Regulatory Issues: Emergency Calling
description
Transcript of Regulatory Issues: Emergency Calling
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:[email protected]: urn:service:sos
<location>
9-1-1
mappinglocation URL
INVITE sip:[email protected]: 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:[email protected]
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