency calls to the PSAPs.9 3 LECs route
emergency calls to the appropriate PSAPs.94 Unlike emergency calls made
from wireline telephones, the precise location of wireless subscribers or
emergency callers who are using cellular and mobile telephones is not as
readily known by PSAPs. 95 In retrieving location information, the PSAPs must
ask wireless subscribers to give their specific location. 96 Asking for location
information during an emergency may often cause PSAPs to lose extremely
valuable or precious time in dispatching emergency services or assistance.97

1. Overview of Location and Cellular Technologies Available to
the U.S. and EU

New ALI technology is capable of providing high accuracy location
information for cellular or mobile telephones,98 thus providing the technology
to meet EU and U.S. enhanced wireless emergency call services mandates of
wireless carriers. 99 In fact, ALI technology includes networks and handsets. 100
Hybrid systems also exist, such as Enhanced Observed Time Difference (E-
OTD). They combine network and handset-based systems.1°0 Handset-based
location relies on the Global Positioning System (GPS). 102 GPS is a space-
based radio navigation system consisting of twenty four earth-orbiting satellites
that provide three-dimensional position and velocity.103  The location
coordinates are determined by satellite position relative to the center of the
earth.104 For optimal results, a user must have three or, preferably, four
satellites within line of sight to ascertain location. 05 A chip embedded in the

Pub. Safety Comm. Officials-Int'l (Aug. 14, 2000).
92. Ten Eyck, supra note 3, at 56-57. See Revision of the Comm'n's Rules to Ensure

Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Report and Order and Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 F.C.C.R. 18676, 18679 (FCC 1996) [hereinafter 1996 FCC
Report].

93. Ten Eyck, supra note 3, at 56-57.
94. Implementation of 911 Act, 15 F.C.C.R. 17079 (Fed. Commc'n Comm. 2000)

[hereinafter 911 Act Report and Order]; 1996 FCC Report, supra note 93, 3.
95. See CGALIES Report, supra note 11, at 7; Hatfield, supra note 11, at 3.
96. See 1996 FCC Report, supra note 95.
97. See CGALIES Report, supra note 11, at 7; Hatfield, supra note 11, at 3.
98. See CGALIES Report, supra note 11, at 28; Hatfield, supra note 11, at 11.
99. See CGALIES Report, supra note 11, at 28-29; Hatfield, supra note 11, at 11.

100. See CGALIES Report, supra note 11, at 28-29; Hatfield, supra note 11, at 10.
101. See CGALIES Report, supra note 11, at 28-29; Hatfield, supra note 11, at 11.
102. See CGALIES Report, supra note 11, at 28-29; Hatfield, supra note 11, at 10.
103. See CGALIES Report, supra note 11, at 28-29; Hatfield, supra note 11, at 10-11.
104. See CGALIES Report, supra note 11, at 28-29; Hatfield, supra note 11, at 3.
105. See CGALIES Report, supra note 11, at 28-29; Hatfield, supra note 11, at 3.

[Vol, 18:2



2008] WIRELESS EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICES IN THE EU AND U.S. 353

wireless phone receives signals from three or more satellites and calculates the
location. 106

Next, network-based techniques locate cell phone calls by not requiring
handset modification. 107 Network-based location techniques typically use some
type of triangulation. 10 8 Based on the known speed of radio signals, the
distance from receivers can be calculated.1 9 Several network-based location
solutions are in use, under development or in testing. These include Cell of
Origin, Angle of Arrival (AOA), Time Difference of Arrival (TDOA) and
Radio Frequency (RF) Fingerprinting.' 10 One of these location technologies
must work with one or more wireless cellular standards to provide location
information for a wireless subscriber."' However, the implementation of ALI
for eventual use by PSAPs or emergency call services centers has been, and still
is, a complex challenge to the wireless carriers or mobile telephone operators
who must provide the location information to telecom operators or LECs who,
in turn, must transmit the location information to PSAPs, which must receive
and use the information to provide emergency services." 12

The availability of several wireless cellular standards also complicates the
implementation of enhanced wireless emergency call services systems because
each PSAP must support the interface with the cellular standard and automatic
location technologies.' 13 The three major digital technologies are (1) Time
Division Multiple Access (TDMA), (2) Code Division Multiple Access
(CDMA) and (3) Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM). 114 First,
TDMA divides each cellular channel into three time slots in order to increase
the amount of data that can be carried. TDMA is used by multiple cellular
telephone systems throughout the world; however, each of these systems
implements TDMA in a somewhat different and often incompatible way.'1 5

Second, CDMA takes the entire allocated frequency range for a given service
and multiplexes information for all users across the spectrum range at the same
time. With CDMA, signals are broken into small, digitized segments and
encoded to identify each call. CDMA allows numerous signals to occupy a
single transmission channel thereby optimizing the available bandwidth." 6

106. See CGALIES Report, supra note 11, at 28-29; see also Hatfield, supra note 11, at 3;
and see ERIC KNOR, M-Busu-Ess GUIDE TO LOCATION, M-Business 66-79 (2001).

107. See CGALIES Report, supra note 11, at 28-29; Hatfield, supra note 11, at 10.
108. See CGALIIES Report, supra note 11, at 28-29; Hatfield, supra note 11, at 10.
109. See CGALIES Report, supra note 11, at 28-29; Hatfield, supra note 11, at 10.
110. See CGALIES Report, supra note 11, at 28-29; Hatfield, supra note 11, at 3.
111. See GCALIES Report, supra note 11, at 28-29.
112. See Hatfield, supra note 11, at 19; GCALIES, supra note 11, at 28.
113. See GCALIES Report, supra note 11, at 29.
114. See id. at 28-29.
115. Ivy Yvonne Kelly, The Multipath Fingerprint Method for Wireless E-911 Location

Finding 16 (May 2000), (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Texas, Austin) (on file
with author).

116. M. D. Milnes, Wireless Telephony: Cellular, PCS, and MSS, in COMMUNICATION
TECHNOLOGY UPDATE, 51-84 (August E. Grant & Jennifer H. Meadows eds, 6th ed., 2000).



IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REv.

Third, GSM employs a form of time division access. Time Division
Multiplexing (TDM) is used in GSM on each frequency channel to divide the
channel into time slots.1 7 GSM digitizes and compresses data, then sends it
down a channel with two other streams of user data, each in its own time slot.118

Presently, the dominant digital wireless technology in the cellular or mobile
phone market is GSM." 9

2. Telecommunications Technologies, Business and Markets

Wireless telephone and ALI technology manufacturers, distributors and
sellers are a part of the telecommunications industry that includes business
development and markets. 120  They also deploy new telecommunication
technologies and equipment to increase their domestic and foreign
competitiveness in geographic and product markets, such as cellular and
location information-based services. 21 Emerging wireless technologies will
speed the transmission of voice, data and other services by wireless carriers and
location services operators. 122 As PSAPs interface with LECs to route several

117. Id. at 51-84.
118. Christopher Drane, Malcolm Macnaughtan, & Craig Scott, Positioning GSM

Telephones, IEEE COMM. MAG., at 46-54 (April 1998).
119. Id. at 46.
120. See, e.g., United States Department of Labor, Telecommunications: Nature of the

Industry, at http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs020.htm#outlook (last visited Apr. 15, 2008)
[hereinafter USDOL-Nature of Telecommunications]. "The telecommunications industry is at
the forefront of the information age-delivering voice, data, graphics and video at ever
increasing speeds and in an increasing number of ways." Id.

121. Id. Although the United States Department of Labor provides the information for
career or occupational purposes, this labor information shows the dynamics of the
telecommunications industry, including wireless telecommunications:

[w]ireless telecommunications carriers are deploying several new technologies to
allow faster data transmission and better Internet access that should make them
competitive with wireline carriers. One technology is called third generation
(3G) wireless access. With this technology, wireless carriers plan to sell music,
videos, and other exclusive content that can be downloaded and played on
phones designed for 3G technology. Wireless carriers are developing the next
generation of technologies that will surpass 3G with even faster data
transmission. Another technology is called "fixed wireless service," which
involves connecting the telephone and/or Internet wiring system in a home or
business to an antenna, instead of a telephone line. The replacement of landlines
with cellular service should become increasingly common because advances in
wireless systems will provide data transmission speeds comparable to broadband
landline systems.

Id.
122. Id. See also TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, 2005 ANNUAL REPORT

(2005) [hereinafter TIA-Annual Report]. TIA "is a respected advocate for public policies that
promote competition, innovation and investment, and that foster a climate conducive to the
continued emergence of new communications technologies." Id. TIA also addresses public
policy concerns directly and indirectly impacting emergency call services systems and their
operations. See id. at 10-11. "TIA ... focuse[s] on federal funding for interoperability of

[Vol. 18:2



2008] WIRELESS EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICES IN THE EU AND U.S. 355

wireless cellular standards, a technological policy concern may arise regarding
the ability of new businesses to enter into wireless or cellular markets. In
giving preference to the dominant cellular or ALI technology, both EU and
U.S. policy-makers may impact the ability of new and old mobile operators or
wireless carriers to develop, deploy and diffuse emerging technologies based on
entry to new geographic and product markets where these organizations want to
acquire a favorable market share and profits. 123 However, competition among
competing cellular technologies forces PSAPs and LECs or telecom operators
to interface at the state's expense. 124 Thus, EU and U.S. telecommunications
policy-making for wireless cellular standards only becomes more complex with
the addition of telecommunications policy-making for automatic location
methods when both location information and wireless services are provided by
two or more competing technologies, commercialized in one or more business
markets, and impacted by one or more government policies, such as public
safety and national security. Unraveling these complexities of government
policies and their business and technological impacts requires analytics to find
and examine similarities and differences between unique U.S. and EU policies
and laws for establishing and implementing enhanced wireless emergency
number call systems.

C. Analytics for Reviewing El 12 and E911 under Telecommunications
and Public Safety Policies of the EU and U.S.

Parts III and V point out the policy-making forces in the United States
and the EU. Part VI includes the comparative review of implementing and
establishing E112 and E911 systems underlying public safety,
telecommunications, privacy and other policies. Against the backdrop of Parts
III and V and a better understanding of Part VI, this section sets forth analytics
for the comparative review conducted in Part VI. Readers may understand the
policy-making breadth, business development and market complexities of
public and private decision-making to establish and implement El 12 and E911.
The analytics of Part VI rely on legislative findings, objectives and laws that
have resolved both public safety and other policy concerns and addressed
business and market concerns among subscribers, industry and government.
These analytics identify and examine dominant policy forces and then identify
and weigh their most pertinent or influential force-specific interests in
establishing and implementing E911 and El12.125 EU and U.S. policy

public safety equipment and networks, Enhanced 911 (E91 1) and homeland security/critical
infrastructure protection/network security and reliability." Id.

123. Drane, Macnaughtan, & Scott, supra note 120, at 46.
124. See CGALIES Report, supra note 11, at 29. CGALIES also discussed the

commercialization of information technology in EU. See id. at 3 1.
125. See Oliver Paul Morandini, Urgent Need for Move to Political Agenda: 112:

European Emergency Telecommunications, EUR. J. OF NAVIGATION 1, 2-3 (2005) (finding the
implementation of Eli2 to be quite erratic in examining "the challenges linked to
communication between citizen and emergency service[s]" (internal citations omitted). See,



IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REV.

environments consist of politics (process), economics, social forces, technology
and public policy (direction). These environmental or policy forces effect or
shape the design of policy guidance, policy and regulation to address specific
public and business interests in deciding the outcome of force-specific
problems and concerns, such as providing emergency assistance to wireless
subscribers. This comparative analytical framework of business, markets and
policy and regulation contains macro and micro analytics to contrast and
compare EU and U.S. policy guidance, policies and regulation.

1. Macro-Analytical Criteria of an Environmental Analysis of
Forces Shaping Regulation and Effecting Commerce

Societal or environmental forces and their most pertinent interests are
macro-analytic tools in conducting or performing a comparative analytical
review of the design, creation and implementation of an enhanced wireless
emergency number call system and its regulatory schemes. The macro-analysis
relies primarily on legislative findings and substance, 126 business and industry
information and findings, 127 and legal and public policy information and
commentaries. 128 There are five societal and environmental policy-making
forces that contain conflicting and competing interests and can substantially
influence the design of legislative policies and regulation of government policy-
making and impact business plans and market growth. These environmental
forces include public and private interests that have had and still are having a
varied impact on U.S. and EU legislative policies and regulation for E9 11 and
E 112, respectively. 1

29

The environmental forces and their interests can be divided in several
groups to show their impact within the society and on commerce and policy-
making. The first grouping includes the nature of governmental efforts to
protect public interests, govern private relationships and maintain continuity
and stability in society. The political force and its interests include, among
others, legislative policy-making to further public interests; the legal restrictions
on market practices; addressing emerging public policy concerns; agency
regulation of business relationships; and the legal protection of substantial
business and other private interests. 130 Next, the public policy force and its

e.g., James E. Holloway et al., Regulation and Public Policy in the Full Deployment of the
Enhanced Emergency Call System (E-911) and Their Influence on Wireless Cellular and Other
Technologies, 12 B. U. J. OF SCL & TECH. L. 93 (2006) [hereinafter E-911 Regulation]
(examining federal policies, statutes and regulations governing the implementation of E91 1).

126. See infra Parts IV, V and accompanying notes (discussing the findings, purposes, and
substance of U.S. and EU policies and laws on E911 and E 112).

127. See supra Part Il.B and accompanying notes (discussing the types of cellular
standards and automatic location technologies in the EU and the United States).

128. See, e.g., Holloway, et al., supra note 127; Squeo, supra note 1; Ten Eyck, supra note
3; CGALIES, supra note 11.

129. See supra Part Il and accompanying notes (discussing EU and U.S. policy-making
processes and policies).

130. See supra Parts I.A, ll.A and accompanying notes (discussing public interests and

[Vol. 18:2



2008] WIRELESS EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVIcEs IN THE EU AND U.S. 357

interests include, among others, the state of protecting and furthering particular
public interests; the consideration, weight and priority assigned to particular
environmental or policy forces and their respective interests; the impact of
cultural differences on regional policies; recognition and protection of a
threatened public interest; responsiveness of policy-makers to the demand of
public policy concerns; and the public recognition of commerce and its interests
in the regulatory schemes.'

33

The second grouping includes the nature of commerce or business and
markets and their influence and impact on the industrial and commercial
development of technologies, products and services. The economic force and
its interests include, among others, the nature of the industry and its markets;
the diffusion and marketing of new technologies; the state of interstate domestic
competition; the capability to compete in global technology and services; the
state and development of current technology; the cost of developing and
implementing new technology for public needs; the responsiveness of business
decision-makers to new public obligations; the ability of key industries to
sustain themselves in the global marketplace; and the state of current and future
business and market conditions.1 32 Next, the technology or industry force and
its interests include, among others, the rate of the development of new
technology; the development and deployment of new technologies; the
interoperability of telecommunication technologies; compatible technology
standards for telecommunication equipment; the utility of new technology in
protecting public security; the state of current research and development; the
use of advanced technology to benefit public safety; and the impact of
providing safety and security benefits on new technology.' 33 The economic and
technology environments include efforts by business organizations and industry
to diffuse existing technology; to develop, deploy and diffuse new technology
for profits; to conform to public demands and to comply with public
obligations.

The third grouping includes only one environmental force and its interests
but justifies and precedes much of the activities and actions of the political and
public policy environments. The social force and its interests include, among
others, responding to changes in social norms; recognizing public safety,
privacy and other interests; addressing regional cultural differences; and
meeting important of social needs.' 34 The social environment is often the
driving force or impetus to creating public policy and making legislative policy,

policy-making in the United States and EU).
131. See supra Part II and accompanying notes (examining the policy-making forces and

public interests involved in establishing and implementing E 112 and E91 I emergency number
call systems).

132. See supra Parts H.B and accompanying notes (recognizing telecommunications policy
has substantial economic effects in domestic and global markets).

133. See supra Parts ll.C, lII.B and accompanying notes (identifying the technologies and
how they are related to providing public needs).

134. See supra Parts II.B, ll.C and accompanying notes (recognizing that El 12 and E19 are
public safety policies that further social welfare needs).



IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REv.

including E91 1 and E 112. 135 These environmental forces interact, compete and
conflict within society and policy-making. Unraveling and separating conflict
and competition among environmental forces, such as social and economic
concerns, and recognizing and weighing their competing interests, such as
public safety and cost recovery, is necessary for compromise in deciding the
direction and rate of change in establishing policies and regulation, namely
E112 and E911.

The macro-analytical framework includes analytical qualities that explain
the specific nature and dynamics of an environmental force and its impact on
policy guidance, policies and regulation of a regional government. These
qualities include (1) recognition of the intergovernmental nature of the force;
(2) inherent conflict or competition between two or more forces; (3) the
dominance of a force in a legislative policy-making scheme; (4) the
governmental level of the force (state or regional); (5) the dynamics or growth
of an environmental force under a regulatory scheme; (6) the impact of the
force on regulation of commerce and industry; (7) the impact of a force on
business and market stability and commercialization of technology; (8) the
nature and level of conflict among interests within a force; and (9) the ability of
a force to impact the direction or public policy of society.136 The environmental
or policy forces and their underlying interests show the interaction and
intervention of dominant and influential public and private interests under
policy-making processes and policies of the EU and U.S. The presence of
force-specific interests in policy-making leads to or precedes government
regulation of business practices and relationships. Primarily, the qualitative,
post hoc macro-analytical review focuses on how public safety, business
competition, deploying cellular and location technologies, recovering business
cost and other forces-specific interests have had or will have a significant
impact on E 112 and E9 11 policy guidance, policies and regulation or law.' 37

A comparative analytical framework includes macro-analytical forces and
their interests and micro-analytical criteria to contrast and compare EU and
U.S. emergency number call system policies. This analytical framework
examines policy forces of the policy-making environment and dominant force-
specific interests and determines the impact of policy forces and force-specific
interests on E 112 and E9 11 policy guidance, policies and regulation. Parts IV
and V illustrate how these forces and interests cause the need for particular
provisions in U.S. and EU telecommunications and public safety policy
guidance, policies and laws.

135. See supra Parts IIB, lI.C and accompanying notes.
136. See infra Part VI and accompanying notes (reviewing the impact of various business,

public safety, and other interests under particular business market and public policy criteria).
137. See infra Part VI and accompanying notes.

[Vol. 18:2



20081 WMELESS EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICES IN THE EU AND U.S. 359

2. Micro-Analytical Criteria to Identify and Examine Significant
Force-Specific Interests

Environmental forces involve national, state or regional public and
private needs. These regional or U.S. and EU needs contain narrow interests
that are made up of smaller, active, influential elements, such as public safety,
technology development and privacy. Weighing and examining these elements
or interests underlying policy guidance, policies and regulation requires micro-
analytics. A micro-analytical framework is necessary to ascertain the weight,
impact and other characteristics of one or more force-specific interests in
designing, establishing and implementing telecommunications, or E 112 and
E9 11, policies and regulation. A micro-analytical framework contains legal,
policy and business analytical criteria to examine the impact of force-specific
interests on the design of policy guidance, policies and regulation, such as EU
recommendations and U.S. statutes. To illustrate, assessing the commercial use
of ALI in the U.S. and EU brings into play social forces that explicitly involve,
among others, public safety and privacy interests. Like other social interests,
privacy interests have a weight and priority in regional and state policy-
making. 138 In protecting the privacy interests of the public and emergency
callers, E9 11 and E 112 policies and legislation need to address the public
nature, governmental importance, relative weight, social priority and other
criteria influencing privacy interests in EU and U.S. policy-making. A micro-
analytical framework contains and uses public policy, business, market, legal
and other criteria to ascertain the impact and influence of one or more force-
specific interests on designing, establishing and implementing E9 11 and E 112
policy guidance, policy and regulation.

Examining one or more force-specific interests requires micro-analytics
criteria to recognize and analyze any substantial influence or direct impact of
one or more force-specific interests on the design and implementation of
legislation, administrative regulations and policy guidance. This analytical
framework includes policy, legal and market criteria setting forth the impact,
importance, nature and role of a force-specific interest. In examining the
impact and significant of force-specific interests, the criteria are as follows: (1)
nature and significance; (2) governmental or public importance; (3) subject of
an importance state policy concern; (4) domestic market important; (5) specific
conflict with other interests; (6) impact on regional commerce; (7) a substantial
or fundamental regional interest; and (8) any impact on global business and
markets. The criteria apply to business, market and force-specific interests to
determine their relevance, impact and significance on the designing, making
and implementation of an E91 land El 12 regulatory scheme. 39 The micro-

138. See infra Part VI.B.1 and accompanying text (discussing the impact of privacy
concerns on EU and U.S. policies for emergency call number systems).

139. See infra Part VI and accompanying notes (discussing the application of business and
policy criteria to determine the impact of a particular interest).



IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REV.

analytic criteria can be used to analyze findings and purposes of legislative
policies and regulation, findings and analysis of business, industry and
commerce, and findings and commentaries of business, technology and public
policy. 

14

In summary, the macro- and micro-analytics give the comparative
analytical framework the power to ascertain and examine what and how public
and private force-specific interests, such as business and privacy, influence the
design and implementation of E 112 and E9 11 regulatory systems. 14 1 Equally
important, this analytical framework also suggests that if legislative and agency
policy-makers need to amend legislation and promulgate regulations of regional
and state E 112 and E9 11 regulatory schemes when technology, commerce or
markets and other circumstances adversely affect public safety or another
interest and thus undermine an important regional or state public policy, such as
public safety, national security or privacy. These macro- and micro-analytics
examine whether an environmental force or its interests have had or could have
a substantial impact or influence on the design, enactment and implementation
of enhanced wireless emergency call number systems or E 112 and E9 11 policy
guidance, legislative acts and agency regulations.

IV. EU POLICIES, LAWS AND GUIDANCE ON ESTABLISHING
AND IMPLEMENTING E 112 SERVICES

In the late 1980s, EU public safety with respect to travel among member
states and the growth of digital technology for use in wireline and wireless
telephones revitalized public policy concerns regarding the absence of a
standard or uniform emergency call number for the European Community. 142

140. See infra Parts IV, V and accompanying notes (discussing the findings, purposes and
substance of U.S. and EU emergency call number regulatory schemes).

141. Communication from the Commission Concerning Coordination and Preparatory
Work in the Telecommunications Field Toward the Introduction of a Standard Europe-Wide
Emergency Call Number by 1992, at 2, COM (88) 312 final (June 6, 1988) [hereinafter
Communication for the Commission]. See Recommendation 2003/558/EC, supra note 12, 12.
Paragraph 12 demonstrates the nature of EU policy guidance and its potential impact on
commerce and public safety in stating:

In the context of the continuous evolution of concepts and technologies, Member
States are encouraged to foster and support the development of services for
emergency assistance, for instance to tourists and travelers and for the transport
of dangerous goods by road or rail, including handling procedures for forwarding
location and other emergency or accident related information to public safety
answering points; to support the development and implementation of common
interface specifications in ensuring Europe-wide interoperability of such services;
and to encourage the use of location technologies with high precision such as
third generation cellular network location technologies and Global Navigation
Satellite Systems.

Id.
142. Communication from the Commission: Concerning Coordination and Preparatory

Work in the Telecommunications Field Towards the Introduction of a Standard Europe-Wide

(Vol. 18:2



2008] WIELEss EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICES IN THE EU AND U.S. 361

Different emergency call numbers existed among the various member states of
the EU. 143 In a few member states' emergency call systems, various emergency
services and assistance programs had different emergency call numbers.

This EU public safety concern was heightened by sharp increases in private and
business travel within the EU. 145 The EU initiated preparatory work and
eventually enacted legislation to establish and implement 112 as a standard
emergency call number for emergency assistance and services for EU citizens
and tourists traveling in member states. 146

A. EU Policy Guidance to Establish 112 or Emergency Call Number

The European Commission established 112 as the standard EU
emergency call number under the 1991 EU Commission Proposal on the
Introduction of a Standard Europe-Wide Emergency Call Number. 47

Notwithstanding technological, cultural and other differences, the eventual use
of new digital technology triggered rapid changes in the telecommunications
networks of all member states, hastening the creation of a standard EU
emergency call number.

148

1. Establishing a Single Number Emergency Call System for

Europe

The EU Council adopted the EU Commission proposal and enacted the
Council Decision-Single EU Number 149 on July 29, 1991,which was imposed
only on EU member states. 150 Article 1 of the Council Decision reads:

1. Member States shall ensure that the number 112 is
introduced in public telephone networks as well as in future
integrated services digital networks and public mobile
services, as the single European emergency call number.

2. The single European emergency call number shall be
introduced in parallel with any other existing national

Emergency Call Number by 1992, (COM (88) 312 Final) Jun. 6, 1998, § I (Introduction)
[hereinafter COMM (88) 312-EU Standard Emergency Number].

143. Id.
144. Id.
145. Id. at 2.
146. Id. at 7.
147. See Decision, 91/396/EEC, supra note 6.
148. Id. art. 3.
149. Decision 91/396/EEC, supra note 6. For definitions of the various forms of EU laws

and policies, see Part ImI.A. 1 and accompanying notes (discussing the nature and enforceability
of E 112 regulation, policies and policy guidance).

150. See Decision 91/396/EEC, supra note 6, art. 1.



IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REV.

emergency call numbers, where this seems appropriate. 151

The Council Decision required the implementation of 112 by December
31, 1992.152 Member states were permitted an exception, however, "[w]here
particular technical, financial, geographical or organizational difficulties in a
Member State [made] the full introduction... impossible or too costly ....

2. Creating Separate EU Policies for an Emergency Call Number

The Council Decision did not mandate an EU standard or uniform
emergency call number as a substitute for preexisting national numbers, but
instead established 112 as an additional emergency call number. 154  The
Council Decision establishes a broad EU public safety law and policy guidance
for member states. 55  Yet within a decade or less, the EU Commission
Parliament and Council needed to address another 112 public policy concern
regarding the need of PSAPs and emergency service centers for location
information on cellular and fixed callers who are injured but cannot give
precise location information, thus establishing the need for E 112 or enhanced
wireless emergency call services. 156

151. Id.
152. Id.
153. Id. at arts. 2-3.
154. Id. art.1. Article 1 states "[m]ember states shall ensure that the number 112 is

introduced in public telephone networks as well as in future integrated services digital networks
and public mobile services, as the single European emergency call number." Id.

155. See Decision 91/396/EEC, supra note 6, art. 1.
156. See CGALIES Report, supra note 11, at 5. The Commission of the Communities

(Commission) states that:
In the 1999 Review Communication (citation omitted), the Commission
considers that geographical location details should be provided by fixed and
mobile operators to the emergency authorities when emergency calls are made.
The Commission proposes that location information should be made available to
emergency authorities by 1 January 2003. In addition, the eEurope Initiative
highlights the possibility for all citizens on the move throughout Europe of
having full access everywhere to multilingual support, call localisation and fully
organised provision of emergency services through the 112 number. The industry
is studying the necessary technical solutions.

Commission of the European Communities, Sixth Report on the Implementation of the
Telecommunications Regulatory Package, at 34, COM (2000) 814 final. "The present
Communication presents a Review of EU regulation in telecommunications, and proposes the
main elements for a new framework for communications infrastructure and associated services."
Id. at 42; see also European Commission, Towards a New Framework for Electronic
Communication Infrastructure andAssociated Services The 1999 Communications Review, at ii,
COM (1999) 539 [hereinafter New Framework]. Thus, the EU was setting forth policy
guidance, though extremely soft, on the need for location information in implementing an
effective emergency call services system when the 1999 Communication Review, stated:

Technological developments now allow the geographical location not only of
fixed but also of mobile phones to be determined. It is feasible and in the public
interest to set a date by which all fixed and mobile operators provide caller

[Vol. 18:2



2008] WmaEEss EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICES IN THE EU AND U.S. 363

B. EU Preparatory Work for Establishing and Implementing El 12

The European Commission established two implementation committees

to begin preparatory work on establishing and implementing E 112 or enhanced
wireless emergency call services. 157 The first EU implementation committee

was created in 2000 to investigate the need for and use of location information

by cellular users in establishing and implementing enhanced wireless
emergency call services or E 112.158 The second committee was created to

investigate the need and use of wireline and wireless location information in the

EU. 159 The second EU implementation committee issued its initial report to
fulfill one of its objectives was to introduce timely findings to the first EU

investigative committee in order to help build consensus on the policy-making

approach to be adopted for the establishment and implementation of enhanced

wireless emergency services. 16°

location details to the emergency authorities when emergency calls are made. In
view of the sensitivity of location data to the privacy of mobile callers,
appropriate safeguards for personal data and privacy protection must be
established to ensure compliance with EU rules in this area. Given the
importance of such a facility for the European citizen and the state of
technological development, location information for emergency authorities
should be made available by 1 January 2003. This would fit in with the timescale
envisaged for implementation of the new regulatory framework.

Id. CGALIES notes that privacy is and will be a major legal issue in the information from
location acquisition technologies. See CGALIES Report, supra note 11, at 6 (noting that work
of CGALIES would be supported by several EU Commission research and development
project).

157. See VAN GERVEN, supra note 19, at 17 (finding the EU Council will delegate
implementation of legislation to the EU Commission, but this implementation is subject to
certain EU Council requirements). One of the EU Council's typical requirements is to require
the EU Commission to be assisted by a committee of civil servants or external experts in
performing preparatory work for implementation of legislation. Id. See also infra Part IV.B and
accompanying notes (discussing the two implementation committees created by the EU
Commission in establishing and implementing El 12).

158. CGALIES Report, supra note 11, at 6 (noting that work of CGALIES would be
supported by several EU Commission research and development projects); see infra Part IV.B. 1
and accompanying notes (explaining the purpose of the other implementation committee). The
final CGALIES Report was issued on January 28,2002. CGALIES Report, supra note 11, at 2.

159. See European Community Commission, Location of Cellular Users for Emergency
Services (LOCUS), 1 (January 3, 2002) [hereinafter LOCUS Report]. LOCUS is an EU
implementation committee that was established by the EU Commission to address the
technology policy concerns of the 5t Research Framework Programme of the European
Community. Id. LOCUS was initiated in June 2000 and concluded in December 2001; the final
LOCUS Report was issued on March 1, 2002. Id. at 1. The implementation committee
coordinator was Telematika e.K (DE) and other committee members of LOCUS; the authors of
the LOCUS Report were "France Developpement Conseil SARL (FR), Max.mobil.
Telekommunikation Servie GmbH, Motorola UK Ltd (UK), Telespazzio SpA (IT), and the
Public University of Navarra (ES)." Id.

160. Id. at4.



IND. INT'L & COMp. L. REV.

1. Investigating the Economic Impact of Implementing E12

The first EU Committee was the Location of Cellular Users for
Emergency Services (LOCUS) that was created in 2000 and issued its final
report on March 1, 2002.161 LOCUS' focus was on the need for and use of
cellular and wireless location information. 162  LOCUS recognized the
commercial assistance services and value added location-based services that
could be provided by the commercial development of automatic location
technologies. 63 Explicitly, LOCUS focused on issues related to the need for
location information technology by wireless or cellular systems, future
commercial applications and foreseeable markets for location technologies, and
two general implementation options. 164 Finally, another of LOCUS' objectives
was "[t]he active support to consensus building by the timely introduction of
findings to the Coordination Group on Location Services taking into account
feedback."'

165

LOCUS recognized that the FCC had chosen a forceful regulatory
approach that mandates wireless carriers to provide location information
notwithstanding business circumstances and economic conditions.' 66 However,
LOCUS found two principal implementation options: EU regulation and EU
market-driven approaches to member states and wireless carriers. 167 On one
hand, the EU regulatory approach would require the EU Commission, Council
and Parliament to jointly establish and implement accuracy requirements for
different environments, dates for mandatory implementation, and general
principles for financing. 168 On the other hand, the EU market-driven or policy
guidance approach would rely on market forces to commercialize high-accuracy
automatic location technologies (ALl) while simultaneously providing location-
based services and information to enhance 112 emergency call services. 169 The
market-driven approach obligated only the wireless carriers that had
implemented automatic location technology to provide location information to
the PSAPs. 170 The policy guidance approach would not mandate or establish
minimum standards for data quality and location accuracy.' 7' Thus the policy
approach could create disparity in provision of location information by wireless
carriers among PSAPs, wireless subscribers and location information users in
that location information of a different quality and accuracy could be provided

161. Id. at 1.
162. Id. at 3.
163. Id. at 3.
164. Id. at 4.
165. Id.
166. Id. at 3.
167. Id. at 12.
168. Id.
169. See id.
170. See id.
171. See id.

[Vol. 18:2



2008] WmFLESS EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICES IN THE EU AND U.S. 365

to each group.
LOCUS applied particular criteria to examine and evaluate the

advantages and disadvantages of the regulatory approach and market driven or
mere policy guidance approach.172 LOCUS considered in the implementation
of an EU regulatory scheme the macro-economic benefits to EU and member
state economies: the commercial development and market for location based
services and assistance, availability of business models and plans for the
commercialization of location based services, and implications of poor financial
returns and expectations. 173 In contrasting regulatory and policy guidance
approaches, LOCUS consider market or business cost of the various location
technologies to estimate the likelihood of carriers achieving a return on their
investment through commercial location based services. 174 LOCUS concluded
that the policy guidance or market-driven approach that requires the
commercialization of ALI technology was the more appropriate policy choice
for the EU to impose on member states. 75 The rationale for establishing and
implementing less forceful EU policy guidance or market driven policy-making
was that less forceful regulation or policy guidance would permit technology
manufacturers to develop ALI technologies for commercial purposes. 176 This
would not require wireless carriers to deploy and diffuse costly or highly
expensive ALI technology.177 Moreover, LOCUS recognized that EU and
member states did not have in place business models or financial recovery
mechanisms to support the costly deployment and diffusion of ALI
deployments for public benefits or purposes, namely El12.1" LOCUS'
findings would now be available for use by another EU implementation
committee that was established to investigate the need and use of location
information by PSAPs, wireless carriers and wireless subscribers in establishing
and implementing El 12.179

2. Investigating the Nature of ALI Technology in Implementing
El12

In creating the second implementation committee, the European
Commission sought to find "harmonized, timely and financial[ly] sound
solutions."'180 The Coordination Group on Access to Location Information for
Emergency Services (CGALIES) was established as a public service-private

172. See id. at 12-13.
173. See id.
174. See id. at 13.
175. Id. at 5 (implementing El 12 but not minimizing the impact on the business

development location-based services and markets).
176. Id. at 12-13.
177. Id.
178. Id. at 12-13.
179. Id. at 3.
180. CGALIES Report, supra note 11, at 5.



IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REV.

sector partnership in 2000.181 CGALIES established work groups and focused
on the identification of "[m]inimum 'standards' on location data accuracy,
reliability and evolution path," "[m]inimum requirements for location reference
system.. ., routing and networks .... databases and ... PSAPs .. ., and
[a]nalysis of financing and costs" 182 and the impact on the quality of services
and implementation.1 83 In January 2002, CGALIES issued its final report that
considered technology, cost of implementation and requirements issues.'8 4 Its
implementation options examined and found that existing location technologies
are feasible, 185 concluded that telecom providers/operators and PSAPs must
address cost issues186 and that uncertainty and divergence of views existed in
the implementation of commercial location services. 87 CGALIES proposed
several scenarios to pay for the implementation of El 12.188 Moreover,
CGALIES presented two implementation scenarios to implement El 12: a
market-driven regulatory scheme with little or no impact on the Eli 2
situation 189 and an outcome-driven or mandatory regulatory scheme that would
require network providers, member states and PSAPs to meet particular
obligations. 19

CGALIES noted that GSM is the dominant cellular technology for
Europeans, who owned almost 250 million GSM cellular telephones in January
2002.'9' CGALIES also found that member states provided funds or
established budgets for PSAP operations.192 PSAPs, in turn, provided funding
for LECs or Telecom Operators to interface with wireless carriers and operators
and would also provide funding for the installation of software and hardware
needed to receive location information.' 93 CGALIES pointed out that some
member states can own location databases and fixed lines.' 94 Finally,
CGALIES noted that the use of "GSM 112" had caused the budget in some
member states to increase significantly between 1998 and 2002.'95 In addition,
network providers and operators bore the cost for developing and installing196
network infrastructure and providing network or cellular services. CGALIES

181. Id.
182. Id. at 6.
182. Id.
183. Id.
184. Id. at 27.
185. Id. at 28.
186. Id. at 30.
187. Id. at 31.
188. Id. at 32.
189. Id. at 33.
190. Id. at 34.
191. Id. at 8. One must conclude that GSM is the dominant if not the only cellular standard

used in the EU. See id.
192. Id. at 29.
193. Id. at 29-30.
194. Id. at 29.
195. Id. at 29
196. Id.

[Vol. 18:2



2008] WIRELESS EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICES IN THE EU AND U.S. 367

made no mention of any cost recovery mechanism to offset the cost of network
operators and providers. In initiating a market-driven approach for the time
being, CGALIES found that a small amount of commercialization of location
information services existed in EU and that more services were expected in the
EU.

197

C. Establishing the El12 or Enhanced Wireless Emergency Services

The European Parliament and Council relied on CGALIES and LOCUS
to enact Directive 2002/22/EC on Universal Service and Users'Rights Relating
to Electronic Communications Networks and Services.198  Directive
2002/22/EC protects the rights and services of users who receive and use
telecommunications services and devices. a9

I. Establishing E112 in the EU

Specifically, Article 26, Single European Emergency Call Number, of the
directive pertains to E 112 and the need for automatic location information. 200

Article 26 states that:

197. Id. at 32.
198. Directive 2002/22/EC, supra note 12, at, art. 26. The United States has established

and implemented universal services for its telecommunication users. See 47 U.S.C. § 254
(2006). Universal services in the United States are evolving services that consider educational
and other public needs, market choices, deployment by telecommunications carriers, public
interests, and other policies. See 47 U.S.C. § 254(c)(1).

199. See Directive 2002/22/EC, supra note 12, art. 26.
200. Id. art. 1. Article 1 of Directive 2002/22/EC, contains the scope and aims of the

directive which include:
1. Within the framework of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive), this
Directive concerns the provision of electronic communications networks and
services to end-users. The aim is to ensure the availability throughout the
Community of good quality publicly available services through effective
competition and choice and to deal with circumstances in which the needs of
end-users are not satisfactorily met by the market.
2. This Directive establishes the rights of end-users and the corresponding
obligations on undertakings providing publicly available electronic
communications networks and services. With regard to ensuring provision of
universal service within an environment of open and competitive markets, this
Directive defines the minimum set of services of specified quality to which all
end-users have access, at an affordable price in the light of specific national
conditions, without distorting competition. This Directive also sets out
obligations with regard to the provision of certain mandatory services such as the
retail provision of leased lines.



IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REv.

Article 26

Single European Emergency Call Number

1. Member States shall ensure that, in addition to any other
national emergency call numbers specified by the national
regulatory authorities, all end-users of publicly available
telephone services, including users of public pay telephones,
are able to call the emergency services free of charge, by using
the single European emergency call number '112'.

2. Member States shall ensure that calls to the single European
emergency call number '112' are appropriately answered and
handled in a manner best suited to the national organization of
emergency systems and within the technological possibilities
of the networks.

3. Member States shall ensure that undertakings which operate
public telephone networks make caller location information
available to authorities handling emergencies, to the extent
technically feasible, for all calls to the single European
emergency call number '112'.

4. Member States shall ensure that citizens are adequately
informed about the existence and use of the single European
emergency call number '112'.201

Article 26 is part of an EU Directive that member states must further or
advance the objectives pertaining to El 22 within a certain duration, but permits
member states to choose the substantive means by which to implement EU

202objectives. Member state legislatures implement directives by means of theirown respective legislative procedures and practices. 20 3

2. Implementing El12 in the EU

In further establishing and implementing wireless El 12, the European

201. Id. art. 26.
202. Treaty Establishing the EU, supra note 61, art. 256.
203. Id.

[Vol. 18:2



2008] WIRELESS EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICES IN THE EU AND U.S. 369

Commission enacted a Recommendation on July 25 2003,20 Processing of
Caller Location Information in Electronic Communication Networks for the
Purpose of Location-Enhanced Emergency Call Services.205  While EU
Recommendations are technically not binding, they are generally followed
because they often serve as the predecessor of binding legislation. 20 6 The
European Commission recommended that when member states were to
integrate the Directive207 into national law, they should apply a variety of
harmonized conditions and principles to the provision of caller location
information for all calls to the single European emergency call number 112.208
The European Commission was silent on what remedies are available when
transmission by wireless and other operators to PSAPs is inaccurate or incorrect
location information of injured wireline and wireless subscribers is given, thus,
member states must provide justice in these situations. 209  The European
Commission also found that using location and telephone numbers could
invade the privacy of emergency callers. Thus the European Commission
permits emergency centers and personnel to use location information only for
emergency purposes and imposed limits on the location information, unless the
consent of wireless subscribers is given.21° The European Commission
recommendations to member states are technical standards and requirements.

The European Commission proposed several recommendations that
greatly impacted the implementation of wireless El12. Foremost, the

204. Recommendation 2003/558/EC, supra note 12.
205. Id.
206. Treaty Establishing the EU, supra note 61, art. 256.
207. Directive 2002/22/EC, supra note 12, art. 26.
208. Recommendation 2003/558/EC, supra note 12, at recommendation 1.
209. See id. 91 5-6 ("Whereas"). The European Commission recommends no immunity or

exemption from liability for the transmission of inaccurate or incorrect location information by
wireless or wireline operators. Id. CGALIES found incorrect and inaccurate location
information would be transmitted because street and address location databases were not
updated or revised frequently enough. CGALIES Report, supra note 11, at 10. However, the
European Commission does not impose mandates on member states or wireless carriers when it
requires only the "best effort to determine and forward the most reliable caller location
information ... " Recommendation 2003/558/EC, supra note 12,15 ("Whereas"). Further, the
European Commission requires a very low standard of care unlikely to be breached other than in
exceptional circumstances. CGALIES found a liability issue could arise if the position function
failed to locate the wireless callers. CGALIES Report, supra note 11, at 14.

210. See Recommendation 2003/558/EC, supra note 12, 1 2 ("Whereas"). In making
location information available to PSAPs and other emergency personnel, the European
Commission states:

Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic
communications networks and services (the 'Universal Service Directive')...
[OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 31], requires public telephone network operators
(hereafter 'operators') to make caller location information available to authorities
handling emergencies, to the extent technically feasible, for all calls made to the
single European emergency call number 112....

Id. The European Commission does not require emergency services to receive permission from
the wireless subscribers. Id.



IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REv.

Commission recommended that wireless carriers or network operators that
initiated the emergency call, should transmit or forward (push) to emergency
centers and PSAPs "the best location information available as to the location of
the caller, to the extent technically feasible., 21' In pushing location information
to PSAPs and emergency centers, the transmission or provision of location
information for an emergency caller on a specific request by emergency centers
or PSAPs was no longer accepted after December 31, 2004, which was the
conclusion of the review period for Recommendation 2003/558/EC.21 2 Next,
when the subscriber or user's number in an emergency call can be identified,
public telephone network operators or LECs should provide the capability "to
public safety answering points and emergency services of renewing the location
information through a call back functionality (pulling) for the purpose of
handling the emergency. 21 3 Finally, the scope and aims of the European
Commission's recommendations are broad in order to facilitate data transfer
between LECs or operators and PSAPs and allow member states to encourage
the use of a common open interface standard, and in particular, a common EU
data transfer protocol.21 4

211. Recommendation 2003/558/EC, supra note 12, 2 ("Whereas").
212. Id. at Recommendation 13.
213. Id. at Recommendation 9.
214. Id. IN 3-7, 10. Recommendation 2003/558/EC lists EU policy considerations as

follows:
(3) Although this Recommendation is concerned with location-enhanced 112, it
is understood that parallel national emergency call numbers will be enhanced
with the same functionality and following the same principles....
(4) For the successful implementation of El12 services throughout the
Community, implementation issues must be addressed and timescales for the
introduction of new systems coordinated. The Coordination Group on Access to
Location Information by Emergency Services (CGALIES) established by the
Commission in May 2000 as a partnership of public service and private sector
players has allowed players of different sectors to discuss and find agreement on
the principles for harmonized and timely implementation.
(5) Following on from the recommendation by CGALIES, providers of the public
telephone network or service should use their best effort to determine and
forward the most reliable caller location information available for all calls to the
single European emergency call number 112.
(6) During the introductory phase of E 112 services, application of the best efforts
principle is considered preferable to mandating specific performance
characteristics for location determination. However, as public safety answering
points and emergency services gain practical experiences with location
information, their requirements will become more defined. Moreover, location
technology will continue to evolve, both within mobile cellular networks and
satellite location systems. Therefore, the best effort approach will need to be
reviewed after the initial phase.
(7) It is important for all Member States to develop common technical solutions
and practices for the provision of El 12. The elaboration of common technical
solutions should be pursued through the European standardization organizations,
in order to facilitate the introduction of E 112, create interoperable solutions and
decrease the costs of implementation to the European Union.

[Vol. 18:2



2008] WIRELESs EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICES IN THE EU AND U.S. 371

The EU enacted a telecommunications directive mandating that member

states establish and implement E 112 as the European single emergency call
number but later chose a public safety recommendation to set forth substantive
standards for wireless E 112 that must now include location information, even if

not requested by the PSAPs.

V. US POLICIES, LAWS AND POLICY GUIDANCE ON
ESTABLISHING AND IMPLEMENTING E911

In the U.S. political system, Congress sets forth wireless communications
and related public safety policy in two major pieces of federal legislation.

Congress enacted the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of

1999215 (Wireless Safety Act) and the Ensuring Needed Help Arrives Near
Callers Employing 911 Act of 2004216 (Enhanced 911 Act). Federal policy

does not favor one cellular standard or one automatic location technology and
has remained technologically and competitively neutral during the
implementation of E911 by encouraging competition and product
development.217 The FCC also seeks to enhance the quality and reliability of

911 emergency call services by requiring wireless carriers to provide ALI to

PSAPs. The FCC mandates that subscribers of wireless phone services receive
the same quality of emergency call services as that available to wireline callers.

(13) To achieve the objectives of this Recommendation, the need for a continued

dialogue between public network operators and service providers and public
authorities including emergency services becomes even stronger.

Id.
215. Pub. L. 106-81, 113 Stat. 1286 (1999) (codified as amended in scattered sections of

47 U.S.C.); 47 U.S.C § 222 (2005); 47 U.S.C § 251 (2005). For an analysis of the pertinent

provisions of Wireless Safety Act and their effectiveness see Holloway, et al., supra note 127, at
106-10.

216. Pub. L. 108-494, 118 Stat. 3986 (2004) (codified as amended in scattered parts of 47
U.S.C). For an analysis of the pertinent provisions of Enhanced Act and their effectiveness see
Holloway, et al., supra note 127, at 110-114.

217. See In re Revision, 12 FCC Rcd, supra note 52, 5, 123. The FCC has relied on
technology-neutral standards to avoid interference with competition and, thus, has relied on
general performance standards to encourage the deployment of technology. See id. 5.
Specifically, the FCC states:

We also reemphasize that our rules are intended to be technology-neutral, and to
encourage the most efficient and effective technologies to report the location of
wireless handsets, the most important E9- 1- 1 feature both for those seeking help
in emergencies and for the public safety organizations that respond to emergency
calls.

Id. 5. The FCC also states:
One further point deserves mention. In setting deadlines and benchmarks for ALI, our policy has
been to be technologically and competitively neutral. As we indicated in the E9-1-1 First Report
and Order, our intention was to adopt general performance criteria, rather than extensive
technical standards, to guide the development of wireless 9-1-1 services. Our goal is to ensure
the rapid, efficient, and effective deployment of ALl as part of E9-1-1 ....
Id. 123.



IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REv.

Federal communication policy includes providing universal services to
US citizens and public. The United States has established and implemented
universal services for its telecommunication users.218 "Universal service is an
evolving level of telecommunications services . . .,,219 and now considers
educational and other public needs, market choices, deployment by
telecommunications carriers, public interests, and other policies. 220 In
establishing universal service, the FCC must consider the telecommunications
and information technologies.22'

A. Establishing E911 or Enhanced Wireless Emergency Call Services in
the United States

The Wireless Safety Act "'promote[s] public safety' by making 9-1-1 the
universal emergency assistance number, by furthering deployment of wireless
9-1-1 capabilities and related functions, and by encouraging construction and
operation of seamless, ubiquitous, and reliable networks for wireless

,,222services. The Wireless Safety Act designated 911 as the universalemergency number for all forms of U.S. telephone service. 223

1. Authorizing the FCC to Encourage and Support the States

The Wireless Safety Act authorizes the FCC to encourage and support the
states in establishing and implementing comprehensive end-to-end enhanced
wireless emergency call systems.224 Moreover, the Wireless Safety Act creates
parity between wireline and wireless carriers for tort and other liabilities related
to transmission mistakes and technical failures causing harm to subscribers and
other parties.225 Finally, the Wireless Safety Act prohibits wireless carriers
from disclosing or using wireless subscribers' location information for purposes
other than emergencies, except with authorization or permission of the
subscriber.226

218. See 47 U.S.C. § 254 (2006).
219. See id. § 254(c)(1).
220. Id.
221. Id.
222. 47 U.S.C. § 615 (2006) (providing the language of the Premable of the Wireless

Safety Act). See also Holloway, et al., supra note 127 at 106-110 (examining the provisions of
the Wireless Safety Act and its effectiveness in furthering E911 policies).

223. 47 U.S.C. § 251(e) (2006).
224. 47 U.S.C. § 615 (2006).
225- 47 U.S.C. § 615a (2006).
226. 47 U.S.C. § 222(0 (2006). Although E911 has great potential to reduce human

suffering and save lives, the ALl technology of E911 could be equally as destructive in
destroying the privacy of tens of millions of Americans and, thus, raises timely federal and state
privacy issue. See Matthew Miclde Werdegar, Note, Lost? The Government Knows Where You
Are: Cellular Telephone Call Location Technology and the Expectation of Privacy, 10 STAN. L.
& POL'y REv. 103 (1998). The ALI technology permits other parties to track and contact
wireless subscribers for commercial purposes as they own or use their cellular telephones. See

[Vol. 18:2



20081 WMRELESS EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICES IN THE EU AND U.S. 373

2. Substantive Obligations on the FCC but Not the States

Sections I-V of the Wireless Safety Act contain the substantive

provisions that impose obligations on the FCC to support and encourage the

implementation of an effective and ubiquitous E911 system. 227 Section II

proclaims the importance of establishing and maintaining an end-to-end
228

communications infrastructure for emergency services. 2  Congress also

determined that an end-to-end emergency communications infrastructure would

reduce emergency response times and thus save both thousands of lives and

billions of dollars in health care costs. 229 Congress also found that it was

necessary to encourage statewide coordination among emergency service

providers, establish funds for technology development and deployment,

integrate emergency communications with traffic control and management

systems, and charge the FCC with designating 911 as the nation's official

emergency number.230 The Wireless Safety Act requires the FCC to
"encourage and support efforts by States to deploy comprehensive end-to-end

emergency communications infrastructure and programs, based on coordinated

statewide plan, including seamless, ubiquitous, reliable wireless

telecommunications networks and enhanced wireless 9-1-1 service.' 231

B. Implementing E911 Policy and Regulation

The FCC has used federal telecommunications and communications

policy to regulate emergency call services or 911 since 1967 when the

President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice

assigned the task of establishing a single emergency number to the FCC.232 The

FCC promotes safety of life through imposing and enforcing obligations on the

uses of wire and radio communication for emergency services and assistance.233

CGALIES, supra note 11, at 33 (discussing a market-driven scenario that provides location
based services and El 12 services); see also Hatfield, supra note 11, at 43-44 (recognizing a
symbiotic relationship between E9 11 and location-based services but noting that the FCC has
shown no interest in commercialization); See Stanton Zeff, A New Spin on Location Services,
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERCAS, Sep. 2004, at 36, 36-37 (recognizing the income producing
potential of location-based services). The Wireless Safety Act sought to limit disclosure or use
of location information for purposes that could interfere or intrude on the privacy interests of
wireless subscribers. See 47 U.S.C. § 222(f). Of course, in making the technology available for
commercial uses, the subscribers can give comment for use of this location information. Id.

227. 47 U.S.C. § 615(a).
228. Id. § 615(a)(1).
229. Id.
230. Id. § 615(a)(2).
231. Id. § 615 (Note).
232. See Press Release, FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC Acts to Promote

Competition and Public Safety in Enhanced Wireless 911 Services, No. 99-32, (Sept. 15, 1999).
233. See Ensuring Needed Help Arrives Near Callers Employing 911 Act of 2004, Pub. L.

No.. 108-494, 118 Stat. 3986 (2004); Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999,
Pub. L. No. 106-81 (1999); Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat.
56 (1996); Communications Act of 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-416, 48 Stat. 1064 (1934).



IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REv.

In mid 1996, the FCC formally mandated that wireless 911 callers receive the
same level of emergency call services as that available to wireline callers.2 4

This emergency call service enables emergency dispatchers at PSAPs to locate
callers from wireless phones.2 35 Originally, the FCC order mandated a five-year
plan for implementation of wireless E9 11 in two major phases to satisfy both
public safety and wireless carrier feasibility perspectives.236

1. FCC Policy-Making to Implement E911

Phase I of FCC policy-making for the implementation of E91 Irequired
mobile carriers to provide PSAPs with location information and callback
number.237 Phase I required that calls be routed to the operator at the
appropriate PSAP based on serving cell/sector information.238 Next, Phase I
required carriers to have in place a system to convey to the PSAP the 911
caller's callback number information as well as the location of the cell tower or
base station receiving the 911 call.239 Phase H required carriers to provide ALI
(the location of wireless callers).24

0 This location was defined in two
dimensions (longitude and latitude) within a radius of no more than 125 meters
(410 feet) for at least 67 percent of all wireless E911 calls.241

Phase H required wireless carriers to provide PSAPs with the location of
all 911 callers by longitude and latitude in accordance with specified accuracy
requirements.242 Such requirements were dependent on whether the carrier
chose a network-based or handset-based solution.243 However, Phase H had
limited success implementing enhanced wireless emergency call services during
the first five-year plan. 244 During Phase H, the FCC granted limited waivers to
six wireless carriers, but imposed revised deployment schedules and quarterly

24reporting requirements. 24 Wireless carriers and PSAPs were not prepared to
meet the FCC implementation plan or deployment schedule.246 Many carriers
failed to meet the deployment requirements of Phase H by the required date of

234. See 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(b) (2006).
235. See id. § 20.18(e).
236. See id. § 20.18(a)-(f).
237. Seeid. § 20.18(d).
238. Id.
239. Id.
240. See id. § 20.18(h).
241. Id. § 20.18(e).
242. Id.
243. See id. § 20.18(e), (h).
244. See Hatfield Report, supra note 11, at 17. More than seven thousand 911 call centers

exist in the United States. Id. at 18. Wireless carriers are national or regional in scope and their
service areas exceed the boundaries of any one call center. Id. at 18-19. In a typical region
served by one LEC, there may be six or seven wireless carriers, using varying cellular
technologies and their supporting location solutions, multiple PSAPs, and millions of
consumers. Id.

245. Id. at 8.
246. See id.

[Vol. 18:2



2008] WIRE SS EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICES IN THE EU AND U.S. 375

October 1, 2001.247 As of May 12, 2005, only six states had implemented
Phase 11.248 In December 2005, two-thirds of the nation's citizens resided in
areas compliant with Phase I and 11.249

2. State Policy-Making for Implementing E911

Though the Wireless Safety Act requires the FCC to encourage and
support states in implementing E911 call systems, the FCC does not regulate
state entities, such as PSAPs.250 The Wireless Safety Act states that "[n]othing
in this section shall be construed to authorize or require the Commission [FCC]
to impose obligations or costs on any person." 251 The FCC, however, can
impose deadlines and fines on the communication industry for failure to
procure location information even if state and local governments have not yet
deployed adequate communication infrastructure and programs to receive such
information.25 2

The FCC regulation permits states to place the costs of implementing
E9 11, such as ALI technology development and location information, with the
wireless carriers even though it is a public benefit neither required nor
necessary to provide cellular telephone services.25 3

In U.S. Cellular Corp. v. FCC,25 4 the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit decided whether wireless carriers could be

247. See In re Revision of the Comm'n Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911
Emergency Calling Systems, 15 F.C.C.R. 17442, 17445 (FCC Sept. 8, 2000) (Fourth
Memorandum Opinion and Order).

248. Squeo, supra note 1.
249. See Press Release, National Emergency Number Association, Two-thirds of

Population Now Covered by Phase II Wireless E9- 1-1: NENA Releases Current Wireless 9-1-1
Statistics, (Dec. 22, 2005), available at
http://www.nena.org/PressRoomreleasesnew/12.20.05%20wireless%20statistics.pdf.

250. See 47 U.S.C. § 615 (2006).
251. Id.
252. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 158-159 (2002) (giving the FCC the regulatory authority to impose

regulatory fees to cover the costs of operations and administration); see 47 U.S.C §§ 502-503
(2002) (authorizing forfeitures and fines on medial and wireless carriers).

253. See In re Revision of the Comm'n's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced
911 Emergency Calling Systems, Memorandum and Order, 14 F.C.C.R 20850,20885-86 (FCC
Dec. 8, 1999) (Second Memorandum Opinion and Order) [hereinafter E911 FCC Second
Memorandum and Order] (finding carrier cost recovery could become an obstacle to
implementation of E-911); See In re of Revision of the Comm'n's Rules to Ensure
Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, 12 F.C.C.R. 22665, 22734-35
(FCC Dec. 23, 1997) (First Memorandum Opinion and Order) [hereinafter E911 FCC First
Memorandum and Order] (refusing to provide a cost recovery mechanism for carrier). The
FCCs original position on cost recovery required a cost recovery mechanism to be in place for
the implementation of E91 1. See 1996 FCC Report, supra note 93, at 18699 (requiring cost
recovery mechanism to be in place but not requiring a specific mechanism and recognizing a
negative impact on implementation of an inflexible federal mechanism).

254. U.S. Cellular Corp. v. FCC, 254 F.3d 78 (D.C. Cir. 2001).



IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REv.

forced or mandated to bear the cost of implementing wireless E9 11.255 The
court concluded that wireless carriers should bear the financial burden of
implementing E911 emergency call services for wireless subscribers, rather
than imposing this burden on government-owned PSAPs that provide public
safety benefits but do not contribute to the cost of those benefits.256 The D.C.
Circuit held that the FCC's refusal to impose a cost recovery mechanism on
municipal, county or state governments did not violate the cost causation

257principle. The court found that although the FCC imposed the costs on
wireless carriers, the carriers could in turn impose implementation cost on the
wireless subscribers receiving the benefits of E9 11.258 Consequently, the
development, deployment and diffusion of cellular standard and location
technologies depend on both the availability and abundance of private
resources. However, wireless carriers are providing a public safety benefit for
wireless subscribers and the public both exposed to national security and
natural disaster threats.

C. Public Safety and Telecommunication Regulation to Implement E911

Congress enacted the ENHANCE 911 Act of 2004259 to expand the E9 11
wireless emergency call services system policy, but it did not make state
obligations more forceful. 26

0 The objectives of the ENHANCE 911 Act are to

improve, enhance, and promote the Nation's homeland
security, public safety, and citizen activated emergency
response capabilities through the use of enhanced 911
services, to further upgrade [PSAP] capabilities and related
functions in receiving E-911 calls, and to support in the
construction and operation of a ubiquitous and reliable citizen
activated system.26'

1. Public Safety Policy to Encourage State and Local Participation

Section 102 of ENHANCE 911 outlines the congressional findings and
finds that the 911 emergency call number system protects public safety and
homeland security but needs public resources, state policy coordination and

255. Id. at 83.
256. Id. at 85.
257. Id. at 84.
258. Id. at 88.
259. See E-911 Regulation, supra note 127, at 110-14 (examining the Enhanced 911 Act of

2004, including its benefits and advantages).
260. See 47 U.S.C. § 151 (2006).
261. ENHANCE 911 Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-494, 118 Stat. 3986,3986 (codified in

scattered sections of 47 U.S.C.).

[Vol. 18:2



2008] WIRELEsS EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICES IN THE EU AND U.S. 377

management of E91 I fees.262 Section 102 finds that taxes and federal
leadership are needed to implement E9 11.263 Section 103 lists the act's
purposes:

(1) to coordinate 911 services and E-911 services, at the
Federal, State, and local levels; and (2) to ensure that funds
collected on telecommunications bills for enhancing
emergency 911 services are used only for the purposes for
which the funds are being collected. 264

Section 104 amends the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration Organization Act265 providing for the coordination of E911
implementation by a federal office.266 Section 104 also includes a termination
provision, leading one to conclude that E911 problems could be corrected by
2009.267 The conclusion of any near term correction, however, appears to be
only wishful congressional thinking, as Congress chose not to fund the
ENHANCE 911 Act.268

262. See Pub.L. 108-494, Title I, § 103, Dec. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 3986.
263. See id..
264. Id. § 103.
265. Id. § 104. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Organization Act created the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA). 47 U.S.C. § 901(b)(6) (2006). Section 901 (b)(6) states NTIA is "principally
responsible for advising the President on telecommunications and information policies, and for
carrying out the related functions it currently performs, as reflected in Executive Order 12046."
Id.

266. See 47 U.S.C. § 942(a)(l)(A).
267. See id. § 942(d)(2) (stating the authorization of funding for the ENHANCE Act under

47 U.S.C. § 942 (d)(l) will expire on Oct. 1, 2009).
268. See Squeo, supra note 1, at Al; Press Release, National Emergency Number

Association, Over 35 National Organizations Request Full Funding for ENHANCE 911 Act In
Letter to Congress, (Feb. 24, 2005), available at
http://www.nena.org/UserFiles/File/ENHANCE%20911%2OAct%20Funding%20Support%20L
etter%20Release%202.24.pdf. NENA "foster[s] the technological advancement, availability
and implementation of a universal emergency telephone number system (9-1-1)." NENA, What
Is NENA?, http://www.nena.org/pages/Content.asp?CID=119&CTID=38 (last visited Apr. 4,
2008). "NENA promotes research, planning, training and education. The protection of human
life, the preservation of property, and the maintenance of general community security are among
NENA's objectives." Id. The EU counterpart to NENA is the European Emergency Number
Association (EENA). EENA, Objectives, available at
http://www.eena.orglview/enlactivities/objectives.html jsessionid= 1C IODEAI 8C69172FF27AA
D057A1D9984. (last visited on Apr. 23, 2008). EENA's "main objective is to promote the
knowledge and efficient use of the 112, the single European Emergency Call Number, all over
Europe . I..." Id. EENA "act[s] as a discussion platform bringing together all the actors
(organizations, emergency services, enterprises and individuals) involved with the development
and implementation of the 112." Id.



IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REV.

2. Unfunded Carrot Approach to Effect State Policy-Making for
E911

Congress uses financial incentives to encourage states to establish and
implement an E911 emergency call system. Section 104 creates "Phase II E-
911 Implementation Grants 269 that permit "[t]he Assistant Secretary and the
Administrator, after consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and
the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, and acting through
the Office, shall provide grants to eligible entities for the implementation and
operation of Phase H E-9 11 services."270 Section 105 requires the Government
Accounting Office to study and report on the imposition and use of fees by
political subdivisions. 1 While, Section 106 obligates the FCC to study and
report the history and status of waivers that have been offered under Phase H to
Congress. 272 Finally, Section 107 authorizes the FCC to grant waivers to a
"provider of commercial mobile service (as defined in section 332(d) of the
Communications Act of 1934273...) that had 500,000 or fewer subscribers as of
December 31, 2001." 274 The U.S. E911 policies impose public safety and
telecommunication obligations on wireless carriers and require connection to
PSAPs when they are ready to receive location information, but U.S. E911
policies are primarily federal policy guidance for state and governments that
must eventually provide hardware and software equipment to receive
emergency calls requiring wireless carriers to transmit telephone numbers and
location information from wireless subscribers.

VI. COMPARATIVE REVIEW OF EU AND U.S. ENHANCED
WIRELESSS EMERGENCY CALL SERVICES POLICY-MAKING AND

POLICIES AND REGULATION

The comparative review uses a business market-public policy approach
275analyzing environmental forces and their most pertinent interests. The first

level is a macro-analysis that examines the nature, dynamics and influence of
policy forces on U.S. and EU public safety and communications policy-making
and policies 276 shaping El12 and E911 policy guidance, policies and
regulation. In recognizing the pertinent forces and dominant interests, we
assume U.S. and EU policy-makers preserve domestic and global competition
in a single market, assign different weights and priorities to similar policy-

269. 47 U.S.C. § 942 (b).
270. Id. § 942 (b)(1).
271. ENHANCE 911 Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-494, 118 Stat. 3986, 3990 (2004).
272. Id. § 106.
273. 47 U.S.C. § 332(d) (2006).
274. Pub. L. 108-494, 118 Stat. 3986, 3991 § 107(a)-(b).
275. See supra Part HIC and accompanying notes.
276. See supra Part Ill.C. 1 and accompanying notes (describing the nature of policy-forces

likely to shape EU and U.S. policy-making for public safety and telecommunications).

[Vol. 18:2



2008 WIRELESS EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICES IN THE EU AND U.S. 379

making forces and interests, and show appropriate deference to state policies
and interests in traditional areas of state and member state government.
Moreover, analyzing the fullest impact of any environmental or policy force and
its interests on policy-making for public safety and telecommunications is
beyond the scope of this article.

On a deeper level, there is a need to analyze the impact of more pertinent
force-specific interests. This is based on the public need, or attention given, to
limiting government intervention and market restraints. Thus, the second level
is a micro-analysis that examines business, government and policy criteria to
ascertain the impact of force-specific interests on U.S. and EU policy to
establish and implement E 112 and E91 1 regulatory schemes.277 These criteria
apply to force-specific interests to determine their most likely prevalence,
weight and relevance and their impact on policy guidance, policies and
regulation to establish, implement and sustain E911 and El12 regulatory
schemes.278 In short, the comparative analytical review is a qualitative analysis
of the influence of broad environmental forces, and the impact of narrow force-
specific interests on E 112 and E91 1 policy guidance, policies and regulations.

A. Politics and Social Forces underlying Public Safety and
Telecommunications Policy-Making

Although the emergency call system began in Europe, our focus is on the
European Union, which has had a shorter time to establish and implement a
regional emergency call number system.279 In the EU, it is not the passage of
time alone that explains differences in the El 12 policy-making responses, but
the rapid development and diffusion of digital cellular and location

technologies for wireless emergency call services. 280 Finally, tourism,
telecommunication commerce and their development have some influence on
the EU policy-making, or legislative efforts, to harmonize establishing and
implementing El 12 among uniquely different cultures in Europe.28'

1. Industry and Political Forces in Public Safety Policy-Making

The EU Commission, Parliament and Council choose not to impose
mandatory obligations on member states to protect public safety and privacy
interests of its wireless subscribers and callers. 282 EU policy-makers also
choose to resolve the conflict between economic and social forces, namely

277. See supra Part m.C.2 and accompanying notes (describing the nature of force-specific
interests impacting EU and U.S. policy-making for public safety and telecommunications).

278. See supra Part lI.C.2 and accompanying notes.
279. See EU Decisions, 91/396/EEC, supra note 6 (establishing 112 as the EU emergency

call numbers by requiring member states to insure its implementation).
280. See id.
281. See Comm. (88) 312 EU-Standard Emergency Number, supra note 142, § I.
282. See Recommendation 2003/558/EC, supra note 12, 9 5-6.



IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REv.

economic growth and public safety, by giving greater weight to the protection
of business or technology interests in establishing and implementing El 12.
The EU's policy choices recognize that the telecommunication industry would
suffer an economic hardship by diverting funds and capital from business
operations and commercial research and development. 283 In contrast, the
LOCUS and CGALIES reports place great emphasis on funding a viable
market solution to provide emergency call number services, recognizing that
public safety concerns are resolved by regulating telecommunications
markets.284 Finally, the EU intervenes in provision of emergency call number
services and weighs business and market consequences and public needs to
arrive at mere policy guidance that leaves member states considerable flexibility

285in implementing E 112 under only an EU Commission Recommendation.
In U.S. policy-making, Congress weighs public policy, and market and

business interests, charting a different policy course in the design and
implementation of E9 11 subject to regulatory management by the FCC.286 In
intergovernmental relations, the fact that one national or regional government
starts first can be meaningless. The Hatfield Report points out the
shortcomings of U.S. E911 policy design and implementation, although its
recommendations were not heeded in Congress, and that FCC policy-making
focused on economic and public needs, not business concerns.287 Moreover,
American states and their PSAPs may choose to delay, or not implement, state
or federal policies while wireless subscribers pay fees and taxes to fund the
implementation of E9 11 policies under federal and state law.288 These states
can collect and spend these taxes and fees for purposes other than to implement
public safety needs, such as E91 1.289 Of course, conflict is apparent between
social and economic policy-making forces in that American wireless carriers
must fund the implementation of emergency number call services. 290 In U.S.
Cellular Corp. v. FCC,291 the D.C. Circuit agreed with the FCC that

283. See LOCUS, supra note 160, at 12 (finding a market-driven approach to regulating
telecom operators/carriers, PSAPs, and member states could be effective in the EU).

284. See id. at 12-13 (discussing two implementation options for El 12); CGALIES, supra
note 11, at 33-35 (discussing two implementation scenarios for the El 12).

285. See generally Recommendation, 2003/558/EC, supra note 12; see supra Part III.A.1
and accompanying notes (discussing the enforceability of an EU Recommendation among).

286. See supra Part V.B and accompanying notes.
287. See Hatfield, supra note 11, at i-v. In ENHANCE Act 2004, Congress attempted to

coordinate the involvement of federal agencies, but it did not fund the ENHANCE Act of 2004,
so little was done. See 47 U.S.C § 942(b)(3) (2006).

288. See The Wireless Safety Act of 1999,47 U.S.C. § 615 (2006). The Act states "[tihe
Federal Communications Commission shall encourage and support efforts by States to deploy
comprehensive end-to-end emergency communications infrastructure and programs, based on
coordinated statewide plans .... Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize or
require the Commission to impose obligations or costs on any person." Id.

289. See Squeo, supra note 1 at Al.
290. See supra Part V.C and accompanying notes (discussing the lack of a cost recovery

mechanism on implementing ALI technology).
291. U.S. Cellular Corp. v. FCC, 254 F.3d 78, 78 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

[Vol. 18:2



2008] WmEI.Ess EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICES IN THE EU AND U.S. 381

subsidizing the deployment of ALI and other technologies would lead to a delay
in implementing E9 11.292

In reviewing EU and U.S. policies, U.S. regulation of the
telecommunications industry, establishing and implementing E911 policies,
places less emphasis on business costs and investments provided American
wireless carriers are subject to competitively neutral legislative and regulatory
schemes. The U.S. public policy does not favor commercialization of
telecommunications, rather it seeks immediate policy outcomes of business and
markets to further public safety objectives. Unlike the United States, the EU
favors a public policy that relies on less intervention in business development
and commercial growth of emerging automatic location technologies. Neither
U.S. nor EU policy-makers have established a legislative scheme that applies an
appropriate balance of public safety and business interests forceful enough to
induce or cause states to execute federal or regional policy objectives of El 12
and E9 11. In recognizing that E9 11 and E 112 policy-making is not one stage
process, a macro-analytical comparative perspective finds that deference to state
governments, and a prolonged reliance on market or legislative initiatives to
implement an emergency call services policy must eventually give way to
reasonable government mandates imposing public obligations on business
organizations, technology manufacturers and state governments.

2. Technology Costs and Emergency Call Number Interests of
Public Safety Policies

A micro-analytical review finds that EU and U.S. policy guidance,
policies and regulation of E 112 and E9 11, respectively, place different weights
on emergency call number assistance interests and business costs interests.
This different treatment gives states entirely different latitude in providing
emergency call number services to their citizens. EU states may not make
forceful demands on wireless carriers and operators only required to provide
timely, accurate information based on existing technology.293 EU policy-
makers are quite clear on the importance of business development and cost
recovery to the growth and competitiveness of the telecommunications industry
in a single market and global economy.

The U.S.'s E911 policy appears to give less weight to financial interests,
namely capital investments, cost recovery and business development. The
United States, however, mandates technology development, deployment and
diffusion of location and wireless technologies. The E911 policy imposes
public obligations on wireless carriers to develop technology, but does not
relate rate of commercialization to any level of public safety benefits. The lack

292. See id. at 87.
293. See Recommendation 2003/558/EC, supra note 12, Art 4 (wireless carriers or telecom

operators must provide "best information available as to the location of the caller, to the extent
technically feasible").



IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REV.

of commercialization and cost recovery are evidence of little reciprocity
between public safety and technology costs, in particular business development
and commercialization. U.S. policy-makers should not thwart business
development by feigning that wireless subscription fees are sufficient to
develop and commercialize new technology, notwithstanding immunity from
civil lawsuits.294

U.S. and EU policy-makers and telecommunications industries must each
find a regulatory scheme establishing appropriate incentives for commercial
investment and timely provisions for public safety needs. Imposing financial
costs on wireless subscribers and carriers leaves the states and PSAPs to move
slowly and invest last. A micro-analytical review reveals an imbalance in the
weights placed on commerce and social welfare interests in making E9 11
policies that threatens to undermine implementation of state and local E911
regulatory schemes. Global and domestic competition demands legislative and
regulatory schemes to apply an appropriate balance between public safety and
technology interests to further public safety.

B. Industry and Public Policy Forces underlying Public Safety and
Telecommunications Policy-Making

U.S. and EU telecommunications policies have reflected genuine
industrial needs and public policy concerns regarding the domestic and global
market needs of the telecommunications industry. Yet, this industry must be
regulated to provide emergency call number services. The U.S. and EU
findings show that business competition and cost interests have been weighed
in the provision of social needs, namely public safety services, under
telecommunication policies and regulation. 295 Economic interests are not
confined to regional telecommunication markets involving the survival of the
regional or multi-state wireless carriers or operators that acquire and install
location information and cellular standards technologies. The U.S. and EU
economic environments include global markets and competition for the
development, deployment and diffusion of telecommunication equipment,
products and services.296

294. See 47 U.S.C. § 615(a) (waiving liability for harm caused by the release or use of
location information in emergency situation and thus creating parity among the users or parties
involved in providing emergency call number services to the public).

295. See 47 U.S.C. § 251 (2006) (establishing "a rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-
wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for
the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life .. ." ld.); see
Directive 2002/22/EC (indicating "the aim is to ensure the availability throughout the
Community of good quality publicly available services through effective competition .... ). Id.
art. 1.

296. See generally Communication on Regulatory Framework of Telecommunications,
supra note 2 (discussing the need for convergence of markets in a single European market).

[Vol. 18:2



2008] WRELESS EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICEs IN THE EU AND U.S. 383

1. Social and Economic Forces of Public Safety Policy-Making

Both EU and U.S. telecommunications policies protect domestic
telecommunications markets by encouraging competition, thereby encouraging
development, deployment and diffusion of new technologies.297 EU policies to
further commercial or business interests are quite straightforward, and its
market-driven policy approach prefers commercialization over restrictive
regulatory mandates. U.S. public-safety interests simply outweigh economic
policy forces and do not alleviate costs or other economic concerns placed on
wireless carriers and their business operations in implementing E911

298emergency call number services.
The FCC leaves the economic policy force underpinning profitable

business operations, stable marketing strategy of wireless carriers and location-
based services providers at the mercy of PSAPs and other state agencies. When
PSAPs request compliance with Phase H, they enforce an FCC mandate
requiring wireless carriers to deploy and diffuse location technology causing
LECs to install routing and other equipment to receive location and cellular
data to transmit to PSAPs.299 The FCC's neutral-market policy approach
translates into a somewhat weak public policy approach on economic interests
other than competition and thus excludes financial costs, return on investment,
strategic market planning, research and development programs, meeting global
competition, and finding commercial market opportunities for technology.3°

Under this U.S. market-neutral policy approach, Congress and the FCC have
not created a wireless or telecommunications policy that encourages the rapid
and broad development of public and private uses of ALl technology,
notwithstanding the ubiquitous nature of E911 and cellular phones.

Commercial use is not entirely forgotten in the Wireless Safety Act, but
Congress rightfully goes in the opposite direction by imposing restrictions on
the use of ALl technology and disclosure of location information. 30 1 Although
Congress was silent on encouraging or fostering legitimate commercial uses,
Congress does permit wireless subscribers to consent to commercial uses of
information obtained with ALl technology and permits wireless carriers to
explore commercial uses. 3°2  The commercialization of technology in
implementing the E911 emergency call number regulatory scheme is not new.

297. See supra Parts IV.B, V.B and accompanying notes (discussing U.S. and EU public
safety policy-making involving the telecommunications industry).

298. See U.S. Cellular Corp., 254 F.3d at 83-86 (not permitting cost recovery by wireless
carriers for the implementation of the E91 1).

299. See 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(e) (2006).
300. See U.S. Cellular, 254 F.3d at 86. These carriers had requested the FCC to consider a

proposed rule. E911 FCC First Memorandum and Order, supra note 23, at 22728-34.
301. See 47 U.S.C. § 222 (2006). Wireless carriers can provide location information "to

providers of information or database management services solely for purposes of assisting in the
delivery of emergency services in response to an emergency." Id. § 222(4)(C).

302. See id. § 222.



IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REv.

Wireline and wireless carriers have commercialized Automatic Number
Identification (ANI) technology.0 3 In many areas, wireline carriers charge
subscription fees for the use of caller identification as a home or business
telephone service. 3

0
4 From a macro-analytical perspective, the EU and U.S.

responded differently under their respective industry and economic policy
forces asserting commercial uses and business development of ALI
technologies as a means to hasten implementation of E911.

2. Commercial and Privacy Interests of Public Safety Policies

Both EU and U.S. policy-makers recognize that the disclosure and use of
location information raise policy concerns regarding the disclosure of private
information for unintended purposes.30 5 The United States and EU addressed
privacy concerns by imposing restrictions on wireless carriers to limit
disclosure and use other than for emergency services or other legitimate
purposes.3

0
6 But the United States and EU give subscribers the right to

consensual disclosure. This consent furthers an already existing commercial
use of GPS locator services in highway vehicles, which permits consumers to
find their routes and locations for personal reasons. A similar use for wireless
mobile telephones seems no less intrusive to provide location services for
wireless subscribers who are walking, riding or sitting. 307 Therefore, using
location information subject to subscribers' consent and their needs and wants
offers opportunities for commercialization and overcomes privacy interests in
the United States and EU. However, such consent does not offset other
regulatory mandates.

The weight given by EU policy-makers to commercial or business
interests in public safety policy-making surpasses that given by U.S. policy-
makers to the commercialization of location information. EU employed
research committees, namely LOCUS and CGALIES, to consider the
commercial impact of establishing and implementing E 112 on the business of
wireless and location-based service companies. 30 8 EU policy-makers assigned
substantially more weight and priority to business finance, business
development and market interests. Little emphasis or weight on these interests
can represent a substantial burden on paying for new location information
technologies, installing new networking equipment by wireless carriers and

303. Alexandra Alger, How to Screen and Block Calls, FORBES, July 29, 1996, at 105
(finding the cost of the service was $5.00 to $9.00 per month).

304. Id.
305. See 47 U.S.C. § 222(c); See Recommendation 2003/558/EC, supra note 12, 1 2.
306. See 47 U.S.C. § 222; See Recommendation 2005/558/EC, supra note 12, 2.
307. See Zeff, supra note 226. Mr. Zeff points out the impact of highly accurate location

technology when he states: "[i]nstead of wondering 'where am I?' in relationship to 'where am
I going?' we will ask 'who or what is within close proximity of my current location?' .... " Id.

308. See supra Part IV.B and accompanying notes (discussing the findings of the LOCUS
and CGALIES committees).

[Vol. 18:2



2008] WmELEss EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICES IN THE EU AND U.S. 385

finding new markets by location-based services companies. Obviously, the
United States chose less emphasis or weight on commercialization.

In our micro-analysis of commercial and privacy interests, the EU and the
United States obviously give similar weight to privacy interests but different
weight to commercial interests in managing conflicting public safety and
telecommunication policy concerns. EU and U.S. policy-makers design
different policies and regulations for the provision of a social benefit with
commercial potential. Still U.S. and EU public safety policies are not
complete, and will not be provided the telecommunications industry continues
to produce new technologies, such as VOIP, raising public safety concerns and
the possibility of new markets.3 °9

C. Industry and Economic Forces underlying Public Safety Policy-
Making and Policies

Telecommunications, information and information management
technologies and their domestic business development and regulation comprise
the industry and economic forces. 310 Wireless cellular standard technologies
include incompatible technologies that have economic impacts on wireless
carriers and location-based services, such as business competition, service and
product prices and market share. In the United States, the cellular phone
market appears content with several cellular technologies, so the LECs and
PSAPs are obligated to prepare and initiate, respectively, E9 11 services for all
types of technologies. U.S. wireless market contentment may protect inefficient
ALI technologies that are still considered accurate under business-neutral
federal regulation but do not provide any private sector location-based services.
Finally, LECs and PSAPs must prepare for any and all technologies. In the

EU, the policy-makers' preference for the GSM cellular standard creates less
need to consider competing cellular technologies. There remains the need for
accurate and reliable location information, however, which creates the need to
consider the development of automatic handset and network location
technologies. 311 The EU and U.S. policy-making for the telecommunications
industry recognizes competition among wireless carriers, and other
telecommunication services and products provide a highly important economic
or market interest in single EU and U.S. markets.3 12 In short, economic and

309. See E-911 Regulation, supra note 127, at 125-26; Squeo, supra note 1, at Al; see also
FCC, Voice-Over-Internet Protocol, http://www.fcc.gov/voip (last visited Apr. 23, 2008)
(noting the FCC regulates VOIP to insure that E9 11 services are available).

310. See supra Part Ill.C. 1 and accompanying notes (describing the policy-making forces
of macro analytical framework to review EU and U.S. emergency call number policies).

311. See CGALIES, supra note 11, at 28 (discussing the feasibility of location technologies
in the EU policy-making for El 12).

312. See Communication on Regulatory Framework of Telecommunications, supra note 2,
at 39 (citing COM (2005) 24 02.02.2005); Communication to the Spring European Council,
Working Together for Growth and Jobs A New Start for the Lisbon Strategy, COM (2005) 24



IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REv.

industry forces play major roles in shaping the design and implementation of
EU and U.S. emergency number call services policies.

1. Economic and Industry Forces of Public Safety Policy-Making

Economic and industry forces impact in some degree U.S. public safety
policy requiring the development, deployment and diffusion of wireless
standards, location information and other technologies to implement E911
regulatory schemes and emergency center and PSAP operations. These forces
involve the capability of wireless carriers to comply with FCC location
requirements, meet domestic competition in the diffusion of location-based,
wireless and other information services, manage business operational and
capital needs in complying with regulatory requirements, and perhaps,
establish business development and operations to compete in global markets.
Developing E112 and E911 policies and regulation has required U.S. and EU
policy-makers to address industry and economic forces, such as technology and
business, respectively. For example, the United States and EU have considered
accuracy standards for location information technologies. When any ALI
technology is not accurate enough under EU and U.S. standards, this
technology must be replaced with more accurate technology.313 For example,
networked-based location technology determines the location of subscribers by
triangulation. But, this technology cannot provide a subscriber's location by
triangulation when wireless carriers place cellular towers in a straight line. 314

Similarly, it is well-settled that technology can become too costly and too
inefficient, or will face logical obsolescence becoming inaccurate for
government mandates or commercial uses. The EU focuses on
commercialization of location information technology and commercialization
should strongly favor the timely replacement of inaccurate ALI technologies,
changing to more efficient technologies.315 In fact, the EU's policy to "provide
[the] best information available ' 316 is flexible, and should encourage
improvements in location information technology provided to PSAPs as
telecom and network operators develop location-based services and other
commercial applications. This impact of commercialization may not happen in
the United States, though both the U.S. and EU expect PSAPs and LECs to
interface or operate with accurate ALI technology under regional and state

(Feb. 2, 2005) (describing communication from President Barroso in agreement with Vice-
President Verheugen. EU legislative policy-makers recognized that creating a "competitive
internal market is a challenge . .

313. See 47 C.F.R. § 20.18.
314. See supra Part 1I.B.1 and accompanying notes (discussing the various kinds of

location information technology).
315. See supra Part IV.B.2 and accompanying notes (explaining the CGALIES Report and

its finding on business markets and public policy).
316. See Recommendation 2003/558/EC, supra note 12, Art. 4 (indicating wireless carriers

or telecom operators must provide the "best information available as to the location of the caller,
to the extent technically feasible").

[Vol. 18:2



2008] WnEIEss EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICES IN THE EU AND U.S. 387

regulations.
31 7

Other location and accuracy mandates may greatly increase operating
costs and diminish returns on capital investments in highly competitive
markets. Business investments in cellular and location technologies solely for
public safety needs may be less attractive operational and capital investments,
even under FCC mandates. Moreover, network-based location methods will
increase operating or capital costs when wireless carriers must relocate towers
solely to comply with the FCC accuracy standards for location methods relying
exclusively on triangulation. 318 Relocating these towers would likely yield no
new profits but may decrease competitiveness of smaller carriers forced to
compete with handset technology when more efficient network and handset
technologies can offer location-based services. On one hand, U.S. industry and
economic forces must respond to statutory and regulatory obligations. These
mandates are an external priority on business and industry operations and
objectives. This mandated business priority strongly influences the response of
industrial and business organizations to new operational and market
opportunities, such as finding uses and markets for location-based services. 31 9

On the other hand, the EU's market-driven approach weighs industry and its
technology interests harmonizing business or economic and public needs to
encourage wireless carriers and operators to provide emergency call number
services and respond to business opportunities in establishing location-based
services in a single market.

2. Technology and Business Internets of Public Safety Policies

Economic and industry forces and their underlying business and
technology interests account for several differences in the EU and U.S.
enhanced wireless call number policies. In the EU, the dominant industry and
economic interests are business, markets, and ALI technology. In the EU, both
LOCUS and CGALIES discuss economic and industry policy concerns
regarding the impact of imposing regulation or public obligations on wireless
carriers and location-based markets. These concerns involve business costs,
capital investments, business development and other interests. 320 Next, another
EU policy choice shows the positive impact of technology and business or
market interests on E 112 policy-making. The EU's preference for one

317. See 47 C.F.R. § 20.18; EU Commission Recommendation 2003/558/EC, supra note
12, Art. 4.

318. See U.S. Cellular Corp. v. FCC, 254 F.3d 78, 81-82 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (discussing the
plight of small rural carriers that needed the cost recovery mechanism to sparsely populated
rural markets).

319. See supra Part T.A.2 and accompanying notes (discussing the policy guidance or
business-market approach to implementing enhanced emergency call services).

320. See LOCUS, supra note 160, at 12-13 (discussing market-driven option for
implementing El 12); CGALIES, supra note 11, at 33-35 (discussing market-driven scenarios
for implementing El 12).



IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REv.

dominant wireless standard, namely GSM, reduces business costs,
interoperability problems and compatible standards in the interface of
telecommunications equipment in transmitting E 112 calls, such as relaying and
routing various digital signals from wireless carriers through LECs to PSAPs. 321

A general micro-analytical review indicates that business and technology
interests are significant, not normally in conflict and important in domestic
markets.

Although the United States considers industry and economic forces, it
places less emphasis on furthering business and technology interests in making
E9 11 policies. The United States proffers competition-neutral FCC regulations
that support multiple technologies, give consumer more choices and increase
market competition. U.S. business and technology concerns receive less weight
than public safety needs in E911 policy-making, thus subjecting business,
technology and market interests to mandatory regulation. Although wireless
carriers are given the authority to impose fees to provide E911 services,
wireless carriers still must incur the business costs of developing, deploying,
and diffusing wireless, location information and other technologies to provide

322E91 1 services to their subscribers. Congress and the FCC do not favor the
commercialization of ALl technologies as means to hasten the implementation
E9 11, thus placing little legislative emphasis on making location-based services
widely available in the U.S. A general micro-analytical review shows that
business and technology interests are avoided by making neutral legislation and
regulations and imposing mandates on the cellular phone and other industries,
instead such interests are considered on a case-by-case basis in granting waivers
in domestic markets.

VII. CONCLUSION

Establishing and implementing enhanced wireless emergency call systems
under U.S. telecommunication policy preserves interstate competition and
under EU telecommunication policy creates inter-European competition.
Thereafter, U.S. and EU policy forces and underlying interests are accorded
different weights or priorities in making and furthering public safety policies
and harmonizing public safety needs with telecommunication interests and
policies. Finally, EU and U.S. policy-makers show a deferential or reluctant
comity to sovereign states that must eventually establish and implement

321. See CGALIES, supra note 11, at 29-32 (discussing the cost of implementing E 112,
including who will pay for the location services).

322. See U.S. Cellular Corp., 254 F.3d at 78 (declining to permit cost recovery by wireless
carriers for the implementation of the E9 11). U.S. wireless carriers can also petition the FCC
and request a waiver from compliance with FCC rules for implementation of E91 1. See
ENHANCE 911 Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-494, 106, 118 Stat. 3986, 3990 (2004)
(recognizing that the FCC had been granting waiver and requiring the FCC to report these
waivers to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate).

[Vol. 18:2



2008] WIRELESS EMERGENCY NUMBER SERVICES IN THE EU AND U.S. 389

enhanced emergency call number services systems. These states must create
and manage PSAPs, which connect with wireless carriers and LECs that must
use telecommunications technology to transmit timely and accurate emergency
calls by wireless subscribers.

U.S. and EU industry, political, economic, public policy and social forces

and their underlying interests create differences in EU and U.S. policy
guidance, policies and regulation. The United States favors strong industry
competition, robust technology development and forceful private obligations.
U.S. public safety policy or E9 11 depends on an effective telecommunications
policy that imposes obligations or mandates on wireless carriers and LECs and
encourages participation by state and local governments. Imposing private
obligations on wireless carriers and LECs to enhance emergency call services,
while leaving PSAPs and states to trigger these obligations leaves federal public
policy at the mercy of state politics and interests. The U.S. regulatory scheme
for E911 forces a narrow or particular policy outcome that is only subject to
FCC waivers for business or technical grounds.

In contrast, EU public safety policy does not share the U.S. preference for
public mandates and primarily leaves the authority to impose public obligations
to the member states. The LOCUS and CGALIES reports show concern for the

telecommunication industry that plays a quintessential role in developing,
deploying and diffusing new wireless standard and ALI technologies. EU

policies weigh the impact of implementing E 112 on business and markets and
support the commercialization of ALI technology. EU policy-making favors a
single wireless standard, supports diverse location information technologies and

provides flexible policies to its member states. EU policy-making is a business
market approach that places weight on public policy, social and political needs,

but gives substantially more weight to industry and economic concerns.
EU and U.S. policies and regulations establish and implement E 112 and

E9 11, respectively, but contain unique differences in their approaches to the

provision of public safety benefits for their citizens and the impact on the
telecommunications industry. United States policy does not favor one cellular
standard, but preserves competition among several wireless carriers using one
or more cellular standards. The EU accepts a single or dominant standard in
transmitting location information. Next, the EU and United States take
different approaches in their regulation of location information technology. EU
policy-makers want location-based service companies to commercialize
location information technology, while wireless carriers use their best efforts to
provide accurate and timely location information to PSAPs. U.S. policy-makers
do not show much, if any, interest in commercializing location-based
technology and routinely settle to obligate wireless carriers to provide location
information and incur the technology development, deployment and diffusion

costs. 323 U.S. and EU policies for E911 and E 112, respectively, assign different

323. See supra Parts IV, V and accompanying notes (discussing EU and U.S. legislative
policies and regulation to implement E91 1).



390 IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REV. [Vol. 18:2

weights and priorities to almost identical policy forces and nearly similar force-
specific interests, such as public safety, commercialization, business
development and industry competition.