1

BUSINESS MADE SIMPLE 2 NENA Model Legislation Enhanced for Multi-Line Telephone Systems PSAP Communications Consolidation Roadmap Chuck Melton Sr. Architect, Voice and Multimedia Communications Nortel

3 Agenda NENA Model Legislation Enhanced for Multi-Line Telephone Systems PSAP Communications Consolidation - Transitioning Police, Fire, EMS Communications to a Common Technology Roadmap

BUSINESS MADE SIMPLE 4 NENA Model Legislation Enhanced for Multi-Line Telephone Systems Update For more information:

5 MLTS E9-1-1: The Need MLTS is the last major service type with minimal E9-1-1 Millions of citizens work behind MLTS systems Only billing location is available with most calls (may be wrong site – may not be accurate enough to find a caller in a large facility quickly) Many instances of time delays and deaths due to lack of E9-1-1 for MLTS in otherwise full E9-1-1 service areas Increasing number of remote workers using enterprise telephone systems (30% or more for some companies)

6 MLTS E9-1-1: Roadblocks Excessive cost and complication Outboard solutions generally $25,000 - $50,000 primarily with older systems (IP based systems may be considerably less) High capital and ongoing operational costs Small business rejects cost impact States reluctant to legislate MLTS requirements for E9- 1-1; Only 16 states have taken any specific action which varies considerably Business and states are much more likely to act if an economical solution is available

7 MLTS E9-1-1: Concerns Ability of MLTS to send accurate caller and location information to the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) dialing without dialing an access code PSAP should receive a valid callback number On-site security personnel should be notified when a call has occurred Fully restricted telephones should be able to dial Misdial emergency call prevention with On Site Notification

8 Some Facts and History No federal MLTS E9-1-1 requirement MLTS requirements first raised at the FCC in 1994 in Docket NENA/APCO 2001 Model Legislation FCC declined to regulate MLTS systems in 2003 Report & Order (FCC ), deferring to state action but promising to monitor state inactivity and re- examine issue if states do not act Very limited state activity since 2003 Order, yet no further FCC action despite public safety requests

9 Summary of State Requirements 6 of 16 State laws do not require ANI/ALI requirements AK: municipality may by ordinance require E9-1-1 CO: consumer notice only CT: bars blocking calls; establishes requirements for private answering points; but no call delivery requirements AR: telephone number and street address only MS: covers shared Tenant service and Centrex only TX: Determined by Districts (e.g. Tarrant County)

10 Summary of State Requirements 9 of 16 State laws include ANI/ALI requirements Some rules require calls to provide ALI to the station level (LA, FL, VT) Others allow call back numbers to be associated with larger spaces, up to 40,000 square feet (IL, KY, ME, MN, WA) VA: provide “calling party information” (ANI/ALI) if “reasonably achievable” Illinois most significant law (Chicago has separate ordinance)

NENA Model Legislation (update of 2001 effort) Definitions Shared Residential Service Business MLTS Temporary Occupancy ALI/Database Maintenance Industry Standards Dialing Instructions MLTS Signaling MLTS Operator Education Limitation of Liability Exemptions Waiver Provision Effective Date

12 Emergency Services A critical piece of your deployment Emergency dialing from Multi Line Telephone Systems is a critical piece of today's communications infrastructure. Customers assume this has been done because they can ‘dial 9-1-1’ Often inadequate or inaccurate information is sent to the local Public Safety Answer Point (PSAP) Nortel takes E911 seriously, and has developed an industry leading feature set that provides the flexibility of mobility, while maintaining employee safety

13 PSAP Communications Consolidation Transitioning Police, Fire, EMS Communications to a Common Technology Roadmap

14 PSAP Consolidation Consideration Improve service to citizens Provide most efficient and effective emergency communications possible Increase safety to emergency responders Enhance coordination among responding agencies

15 Why Consolidate PSAP Communications? Technology islands constraints Business continuity concerns Single point of failures Increase traffic volume High costs to sustain Need to transfer calls Greater scalability accommodates higher traffic volume & future growth Common backup center across disciplines Geographic diversity, redundancy, survivable nodes Next Generation Ready Greater management accountability, lower TCO Fire EMS Police Fire EMS Police Common Backup Center Common IP-based E9-1-1 Call Answering System Current – Independent Islands

16 Technology Approach to Consolidation Legacy technology has required every county to service all of its needs within the walls of each individual PSAP VoIP PBX technology enables officials to eliminate physical boundaries VoIP enabled PSAPs become virtually consolidated and geographically redundant centers

17 Technology Approach to Consolidation

Contact Information Chuck Melton (presenter) Sr. Architect, Voice & Multimedia Communications Rich Varesi Territory Account Manager – Central Florida Ramon Abreu Account Manager – South Florida Technical Support: or NORTELwww.nortel.com/support

19