Blogs

As communication services become available on more devices, new forms of technology creep into our lifestyle, and we forget about the simple things, and take them for granted. A great example is access to 9-1-1 emergency services.

We are all taught, at a very young age, that when you need help you call 9-1-1. If there's a fire, you call 9-1-1. If you’ve hurt yourself, you call 9-1-1. Unfortunately, there seems to be a big “HOWEVER " that follows those statements.

We know all too well about the challenges with MLTS/PBX systems in offices, schools, and hotels and the ability of those systems to access 9-1-1 both with, and without, an access code.

We know all too well about residential voice over IP services allowing users to relocate themselves without changing their registered address, creating a nightmare for 9-1-1 call routing and location reporting. We know all too well about the challenges that cellular devices create as their use for 9-1-1 calling accounts for over 80% of emergency calls in some areas, and their explicit inability to provide accurate location information while located inside of a building.

Now, before we have solved the bulk of those challenges, broadband cable television providers, have built massive public Wi-Fi networks, and are now partnering with manufacturers of Wi-Fi enabled smart devices to deliver Internet, and voice calling capabilities, for as little as $10 a month.

The challenge here is, that while providing these Wi-Fi, Internet enabled voice calling services, emergency calling to 9-1-1 is not without some severe restrictions. As uncovered by Daniel Wilson, ENP (@NewYorkWilson on Twitter) it appears that my local cable provider, which provides excellent broadband services residentially and commercially, has rolled out a new service in this category, called Freewheel. 

Although Freewheel mentions on their disclaimer page, a notice that  states:

WE STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU TELL OTHERS IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD, YOUR GUESTS, AND OTHER THIRD PARTIES WHO MAY USE THE SERVICE OF THESE LIMITATIONS. YOU SHOULD MAINTAIN AN ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF CALLING EMERGENCY SERVICES AS THE SERVICE IS NOT MEANT TO BE A PRIMARY LINE REPLACEMENT SERVICE.

Is that enough to ensure the general public safety of citizens who may use the service, or even realize that they are? From the telephone end  point, there is probably little difference visually that would be indicative to a user that emergency 9-1-1 service is any different on that device than any other telephone. Yet there are significant restrictions, as openly admitted in their disclosure page. [http://freewheel.com/e911] These include:

• Sufficient Wi-Fi connectivity is required
• There is no guarantee of call completion
• Location will not be provided
• Call back number will not be provided
• Calls will take longer to route to a PSAP
• Calls will be routed to a third-party call center, and then to a PSAP
• Calls may not reach the PSAP on 9-1-1 lines

Today, at least, this pretty much states that 9-1-1 “sort of works", but clearly it is not a very good idea to rely on 9-1-1 services on these devices.

This is where the conundrum lies. While not wanting to stifle technology advancements, and enhance our ability to communicate ubiquitously over any device, and from anywhere, at what point do we establish and maintain that emergency services to 9-1-1 are a mandatory requirement, regardless of the technology advancements.

According to Motorists.Org  article by T. Patrick O’Malley,  “In the 1980's, auto manufacturers were faced with a federal mandate to install "passive restraint" safety devices to protect vehicle occupants in the event of a collision. Also known as the "air bag mandate," this requirement was vigorously opposed by all the major vehicle manufacturers.”

Despite the cry of the manufacturers and dealers as well as foreign carmakers saying this would keep them from the market, clearly something had to be done. The plan by USDOT’s Elizabeth Dole allowed for a deal that stated. “If the auto industry could get mandatory seat belt laws passed in enough states such that 80% of the population would be covered by such laws, the air bag mandate would be put on indefinite hold.”

Looking back at the progress made last year with Kari’s Law and the FCC report delivered by Commissioner Ajit Pai in Marshall Texas, I was asked by representatives from Maryland, if they needed to continue their efforts, since the bulk of the hotel motel industry and the AH&LA have committed to remediating the problem.

I explained to them, that while hoteliers have stepped up to the plate and committed support for direct access to 9-1-1 in their properties, the problem extends further into businesses, schools, hospitals, or any other environment where a multiline telephone system is in use. Because of that, legislative initiatives need to continue.

As a perfect example, new services that are emerging such as the Freewheel Wi-Fi-based voice over IP service, have not put enough attention on emergency services and 9-1-1 calling, as, in my opinion, the restrictions listed previously in this article provide a substandard emergency calling capability that is a step backwards in technology, when we should be moving the yardstick forward.

Mark J. Fletcher, ENP, is Avaya's Chief Architect for Worldwide Public Safety Solutions. With a telecommunications career spanning three decades, his role is to define the strategic roadmap and deliver thought leadership for Avaya's Next-Generation Emergency Services solutions. In the U.S., he represents Avaya on the NENA Institute Board, the APCO Standards Development Committee, and is vice chairman of the EENA NG112 Committee in the European Union. In Washington D.C., Fletch contributes technical guidance to various committees at the Federal Communications Commission, dealing with Optimal PSAP Architecture and Disabilities Access.