When You Dial 911, Can Help Find You?

Again, please don't misunderstand, I'm all for inovation, but can open, worms everywhere.

One worm is when a VoIP client is in a hotel with in-room hi-speed internet. Plugging in a VoIP adapter is easy enough, and in some cases that's all that's necessary. However, in others, the hotel tenant is required to re-certify their continued expectation of use by negotiating a webpage that requires a code be manually typed in from a connected PC

- the code is happily provided by the front desk upon check-in, and for subsequent days. I was in one a few weeks ago where each certification period was only good for 12 hours before a new code was required from the front desk. If my cert period expired in the middle of a session - it died regardless of activity level - and curiously there was no in-room info placard that carried a clue. VoIP clients who aren't aware of this shouldn't expect their VoIP service to always be available under these situations. If one is expecting to make or receive important VoIP calls when out-of-pocket, one should be aware of these issues.

FCC Orders 911 Service for VoIP As expected, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued an order Thursday requiring Internet phone service companies to provide enhanced 911 (E911) emergency calling capabilities to their customers and delivered a

VoIP providers must, by default, deliver all 911 calls to the customer's local emergency operator. Interconnected VoIP providers also must provide emergency operators with the call back number and location information of their customers where the emergency operator is capable of receiving it.

The new demands must be met within 120 days of the official publication of the order, which is expected by the end of this month.

Regulatory Process Proceeds

The ruling is a response to the rapidly expanding VoIP customer base and directly impacts providers such as Vonage and EarthLink, as well as cable companies. It also reflects the FCC's earlier decision to take regulatory control of Internet-based calling rather than grant that control to states.

Calling the IP-enabled services marketplace "the latest new frontier of our nation's communications landscape," the FCC cited horror stories brought to its attention in which VoIP customers dialed 911 but were unable to reach emergency operators.

"The sad fact is that we have spent so much time splitting hairs about what is a telecommunications service and what is an information service that we have endangered public safety," said commissioner Michael Copps in a statement. "At some point the semantic debates must end and reality must assert itself -- when customers sign up for a telephone they expect it to deliver like a telephone."

Cooperation from Carriers Required

Most providers, in anticipation of the decision, have been adding E911 capabilities to their systems and support the FCC. The mandate could spell trouble, though, for smaller operations without the resources to add emergency services capabilities.

"EarthLink and other VoIP providers are committed to providing 911 services. We therefore support FCC and Congressional efforts to ensure public safety by requiring that VoIP subscribers have prompt access to E911," said Dave Baker, vice president of law and public policy at EarthLink.

Baker also noted that to meet this objective, the FCC must ensure that incumbent phone companies provide access to the interfaces needed to deliver and complete emergency calls.

"We have been given a big obligation to meet in a short time, so it's up to the Bells to meet their requirements as well," he said.

Action Was Overdue

"The low-end VoIP providers will probably struggle with another regulatory hurdle to clear, and there could be a shakeup in the industry that may be a good thing," said IDC analyst Will Stofega. "But this has to be done because most customers did not realize there was no support for E911 with their service."

Still, said Stofega, the FCC has been dragging its feet on VoIP regulations despite determining that it is an interstate communications service.

"They have been talking about this since 1999, but until now have not offered any rules for operating next-generation phone services," he said.

Vonage announced an agreement Thursday to purchase wireless and wireline E911 services from SBC and BellSouth (NYSE: BLS - news). And Verizon (NYSE: VZ - news) recently announced that it will provide E911 calling system to VoIP service providers and vendors, enabling them to connect their customers' emergency calls to Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs).

I think that if I were the hotel, I would put a sticker on the real phone next to the Ethernet jack saying "in case of emergency, dial 911 on this phone."

The goal here is to provide working 911 to people who need it. I have never seen a hotel room with an ethernet jack but no phone, and I doubt that anyone else has, either.

There are many occasions when an operator is useful, although I can't think of one for a VoIP service.

An operator can set up a personal call, whereby you are only charged when the person you want comes to the phone. Probably not much use for this nowadays, with mobile and similar services, but some business users might still find it useful.

Also reverse charge calls require operator assistance. There is an automatic version around here in the UK now but it incurs a hefty additional charge so is best avoided.

I'm sure someone else can find a few more uses for the poor old operator before she's put out to pasture ;-)

Ivor

Which is precisely why I block 411 with my Mitel SMART-1 controller. It just wasn't worth Vonage's buck a pop to get an incorrect listing.

Just connect it to Infone instead. The regular directory assistance around here is pitiful/horrible/usually wrong (I'm thinking especially of Verizon.)

But Infone is great.

It's that same buck a pop (well, 89 cents now), but sometimes you're talking to an operator who's actually =been= to "that diner on Broadway" you can't quite remember the name of (did that), and always you can ask things like "I know there's a Target store around here somewhere, but I can't quite find it

-- can you guide me in?" (been there, done that too.)

Sign up at

shamelessly shilling, Garry

Wolfgang was talking about =regular= phone calls being "2 cents a minute or less".

Garry

Collect calls will not be billed at 2c/minute, they are billed at the operator rate of the dialing telco (IIRC this is regulated in the states

-- I know for sure that the CRTC regulates the operator or base rate in Canada)

The problem with wireless sites are connectivity and keeping systems within tolerance. If something along the route from the MTSO is disrupted, the site is isolated. As far as battery power, if HVAC is not continued, the equipment will fail out even if the batteries have remaining capacity.

Some of the sites out here have generator connections and manual transfer switches. The batteries float volatile settings, but when the power is out, so is the system.

As an emergency manager, my perennial question to wireless providers - especially to those who purport to be "interoperability solutions" is: Since the sites have a jack and a manual transfer switch, when a technological emergency happens and there is no power, who gets the resources??? What guarantee is there that they will support my operation and not run with their resources to the "big" city 45 miles away?

From my side of the fence, every site is a critical site, particularly when a company is marketing itself to be of service to public safety providers.

Steve

He said "do you really care if you get the wrong person or if the call is collect?" -- If you get the wrong person you're out a few cents, no big deal.

If you get a collect call, you're out a fair amount of money, at least a hundred minutes of direct dialed calls.

When you are calling for 2cents or less per minute do you really care if you get the wrong person or of the call is collect? The whole idea of operator-assisted calls only made sense when the calls had substantial per minute fees.

-wolfgang

Right, but since phone calls cost 2 cents a minute, who would bother to make a collect call (outside of a prison, that is).

Other than my dad, who has an inexplicable habit of calling me collect from airports, I can't think of the last time I've encoutnered one.

miguel

First of all, the notion that the location of a cell phone caller can be determined quickly and reliably (without the use of GPS enabled handsets) is a MYTH. Yes, triangulation can narrow down the general vicinity (depending greatly on the density of sites within the area) but that's a far cry from "1234 Main Street, Apt. 3-G". So let us set aside the argument that cell phones provide E911 functionality. Clearly, they do not.

Or... the FCC could adopt a realistic position with respect to the technical issues involved in providing E911 services via VOIP.

It is not that simple. Access to the PSAPs is available ONLY via the ILEC's. Heretofore, those companies have made it virtually impossible for most VOIP providers to gain that access. If the FCC is serious about having the VOIP providers deliver E911, they are going to have to ensure that the playing field is level.

Most of the sites here (I am in a rapidly urbanizing suburb which borders on rural areas) are served by sites which have slab-mounted enclosures which are weathertight without having a full pre-fab housing. These seem to have their own HVAC internally, but do not have anything more than the manual transfer switch and generator jack.

I'm not sure if there are batteries in there, as there doesn't seem to be much room. Even if there are, this couldn't run very long given the typical powe failure duration in these parts.

None of these locations are manned. Most of them are in remote locations.

I'll do my best. It's been a while since I was in the industry.

In the late 80's/ early 90's I did work in the AMPS cellular industry. This was a time when PCS was called "CT2." I understand things have changed. Back then, I was with a "B carrier" whose sites mostly AT&T equipment which had banks of glass jar batteries along one side of the wall. My impression is that these sites were built to remain up for several days. One iDEN site I was in had a battery rack that seemed to be gel cells which had significantly less capacity. The equipment may be more efficient, i.e., more power may be directed toward actual RF transmission and not toward signal processing or receiving, but I doubt that with the volume of usage that follows during a high-impact incident that this site would function very long (perhaps in comparison to one with a bank of Exide jars) following power disruption.

Sure, in most places but not out here. Building redundancy and overlapping coverage is not considered in the business model for an area such as this. We generally have high-site coverage of Interstates and coverage falls off between 3 - 10 miles off the path of the highway.

I have been getting the hard sell for "partnering" with carriers, one in particular, to apportion public funds for diverse routing and emergency power solutions, as well as development of wireless facilities at publicly funded tower-sites for their infrastructure. The promise is that "we" can ride on their fortified system. The unseen is that their system is making money and there is no discussion of revenue sharing up on the table. The danger is that other carriers will claim exception and we will be forced to encrust each of the public sites with each of the 800 MHz and PCS carriers, which would increase wind loading and preclude our own ability to put up antennas for our own internal use. But, gee, at least one carrier says if their system is fortified I don't need anything else :o) LOL!

Steve

While it may be much quicker and has obvious benefits, our stats show that people use whatever they are conditioned to use. Our system stats indicate about 57% of system-wide 9-1-1 access being wireless (VoIP is pointed to a POTS line, so we can't even collect numbers on that). The primary PSAP actually is closer to 65% wireless (there are eight PSAPs in the system). I've heard from other 9-1-1 coordinators that their wireline calls account for only about 32% of total system usage now.

One of the 9-1-1 coordinators who has a greater disposable income than mine brought a new toy to a meeting: a PDA with a wi-fi card and a VoIP telephony application. There are some people out there who want to make wi-fi VoIP a cellular competitive system.

Steve

And it would also seem MUCH quicker in an emergency to use the land line. I would also be willing to bet that there is a "regular" land line (if not a few cell phones) in most of the Internet cafes. the VoIP 911 problem would be mainly in home and (and possibly businesses).

Depends upon location and time of year. Also, some companies are taking a serious look at using DC HVAC systems, which will run off of the batteries.

This makes sense only in manned locations.

The batteries float volatile settings, but when the

Can you elaborate on this ? Nominal float voltage from the DC power system is

-54Vdc. Wet cell or VRLA battery systems are composed of 24 * 2V cells. For those with Low Voltage Disconnect (LVDs), the setting is usually -42Vdc.

The good thing about the wireless network is that there is usually another cell site that can provide service, in the event a closer site goes down.

And as such, they are subject to the "influences" present in the political process. For the FCC this means telco lobbyists, and the politicians who have been bought and paid for by the telco's (ILEC's).

I disagree. For the hundreds of start-up VOIP providers who will NOT be able to gain the mandated access, the implications are meaningful indeed.

The 9-1-1 "industry" and the regulatory environment that 9-1-1 exists in is a nasty business where there are constantly ways of finding nickles and dimes for business partnerships which are transparent to PSAPs. It's also hung together like Post-it notes layered on top of each other. Technology which was put aside in the 70's for telephony (enhanced MF, like the tones at the end of Pink Floyd's "Young Lust") is still widely used in 9-1-1. That's layered on top of database providers, which is layered on top of other database providers, which is layered on top of... and so on... and so on... . I'd rather see innovation, but one that moves in an all digital direction which provides end-to-end digital. ILECs see this as a threat because in a completely digital environment, they are less necessary (if at all).

In one situation, an ILEC which we retain for selective routing and database services proposed a tariff for wireless services that would charge US (the 9-1-1 system... in my case, I operate six primary PSAPs, one secondary and one disaster recovery) for each wireless Phase 1 or Phase 2 9-1-1 call we receive. We are not cost-recovered. We would - hypothetically - have to either fund 9-1-1 from the general revenue fund, or take the impolitic course of turning off all wireless access and make 9-1-1 a service provided to taxpayers. Either way, we lose. The Commission has done NOTHING to aid the several states which could not develop cost recovery mechanisms, yet the carriers charge a "Federal Universal Access" fee which, when you pin them down, is ostensibly for "complying" with 9-1-1 mandates, which in some cases is not being offered in that area, which some carriers will refuse to comply with locally until they get their cut from other funding sources.

Despite these issues, the public sector end of this is constantly forced to live up to a perceived standard of care that is established by external factors, such as marketing.

I concur that the playing field has to be narrowed to a common denominator, however, the FCC is as much a political animal as local legislatures are. I don't see anything meaningful coming from the Commission other than another unfunded mandate that is ultimately passed on to us local 9-1-1 systems.

Steve