1. Enhancing 9-1-1 Location Accuracy A Panel Discussion – Oct 6, 2015 ROGER HIXSON – NENA BOB SHERRY – INTRADO ROGER MARSHALL - TCS

2. Three Challenges around Wireless E9-1-1 Location Call Routing Challenge Enhanced (Phase II) Location Challenge Indoor Location Challenge Avoid conflating these: they are distinct!

3. Call Routing Challenge Cellsite/Sector based routing is used for E9-1-1 today ◦ usually delivered as a street address, sometimes delivered with Longitude and Latitude Wireless Traffic Plans are pre-determined routing instructions ◦ Agreements between wireless carrier and Public Safety ◦ Infrequent updates to the WTP can cause undesirable (non-final) Rerouting results – (e.g., demographic changes, cellsite adds/changes) Non-optimal Routing Results – sometimes RF coverage reaches beyond cell site map boundaries ◦ If this boundary condition happens, the result is that the call is sent to the PSAP assigned to the serving cell site - not where the call is expected to be handled. This is considered a “non-final” routed call, but not a misrouted call. Location based routing using Longitude and Latitude as inputs to GIS systems is an new development topic within the CSRIC V WG1 and has many facets, including Small Cell (e.g., Femtocells, Picocells) deployments, new emerging location technologies and hybridization, and is dependent on overall accuracy of the position estimate information produced as well as the base map information it is compared to.

4. Enhanced (Phase II) Location Challenge Phase II location, (Long/Lat), takes time to determine, access via E9-1-1 data links Call routing, by comparison, has become quicker w/ network and operations changes An initial “bid” usually happens automatically, w/o Telecommunicator intervention A “Rebid”, often a manual process is sometimes needed to get Phase II location (up to 70% of the time) Phase II position information, once determined, is available - cached at the MPC/GMLC (~87%) If Telecommunicators (or their CPE) “Rebid” too soon, (e.g., less than standardized ~30 sec interval), updated Phase II location may not be available.

5. Initial Bid Timing vs. Location Fix Initial Bid generally <8 sec …but location fixes can take up to 24 seconds Washington DC May, 2013 Single carrier 11,585 calls 10,812 bids 6.7% abandoned Phase II on Initial Bids: 2588 23.9% ~15 sec 3-5 sec 23-24 sec Phase II available in time for Initial Bid data

6. Importance of Location Rebids Rebidding often is not done ◦ Washington DC: Only 1.8% made a Rebid (191 of 10,811 calls) ◦ CalNENA policy not to perform rebids: 2006 thru 2014 ◦ Dispatch info sometimes overwritten by rebids (i.e., CAD/CPE) On initial bid (by CoS) 75.4% Phase I 0.7% Poor Phase II 21.8% Phase II A-GPS 2.1% Phase II AFLT Rebid after 30 seconds (by CoS): 9,614 of 10,811 had a Phase II fix = 88.9% 11.1% Phase I 1.7% Poor Phase II 73.3% Phase II A-GPS 13.9% Phase II AFLT 87.2%

7. NG9-1-1 Improves Phase II Data Retrieval NG9-1-1 increases ability to get and utilize location Location data can be pushed - rather than only pulled ◦ SIP Subscribe/Notify ◦ No need for re-bid strategy - location information can be presented as it becomes available Multiple location elements can be sent – courtesy of PIDF-LO ◦ A-GPS fix (improvements using add’l GNSS, like GLONASS) ◦ OTDOA fix (faster than A-GPS) Richer set of location for Indoors & Outdoors ◦ Better location achievable from new location technologies ◦ Additional Data incl. supplemental address info, building floor plans (text and graphics) Presence Information Data Format - Location Object 18

8. Indoor Location Challenge Phase II outdoors traditionally has been A-GPS location GPS signals don’t propagate well into deep indoor environments FCC 4 th Report & Order on Location Accuracy requires carriers to meet several rules, of which 3 are primary, outlined as follows: Lat/Lon delivered at 50m or better (with Confidence at 90%) Dispatchable Location, a street address that includes supplemental location data such as floor, building, unit, etc., where available, stored in the NEAD (National Emergency Address Database) Vertical component (Z-axis) required, either altitude or floor number, etc.

9. Indoor Location – NEAD NEAD is provisioned with Wi-Fi and BLE identifier information along with a validated civic street address Organizations such as CTIA, ATIS, IETF, NENA and others are engaged in building requirements, architectures, and specifications ◦ Several CTIA LA (Location Accuracy) work groups are engaged ◦ ATIS WTSC Joint ELOC Task Force is developing an initial architecture New Location Technologies will emerge and be tested ◦ ATIS ESM is describing testing requirements and methodologies ◦ Some early prototypes have been developed, such as a LIS-NEAD and Enterprise Wi-Fi Positioning

10. Proposed Standard NEAD Architecture Legacy PSAP Delivery

11. Proposed Evolved NEAD Architecture Legacy PSAP Delivery

12. Enterprise Indoor Location – Washington DC (Vendor specific demo/prototype) Wi-Fi AP Controllers (2 Cisco MSEs) Dispatchable Location Indoor Map Indoor Location

13. Satellite Overlay for Campus View (Vendor specific demo/prototype) Satellite Map (Campus View)

14. Expanded Indoor Location View (Vendor specific demo/prototype) Indoor Map (Expanded View) Dispatchable Location North Orientation

15. Multi-Story Enterprise Location (Vendor specific demo/prototype) Enterprise Location for Dispatchable Location using Measured Wi-Fi

16. Multi-faceted Location – Seattle, WA (Vendor specific demo/prototype) Enterprise Location (Indoor Map) Dispatchable Location Indoor Map Other Data Sources

17. National Emergency Address Database (NEAD) (Vendor specific demo/prototype) NEAD Location (Wi-Fi APs) NEAD Wi-Fi Access Points Dispatchable Location (Address, Floor, Additional Info)

18. Global Wi-Fi Services (Geodetic Location) (Vendor specific demo/prototype) Global Wi-Fi Services (Enhanced Location) Geodetic Location

19. Additional Location Data Sources (Vendor specific demo/prototype) Other Data Sources (Enhanced Location) Bluetooth Data from Mobile Device Billing Data Caller-supplied

20. Roger S. Marshall TeleCommunication Systems (TCS) rmarshall@telecomsys.com Questions Bob Sherry Intrado robert.sherry@intrado.com Roger Hixson NENA rhixson@nena.org