110 likes | 191 Views
Part H: Regulation. Pasi Pekkinen pasi.pekkinen@navinova.com Navinova Oy . Key Issues. Regulators in US and EU as drivers concerns in public safety pressuring operators for high precision positioning Regulators as barriers concerns about privacy location owned by the user
E N D
Part H:Regulation Pasi Pekkinen pasi.pekkinen@navinova.com Navinova Oy
Key Issues • Regulators in US and EU as drivers • concerns in public safety • pressuring operators for high precision positioning • Regulators as barriers • concerns about privacy • location owned by the user • No indication on forcing operators to open location information to third parties
US: FCC E-911 Requirements • July 1996 FCC announces a requirement to locate emergency callers at any time • location capability gets higher priority • Original concerns in increasing emergency calls from mobile phones • Requires higher precision than many commercial applications
E-911: Phased Approach • Phase I: Cell ID and phone number (10/98) • Phase II: depending on used technology • Handset-based solutions • Operators to sell location capable handsets by 11/01 • by end-01 25% of new handsets capable • by end-02 all new handsets capable • by end-04 95% of all handsets capable • 67% of calls within 50 meters • 95% within 150 meters
E911: Phases cont. • Network-based solutions • within 6 months 50 % of 911-callers located • within 18 months 100 % of 911-callers located • 67 % of calls within 100 meters • 95 % of calls within 300 meters • Hybrid solutions: Case VoiceStream • by 10/01 50 % of new handsets capable • 67% of calls within 50 meters; 95% 150 meters • by end-01 67% of all handsets located within 1 km • by 03/02 all new handsets location capable • by 10/03 for all handsets: 67% within 50 m, 95 % within 150 m
E911: Current situation • 11/2000 67% of operators choose technology: • 54 % network-based • 46 % handset or hybrid • No common solution to provide interoperability • Uncertainties in regulation and cost-recovery and high risks in choosing a vendor have made US operators more reluctant to test than elsewhere
Privacy requirements • Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999: ”user must authorise positioning for all other use than E911” • barrier for commercial applications • privacy lobbying active in US
Europe: E-122 Requirements • CEC original plan to follow FCC initiative • Co-coordinating group formed in 1999 (regulators, mobile&vehicle industry, emergency authorities) for strategy and schedule • WP1: standards for accuracy and schedule • WP2: standards for routing calls • WP3: analysis of costs and financing
E-112 Implementation • Europe in advantageous position: • single standard for mobile networks • Different opinions regarding schedule • Operators argue that no technology is ready for deployment, specifically: • GSM phones do not support A-GPS • for E-OTD no commercial manufacturers for LMU • legacy base stations
Privacy requirements • EC Working Document: location data should be protected: ”…should not lead to situation of continuous surveillance, with no means to protect privacy…” • use of location information requires consent or anonymous processing • user should be able to temporarily withheld location information even when general consent given • implications on commercial applications • no intention to guarantee access for third parties
Annex: Status of E-911 US operators opting for (9 November 2000): • Handset-based solutions: 40 • A-GPS: 3, GPS: 3, SnapTrack: 5 (A-GPS: 2), Not chosen 29 • Hybrid solutions: 5 • Lucent Technologies: 1, Not chosen 4 • Network-based solutions: 54 • TDOA: 3 (TruePosition: 1), AOA or TDOA: 1, Grayson Wireless: 8 (TDOA:2, TDOA+AOA: 5), TDOA and AOA: 1, NSS: 2, NSS and E-OTD: 6, Nortel Technologies: 1, US Wireless (location pattern matching): 2, N/A: 1, Not chosen: 29 • Undecided: 41