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

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

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

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

UA recognition & UA resolution INVITE To: urn:service:sos mapping location  URL INVITE To: urn:service:sos leonianj.gov DHCP (w/loc) LLDP-MED (L2) GPS (outdoors)

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

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., triangulation) –But consumer may use non-ILEC/MSO voice provider visitors may bring their own devices access to neighbor’s modem in emergency –Non-discrimination against

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

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?

911 funding: goals and requirements Encourage availability of 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 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

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

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 system Unclear how new technical structures will change balance of local vs. regional infrastructure –e.g., state-wide data sharing or call routing

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

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