Regulatory Issues: Emergency Calling

Henning SchulzrinneDept. 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)

ente

rpri

seco

nsu

mer

ISP

ente

rpri

seco

nsu

mer

ISP

OS v

endors

soft

ware

serv

ices

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

PSTNtransition(“I2”)

end-to-end IP(“NG911”)

112911

112911

dial 112, 911 urn:service:sos

selectiverouter

VPC LoST:(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 locationbut does not handle call

UA recognition & UA resolution

INVITE sip:psap@leonianj.govTo: urn:service:sos

<location>

9-1-1

mappinglocation URL

INVITE sip:psap@leonianj.govTo: urn:service:sos

<location>

leonianj.gov

DHCP (w/loc)LLDP-MED (L2)GPS (outdoors)

LUMP architecture

T1

(.us)

T2

(.de) T3

(.dk)

G

G

GG

G broadcast (gossip)T1: .us

T2: .de

resolver

seeker313 Westview

Leonia, NJ US

Leonia, NJ sip:psap@leonianj.gov

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., 802.11 triangulation)

– But consumer may use non-ILEC/MSO voice provider• visitors may bring their own devices• 802.11 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 9-1-1 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 9-1-1 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 9-1-1 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