E112 EMERGENCY CALLER LOCATION IN EUROPE “RESPONSIBILITY & POSSIBILITY” Presented at EENA Brussels, 6 June, 2007

2 Established in 1987 –Annapolis HQ –Offices: Seattle, Tampa, Oakland Manassas, London, Bahrain –Global Data Centers: Seattle, Arizona, Maryland, Virginia –NASDAQ: TSYS (IPO in 2000) –600 Employees; $126 Million 2006 Revenue Strategic Offers –Wireless Location & Messaging Solutions –Satellite Services and Deployable Systems –Wireless and VOIP E911 Industry Relations TCS Fast Facts

3 TCS Wireless Operator Customers

4 Agenda Beginning with the End in Mind: A history of Emergency Services Are there lessons to be learned (and mistakes to be avoided) from the US Emergency Services Deployments? Considering the issue of Funding: How to Pay for 112 solutions in the EU? Which Technologies are the most appropriate for 112? Can we blend the best of the past and present to create a world class solution for 112 in Europe? The Future Present: a vision for a Pan-European 112 Solution Questions, Comments, Considerations

5 In the US: Where It All Began The Telecommunications Act of 1996

6 Telecommunications Act of 1996 Mandated that Wireless Operators provide same level of E911 service as a call initiated on a landline phone. –Calls must be routed to the proper PSAP along with phone’s callback number and location. Defined Phase 1 and Phase 2 –Phase 1: Cell Site location plus caller’s phone number –Phase 2: Caller lat/lon plus caller’s phone number Network based- 100 m for 67% of calls, 300m for 95% Handset based- 50m for 67% of calls, 150 m for 95%

7 Prerequisites to Service –PSAP (Public Service Answering Point) responsibilities Must submit a written request to each operator requesting E911 wireless service PSAP must have cost recovery legislation in place sufficient to pay for any required upgrades or additional expenses incurred by PSAP. PSAP must have the technical capability to receive and utilize the E911 data. Telecommunications Act of 1996

8 Origins of the Problem: Wireless E9-1-1 in a Landline World Because wireless calls are mobile, traditional fails. Caller’s home address is not synonymous with their location. Operators had 2 primary options for deploying Phase 1 –CAS (Call Associated Signaling) One signaling path used to complete the E9-1-1 call, instead of separating voice and data. Requires PSAP upgrades from traditional CAMA signaling to 20-digit enhanced MF. CAS solution owned and championed by LEC. –NCAS (Non-call Associated Signaling) Uses 2 signaling paths. One to complete voice call to appropriate PSAP, one to provide caller location data and 10-digit callback number Requires NO PSAP upgrades Wireless operator controls the technology of the NCAS solution. Both technologies sought to retrofit emerging wireless technology into the existing infrastructure from CAS vs. NCAS pitted the powerful, regulated monopoly phone companies against the upstart entrepreneurs. NCAS has emerged as the winner.

9 E9-1-1 Mandate vs. the E112 Mandate Similarities and Differences A legislative mandate for universal service The US operator is responsible for delivering the call all the way to the PSAP premise The LEC/PTT fought to prevent the NCAS solution Who pays for the US service IS a major issue Cost Recovery was drawn up state by state but mandated nationally When financial penalties were implemented deployments dramatically increased A legislative mandate for universal service The EU operator is responsible for making the data available where technically feasible The 112 solution uses brokers preventing this NCAS issue Who pays for the EU 112 service IS a major issue Cost Recovery for 112 undefined. Implementation will be country by country There are currently no financial penalties associated with the EU 112 mandate

10 State of E9-1-1 Deployment in the US Today Phase 1 –First E911 NCAS deployment completed in Indiana for Centennial Wireless in 03/1998 by TCS –Phase 1 deployments continued at rapid pace. Between 1998 and today, TCS completed over 5000 deployments in 42 states for 30 US Wireless operators. Phase 2 –First Phase 2 deployment completed in 04/2002 –Between 2002 and present, TCS completed over 3000 Phase 2 deployments VOIP i2 –First i2 VoIP deployment completed June 2005 –Between 2005 and present, TCS has completed over 4,700 additional i2 deployments for 6 VoIP providers which cover nearly 80% of the U.S. population.

11 What Changed the Game?: the FCC took Action For some air interfaces, the various PDE technologies available to wireless operators were insufficiently accurate to meet FCC requirements. This caused some operators to delay implementation. Due to PSAP complaints, some operators moved forward after obtaining FCC consent decrees that satisfied accuracy concerns. When some operators continued to stall, the FCC levied fines in excess of $1,000,000. Operator began implementing whatever was available. Tier I and II operators are required to submit quarterly reports of completed vs. pending PSAP deployments to FCC. These are posted on FCC website for public viewing.

12 USA Mistakes Retrofit 21 st Century Technology (wireless and VoIP) into 1970’s infrastructure –The NCAS solution is better than nothing, but Europe has the opportunity to bypass a “kluge” solution and jump directly to an IP-based emergency network Location Accuracy –FCC mandated complicated wireless accuracy requirements prior to wireless deployment that have been expensive, technically challenging, and politically divisive. –Europe could wait until after wireless deployment to design accuracy requirements that reflect the realistic capability of the technology

13 Considering the Funding Issue: Payment solutions for 112 in the EU?

Funding Options Consider a 112 tax imposed upon each device –Primary funding method in USA –With IP, some people propose to tax each broadband access port, regardless of whether a VoIP device is using it or not. Consider funding 112 locally from general revenues Consider funding 112 federally from general revenues Consider a user fee (pay per call) Presentation prepared for NENA 2007 Conference

15 Cost Recovery Possibilities After generating revenue via taxes, PSAPs in the USA are generally required to pay for emergency service provided by the phone company. Could or should a similar method be introduced in Europe? Competitive Telecom companies (PTTs, VoIP, Wireless Service Providers) in the USA are not always compensated for emergency services, thus making it a cost of doing business for them and placing them at a competitive disadvantage. Should legislation be introduced to help Telecom operators off-site their costs? Taking the above into consideration, European legislators may consider a solution to work with all Telecom companies (wireless, landline, and other) to provide 112 service as simply part of the cost of doing business, and/or look to a cost recovery mechanism to help defray the costs for the telecom companies. Presentation prepared for NENA 2007 Conference

16 Potential Location Technologies for use in 112

17 Positioning Technologies

18 Location Determination: –Wire line Use the callers Telephone Number to look up callers location provisioned home address –Wireless Use the cell tower identifier to look up callers location –VoIP Use the callers Telephone Number to look up callers location An Emergency Service Solution for Location Determination including VoIP

19 Route Determination: –Wire line Use the callers provisioned location to determine the correct Police Station –Wireless Use the cell tower location to determine the correct Police Station –VoIP Use the callers provisioned location to determine the correct Police Station An Emergency Service Solution for Location Determination including VoIP

20 Call Delivery: –Wire line Convert to VoIP at the Central Office or optionally a Service Provider can convert to VoIP Deliver calls via IP connections to Police Station –Wireless Convert to VoIP at MSC or optionally a Service Provider can convert to VoIP Deliver via IP connections to Police Station –VoIP Receive and delivere via IP connections to Police Station An Emergency Service Solution for Location Determination including VoIP

21 The Future Present: Vision for Europe A unified 112 network based upon IP infrastructure while supporting “older technology" solutions. Introduce new options to deliver 112 calls to the Public Safety via IP. In a period of technical transition use the best available positioning technology for 112 calls. Establish Public Safety 112 “Centers of Excellence” to demonstrate what is possible. Presentation prepared for NENA 2007 Conference

22 Summary People buy phones for public safety first and foremost Technology is not the problem Funding mechanisms are available for use Everything that is required for an EU-wide 112 solution is readily available Responsibility and Possibility

23 Greg Kleven Managing Director, EMEA Thank You