1 / 14

Regulatory Issues: Emergency Calling

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

christian
Download Presentation

Regulatory Issues: Emergency Calling

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


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

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

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

  4. 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

  5. UA recognition & UA resolution DHCP (w/loc) LLDP-MED (L2) GPS (outdoors) mapping location  URL 9-1-1 leonianj.gov INVITE sip:psap@leonianj.gov To: urn:service:sos <location> INVITE sip:psap@leonianj.gov To: urn:service:sos <location>

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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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?

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

More Related