1. Next Generation 9-1-1: What is it. Why do we need it
Next Generation 9-1-1: What is it? Why do we need it? And how do we get there?
Rick Jones, ENP
Operations Issues Director
National Emergency Number Association
November 3, 2009

2. Why Do We Need NG9-1-1? The old E9-1-1 system design just can’t cope
9-1-1 system not keeping up with technology used by consumers, individuals with disabilities
Constant adaptation of E9-1-1 expensive and slow
New communications technologies need “plug and play” access and interfaces
Growing data rich environment – E9-1-1 can’t handle
Need data bandwidth, modernized networks -- broadband/IP
Need state-wide, nation-wide and beyond intercommunication, including other emergency services
Post transition, NG9-1-1 can be significantly more efficient (and potentially less expensive for similar features)

3. Impacts of NG9-1-1
The purposes of NG9-1-1 can be briefly described in four segments:
Fully replace Enhanced 9-1-1, with all capabilities and functions in place today
Add capabilities to support changes for current and new types of Originating Service Providers
Add flexibility for the PSAPs and Authorities
Add capabilities to integrate and interoperate with emergency entities beyond the PSAP

4. Impacts of NG9-1-1
Fully replace Enhanced 9-1-1, with all capabilities and functions in place today
Need to replicate all features of E9-1-1 with IP-based, software and database versions
All current calling types supported seamlessly
No service disruption during transition
We cannot accidentally drop even detailed standard features of E9-1-1 as we change over to a new base technology (IP) and entirely different software based and database control mechanisms to perform system capabilities and features, for both callers and PSAPs.  This applies right down to seldom used but critical features for dealing automatically with real time call routing and delivery problems, or troubleshooting of call and data issues.  All current originating service types must continue to be supported seamlessly, with no service dropout during the transition from E9-1-1 to NG9-1-1.

5. Impacts of NG9-1-1
Add capabilities to support changes for current and new types of Originating Service Providers
New types of wireless services
Non-voice messaging, such as text, photo and video, data-only (sensors), unknown future services
Direct handling of telematics calls and data
Common interface for developers to design to for quick connection to the system
Access to information available in external databases
E9-1-1 was designed for and worked well with wireline voice telephone service.  Significant resources were needed to integrate wireless voice service, and more recently VoIP voice service, into the E9-1-1 system.  It is no longer practical to try to adapt new technology to 1960’s telephone technology.  There are current and certainly future needs for different and new calling technologies, including non-voice messaging of various types, devices generating data-only messages (such as sensors), photo and video transmission, and unknown future services.  An IP-based NG9-1-1 system will make it easier to integrate existing and new communications technologies into the system.  A primary objective is to establish a common, IP based interface that developers can design to as they develop new services, so that can be planned for and then connected to quickly as call and message generating services are introduced to the public.

6. Impacts of NG9-1-1 Add flexibility for PSAPs and 9-1-1 Authorities
Transfer calls and data between PSAPs and other entities anywhere an NG9-1-1 system exists
Direct control of system functions (overflow and alternate routing), control data flow
Direct handling of text and video
Share applications and costs (GIS, CAD, mobile data, etc)
Disaster related call control
Malicious call control
By organizing and working together at regional or state levels, PSAPs will have the ability to share resources and responsibilities in more ways than they have ever had in the past.  These range from the ability to transfer calls, messages, and data between any PSAPs on any interconnected NG9-1-1 system anywhere in the country (and beyond), ability to directly activate alternate routing much more quickly, to controlling data flow, to share public safety applications / management / costs (GIS, 9-1-1, CAD, RMS, Mobile Data, AVL, etc.) between multiple PSAPs, and even standardize training between multiple PSAPs.  The PSAP will be able to access a wide range of supportive databases and share new and more robust forms of data to facilitate call processing, emergency response and comprehensive incident management.  Basic tools and multiple options to support disaster recovery related call control and to handle non-voice call types are also involved.
Telematics would be an example here.

7. Impacts of NG9-1-1
Add capabilities to integrate and interoperate with emergency entities beyond the PSAP
Connection to other emergency response entities for calls and data routing or transfer (EOCs, DHS, Trauma Centers, Public Health, etc)
Interaction with 211, 311, N11s
Other emergency and public safety related entities will be able to interconnect to the NG9-1-1 network and system, and be able to receive calls and data sent by the NG9-1-1 system or PSAPs, as well as (with access controls) acquire and pass data between all entities.  Inherent in this portion is support for disaster management and intercommunications with and between PSAPs, EOCs, DHS, and other emergency management entities.
N11 interaction for identified emergency calls through 211, 311, etc would be an example. The 311 Center would transfer the call into the NG9-1-1 system, which would then route the call as if had been dialed.
Poison Control or a Trauma Center could be an example of `other emergency management entities’

8. The Nature of NG9-1-1 Designed to support interoperability
Designed with open standards
Designed for and invites open competition, by major component, through interface standards
Causes a transition to competitive service provider environment
Causes a need for legislative and regulatory change
Stress local, state, national Interoperability objectives – only achievable with national and international standards

9. Benefits to 9-1-1 Service and Operations enabled by NG9-1-1
More sophisticated Authority control of how NG9-1-1 handles calls and data will be possible
Direct control of alternate, overflow, default routing, etc rules
Replaces indirect and inaccessible E9-1-1 network translations
Language preference, including ASL, can direct the call to an appropriate calltaker, or cause auto addition of interpreter
Provision of telematics data, and auto priority of call in queue if high priority call

10. Benefits to 9-1-1 Service and Operations enabled by NG9-1-1
More sophisticated Authority control of how NG9-1-1 handles calls and data will be possible
Use of adjacent or distant PSAPs for disaster cases where normal PSAP(s) are not available
Easy transfer of calls or data to other or distant locations
Optional data access under calltaker control – no `pushing’ of large added data quantities
Basically, “policy rules databases” allow direct programming of the NG9-1-1 system to operate the way governing authorities desire, based on your local conditions and needs

11. NG9-1-1 Transition Issues

12. NG9-1-1: From Paper to Reality
Significant technical and operational standards development (NENA and other SDOs)
Proof of concept trial demonstrations
Architectural framework development
Concept of operations development
But…Without policies that promote NG9-1-1 and statutes & regulations that allow it, standards and architecture development is irrelevant
What is possible must also be a policy goal and a legal activity 12

13. NG9-1-1: Overall Policy Needs
Overall policy promotion to enable NG9-1-1 needed at all levels of government
Current federal and state statutes and regulations must be analyzed to ensure laws do not prohibit NG9-1-1
-Likely need for combination of new statutes/regulations and revision or repeal of outdated laws
Issues requiring analysis include (but are not limited to):
-Collection and eligible use of funds
-State program authority and responsibility
-System definition and technology requirements/limitations
-Rules concerning which devices/services may connect to 9-1-1
-Liability and privacy protection laws 13

14. Some Policy Issues Identified
Funding models must be reexamined to account for emerging technologies and to enable the sharing of infrastructure and costs
State and federal policies are needed to enable the establishment of State Emergency Service IP Networks (ESINets)
Jurisdictional frameworks for NG9-1-1 at federal, state and local levels must be clarified (Need for appropriate statewide coordination/management)
Out of date state and federal laws/regulations that do not reflect modern communications capabilities in an NG9-1-1 system must be addressed
e.g. outdated state statutes and PUC regulations based on traditional telephone system;
e.g. rules prohibiting the direct transfer of verified emergency data to PSAPs (such as telematics automatic crash notification data, sensors)
Need for review of liability and confidentiality statutes

15. State 9-1-1 Program Authority Considerations
NG9-1-1 architecture, implementation coordination and funding requires a state-level mechanism
Some states have no state-level program (or programs are limited to a specific technology – e.g. Wireless Board); Others may have a program, but lack adequate authority and resources to be truly effective
Federal homeland security and policy increasingly recognizes the need for state coordination
Responsible for managing statewide IP network(s) and/or interconnecting regional/local intra and interstate networks
Minimize need for PSAPs to understand all technology advancements and individual service provider capabilities
First bullet: e.g., shared backbone, end-to-end interconnectivity, access rights administration and management, ensuring all stakeholders a place at the table
Second bullet: Alaska, Utah, Louisiana. Mississippi, Nevada, Wyoming
Third bullet: e.g., states with only a wireless board
Fourth bullet: Wireless Public Safety Act of 1999; ENHANCE 911 Act of 2004; Homeland Security program for radio interoperability

16. Local Responsibility Considerations
Primary responsibility should be to receive calls/information and provide emergency response (assurance of service delivery)
9-1-1 service remains locally managed and controlled
Potentially responsible for much less technology and vendor relationship management
Develop and Maintain Local Data
Local PSAP authorities have best knowledge of local Information and Infrastructure 16

17. Funding
Essential to address (1) collection of funds to pay for the system and (2) the eligible use of funds – for NG9-1-1
Current state funding legislation functionally tied to current system architecture
Current laws do not take into consideration the Next Generation of in which is a component of a much larger Emergency Services Internetwork (ESInet)
State and federal legislation and grant programs need to consider the growing convergence and integration of public safety technology and agency interaction
Need to ensure sufficient funds for are raised and that eligible use of funds match NG9-1-1 needs
First bullet: fee on telephone (land, wireless, VoIP) service where service is provided by the dominant LEC and the system is closed/dedicated.
Second bullet: sharing infrastructure could involve and other public safety entities, or it could involve sharing with other public or private sector infrastructures. Sharing costs means that each party pays a prorated portion of the overall cost based on usage. Prorating costs isn’t typically done today
Third bullet: legislation and grant programs are siloed into radio, 9-1-1, hospitals, homeland security, emergency management, etc. Numerous studies and reports have articulated the need for better communications between and among first responders but the silos still exist, and the big picture enabled by technology isn’t reflected where it matters.

18. NG9-1-1 Funding
Remember we are no longer paying for dedicated system
Shared system, shared costs
Paying for 9-1-1’s portion of the overall emergency service internetwork
Deployment approach significantly affects cost
Coordinated, intergovernmental implementation
Independent, unilateral implementation
Some Funding Model Options (Raising Funds):
Fixed Surcharge on All “Calling” Services; Surcharge on Access Infrastructure Providers; Universal Statewide and/or Federal Communications Surcharge; User Fee
(NENA NG Partner Program Funding Model Report available at
Eligible use of funds? Only for E9-1-1? NG9-1-1?
1. Fixed amount surcharge on all calling services
Assessing fixed monthly surcharges on calling services (wireline, wireless and VoIP) is the current model.[1] It has historically been primarily a reactive model whereby every time a new technology emerges that provides access to (such as wireless, and now VoIP) new legislation is needed or existing legislation must be modified to incorporate the new service into the system. This takes time and inevitably leads to inconsistencies. If a calling service surcharge model is to be employed it must account for all services and devices that can reasonably expect to be connected to and legislation must make it clear which types of services are expected to pay the surcharge. The language needs to be designed in a manner that does not require the legislation to be revisited for all new technologies that emerge in subsequent years. In addition, utilizing a surcharge based on a monthly percentage of subscriber bills should be considered rather than a fixed amount. Based on the functionality of the service and its ability and expectation to connect to 9-1-1, the surcharge should apply on day one that the service is offered to the public. This model assumes a specific surcharge that is collected for and spent only on the portion of the costs associated with connecting to an NG9-1-1/emergency communications IP network.
2. Surcharge on access infrastructure provider (AIP)
An alternative to the communications service provider surcharge model is one applied to the access infrastructure provider (AIP)[1]. The AIP is the entity that provides the physical interconnection capability to the end user. Two examples of an AIP would be a cable TV company or a digital subscriber line (DSL) company that provides broadband Internet access. The NG9-1-1 system assumes that the AIP will become an entity responsible for determining location of calls. The AIP could also collect and remit surcharges since it is local, known, and often regulated. Thus the AIP model would move the surcharge from the calling network to the access network, whereby every access network that could potentially be used to dial would be assessed a surcharge. Since wireline and wireless networks include access networks, they are included (effectively this is no change to them, although there will be internal organizational issues for these companies since most, if not all, telephone companies are legally and/or operational separated from their AIP arm). The fundamental change would be that individual communications service providers would not be subject to a surcharge, but every broadband network provider would be. Since the location of IP-based communications will need to come from the access network, the broadband (and any other) access network provider should be able to offset a portion of their costs to deploy location determination against the surcharge. 3. Universal Statewide Communications Surcharge
Rather than allowing for individual surcharges on various communications services which are specifically dedicated to 9-1-1, another possibility is to assess one statewide universal communications surcharge (UCS), which would be a single flat fee, likely ranging from 3-5%, on all communications services[1]. The resulting funds would be used to pay for and other communications needs for the state and would not be a only fee. The UCS would be collected on all communications services, including all wireline and wireless service providers, Internet service providers, cable and satellite communications and entertainment services. It is possible that such a funding model could also be used to raise funds to pay for other N-1-1 services, such as 2-1-1, 3-1-1, 5-1-1, 7-1-1, and national emergency service 800 (toll free) numbers such as suicide prevention hotlines and poison control centers.
4. Universal Federal Communications Surcharge
Rather than a universal state fee, another option is a national funding model with uniform fees assessed to all communications services nationally which the federal government would collect and distribute to states, who in turn would then distribute such funds to the appropriate 9-1-1/Public Safety Authorities. The model is a variation of the Universal Statewide Communications Surcharge model, but it is applied at the federal level. Justification for a federal model is based on efficiency and concerns that a state level UCS would require all 50 states to enact legislation that would likely result in inconsistencies amongst the various states. With a federal surcharge, legislation would only need to be adopted once and would ensure national consistency. Not having to wade through different state and local funding schemes could ultimately reduce administration costs of providers, and thus overall service costs of consumers. The Federal Universal Service Fund (USF), a telecommunications fund mandated to long-distance telecom companies in 1996 to subsidize Internet and telecommunications access, may be adaptable for purposes based on this model.
5. User (incident) fee
Another possible solution is to assess a user fee for each call, similar to a 900 number call in which users of the service are charged for use of the service. While this approach would directly attribute the charge to individual users, potentially bypassing the provider, implementation and customer billing would be difficult and it would be unlikely to raise enough funding on its own. However, this option could very well be considered in conjunction with other funding options. 18

19. State Emergency Services IP Networks (ESINets)
State ESINets are critical to the NG9-1-1 and next generation emergency communications architecture
No state today is implementing and operating a comprehensive ESINet that supports as well as other next generation oriented emergency communications functions beyond 9-1-1
Significant planning underway in several states
Legislative or regulatory barriers may exist

20. Confidentiality of 9-1-1 Call Information
PSAPs currently receive only ANI and ALI (includes street address or lat/long location information)
NG9-1-1 architecture enables a level of access and sharing not currently possible (more data, images, live video, personal medical data, etc.)
Current statutory confidentiality provisions may not adequately protect the public, and may hinder access and sharing for legitimate purposes
Typical language requires PSAPs, responders and database providers to protect the confidentiality of the records. What if the entity that receives a record is another N-1-1, or third-party service provider (OnStar), or a federal agency?

21. NG9-1-1 Regulation/Statute/Tariff Considerations
Next Generation implementation will not be a statewide “flash cut” in many cases
Legislation/Regulation, state policies and funding considerations must anticipate and support multiple deployment scenarios
Many elements of Next Generation technology already exist
Local authorities need the ability to implement Next Generation technology (in all or part) as they see fit (ideally in coordination with a state authority)
Need for statutes/regulations/tariffs to enable a competitive E9-1-1 environment that facilitates transition to full NG9-1-1
Second bullet: Single statewide authority: Where such authorities exist, they usually are created by statute, executive order, or, operate as a function of existing authority (like a state utility commission, for example). Authority generally covers both funding and implementation, though the latter ranges from statewide systems and outright authority over PSAP service migration and enhancement, to limited powers of encouragement, coordination and guidance of same.
Regional authorities without a statewide authority: Some states do not provide for state level authorities, but authorize local governments to join together in regional efforts to coordinate service delivery and share resources. That authorization may occur through specific enabling legislation (directed towards 9-1-1), or be a by-product of existing joint powers/inter-local cooperation legislation. In any case, such organizations have a legal basis of existence, and may operate as political subdivisions of the state.
Non-statewide authority, local initiative: This approach generally involves local initiative to coordinate services and enhancement across traditional jurisdictional boundaries. Such efforts may vary from metropolitan regions, to statewide efforts. Normally these activities are more informal in nature (e.g., regional and state associations, and other cooperative endeavors), but can be quite effective depending upon the organizations involved.

22. Next Steps Start getting ready now
Review national materials to fully understand architecture and system capabilities and policy recommendations
Monitor and participate in demos and trials
Form NG9-1-1 policy working group to review current laws, regulations and tariffs and analyze impact on NG9-1-1 and need for revisions
Ensure broad stakeholder involvement
There is a multitude of stakeholders that have a role in the transition to NG9-1-1.
The role of the general public is in understanding the capabilities that are available from How the purchase of a new device can or cannot interact with In an informal poll of some high schools, they though that could make emergency calls using SMS texting.
9-1-1 Authorities, state agencies and location PSAPs must be the driver for change. And, careful analysis is needed to access where they are now and how they can get to NG9-1-1 gracefully and cost-effectively.
Industry organizations play a role as being advocates for the industry in general, and in some cases writing technical or operational standards that can assist in the transition.
Vendors will offer the products that will drive NG However these products need to have the capabilities to evolve gracefully, since it is not likely that there will be a fork lift approach to introducing NG9-1-1.
The role of the current ILECs will change in NG For the most part today, they are the single conduit to the PSAP. Their offering must evolve to embrace the evolution to NG Other service providers may emerge that offer NG9-1-1 capabilities.
State and Federal governments have a role in facilitating the environment for change that is need to migrate to NG9-1-1. 22

23. Transition Recommendations
Make use of guidelines, other’s experiences
Address near and long term funding
Maximize cost sharing
Consolidate system management functions
Arrange transition process to minimize time operating under both E9-1-1 and NG9-1-1 like environment – operational and cost savings

24. Questions?
Contact Info:
Rick Jones, ENP
National Emergency Number Association
Operations Issues Director
4350 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 750
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: (815)