Regulatory Issues: Emergency Calling

1. Regulatory Issues: Emergency Calling Henning Schulzrinne Dept. of Computer Science Columbia University

2. The Big Picture • Future regulatory network architecture • regulatory “interfaces” • avoid “telecommunication” vs. “information services” • Affects everything: • network neutrality • emergency calling • NGN discussions Yahoo iTunes Google MSN mySpace Skype eBay services & applications (HTTP, SIP, RTSP, …) OS vendors software services sockets ISP (IP, DHCP, DNS) enterprise consumer ISP RJ-45 network access (fiber, copper, wireless) natural monopoly or oligopoly geographic range enterprise consumer ISP

3. Components of emergency calling transition (“I2”) end-to-end IP (“NG911”) PSTN Contact well-known number or identifier 112 911 112 911 dial 112, 911  urn:service:sos Route call to location-appropriate PSAP selective router VPC LoST: (service,location)  URL Deliver precise location to call taker to dispatch emergency help phone number  location (ALI lookup) in-band  key  location in-band

4. The core emergency calling problem Voice Service Provider (VSP) sees emergency call but does not know caller location ISP/IAP knows user location but does not handle call

5. UA recognition & UA resolution DHCP (w/loc) LLDP-MED (L2) GPS (outdoors) mapping location  URL 9-1-1 leonianj.gov INVITE sip:psap@leonianj.gov To: urn:service:sos <location> INVITE sip:psap@leonianj.gov To: urn:service:sos <location>

6. LUMP architecture G tree guide G G G broadcast (gossip) T1: .us T2: .de G resolver T2 (.de) seeker 313 Westview Leonia, NJ US T3 (.dk) T1 (.us) Leonia, NJ  sip:psap@leonianj.gov

7. Regulatory issue 1: location access • Location information is necessary for emergency call routing • Consumer access to location information • DSL and cable provider have best knowledge of customer location • all other methods are much more expensive, have lower resolution or work only in densely populated areas (e.g., 802.11 triangulation) • But consumer may use non-ILEC/MSO voice provider • visitors may bring their own devices • 802.11 access to neighbor’s modem in emergency • Non-discrimination against

8. Regulatory issue 2: MSAG & ALI data • MSAG = master-street address guide • contains all street addresses and their ESNs • usually maintained by PSAP and local authorities • ALI = mapping of phone numbers to locations • needed if PSTN phones are part of the all-IP solution • Sometimes held or managed by ILEC or database vendors • possibly unclear data ownership • need open access by ISPs and VSPs • for visitors, VSP may not be in same country

9. Regulatory issue 3: 911 funding • Only US (AFAIK) uses phone tax to fund parts of PSAP operation • but not everywhere in the US • rates vary widely and non-local collection difficult • money often becomes part of general fund or funds police cruisers • should tax on water be used to fund the fire department? • Old model is a “family tax” • each line pays • each family member with a cell phone pays •  regressive • Old model no longer works for IP communications •  no longer works if people switch to multiple providers, non-local operators • register phone in non-tax state  enforcement mechanism for $12/year?

10. 911 funding: goals and requirements • Encourage availability of 9-1-1 on as many devices as possible • multiple devices per person • intermittently-used devices (car, home entertainment systems) • corporate end users • Sustainable funding model • Limit incentives for bypass • e.g., by registering service in no-fee areas or using non-US VSP (e.g., Skype) • Avoid distortion of telecom competition • e.g., by only making 9-1-1 available to some providers • Low cost to collect and administer • including compliance • Fees accrue to area where payer is located • even if billing address is somewhere else • Minimize opportunities for tax “repurposing” • i.e., “9-1-1” fee becomes part of general revenue • Desirable: tax fairness • income-based rather than head tax

11. 911 funding: possibilities • Per-household fee • e.g., similar to vehicle taxes • could be collected by ISP or wireless provider • show proof of payment to service provider • somewhat tedious for user • General revenue (including sales tax) • public safety is a core government function • emergency calling is a core component of public safety • not that many call boxes left • Local tax revenue • in some cases, only about $12/household/year, i.e., 0.5% of typical NJ property taxes  • Homeowner’s insurance surtax • clearly reflects residence of payer

12. 911 funding: problems • Don’t have good estimate for current income stream • wireless & wireline • local taxes • Don’t have good estimates of capex and opex for running 9-1-1 system • Unclear how new technical structures will change balance of local vs. regional infrastructure • e.g., state-wide data sharing or call routing

13. Regulatory issue 4: transition • conservative: wait until the last analog phone is disconnected • in 2050? • no-offense: run two systems in parallel • another “trunk” (IP) into the PSAP PBX • possible, but requires integration for GIS • may limit functionality • doesn’t solve PSAP reliability and situational awareness problems • forward-looking: convert to all IP-PSAPs ASAP • convert CAMA trunks from selective router via gateway • simplifies Phase II transition (& possibly cheaper) • allows better redundancy and better support for deaf callers

14. Summary • Technical issues for NG911 are solvable, but require regulatory assistance: • right to location • right to MSAG and ALI data • right funding model • encourage early transition • Slides at shurl.net/xJ or url.fm/24z