An area where this is quite often seen is in the US deployment of Text to 9-1-1. Nearly every week headlines can be found touting where a Pubic Safety Answer Point (PSAP) has “upgraded to NG911 technology” by adding the capability to receive text messages from the public. The articles often reference the multimedia aspect and future support for pictures and video that will be possible.

While it is true that a full NG911 deployment will allow multimedia traffic to be delivered to Public Safety, it is critical to realize that the simple addition of Text to 911 bolted on to today’s legacy network, cannot deliver on this promise. The industry is actually doing itself a great disservice to the public by allowing these dramatic stories to endure; as they only skew the perception of reality by the citizens into thinking they have something they clearly do not.

Much of this is pride; many within the industry have worked hard bringing NG911 where it is today, and there is the natural determination to want to show the world the good that has been created. Unfortunately, poorly worded press releases often lead the media astray by omitting minor yet important nuances that allowing journalists to fill in the gaps in the stories with their imagination. Other times, remarks and comments from industry experts are unintentionally misleading. Being a top notch technology IT person doesn’t make a good Public Safety Official, and likewise being a distinguished Pubic Safety Official does not make a good IT person. Whenever new technologies are introduced, many in the industry they serve often misunderstand them.

Until a new technology reaches wide-scale deployments, and enough mistakes have been made resulting in lessons learned, it 's hard to publish realistic best practices. This can be problematic during the critical initial roll out period; as new systems are built and deployed with limited expertise by the teams assigned to deploy them, and limited reference deployments to model after.

Given this dichotomy of knowledge, a common litmus test that can be applied to establish the level ‘NG911 Readiness,' is to analyze how an agency defines NG911. Chances are if NG911 is being used as a noun, there is likely to be a disjointed understanding of the base premise behind the technology and architecture. “We have implemented an NG911 PSAP Solution”, a Public Safety IT professional may say in an interview with a journalist. And there the cycle of misunderstanding begins.

Think about it, if an agency desires to deploy PSAP Solution, then what that agency wants is a call taking platform that receives voice, video, text, email and other forms of multi-media on a SIP-enabled infrastructure, including the PIDF-LO information in the call setup header that can also contain other relevant information known as Additional Data. To receive this information, an Emergency Services IP Network (ESInet) must be built and deployed. This network replaces the legacy E911 and contains the required i3 Functional Elements as defined by NENA.

Given this requirement, if an agency indicates they have deployed an NG911 solution, then an ESInet must be in place, or one will be implemented at the same time. Despite this being the case, it seems to be missing from many deployments, therefore eliminating the possibility of an NG911 solution to . This is where a serious disservice is being done to constituents.

People hear Next Generation 911, and immediately equate that to being better

Many agencies will argue that their system is NG911 “Ready” or NG911 “Capable” or some other derivative, but in reality, that is just semantics being used as a technical loophole. Most people simply don't understand the subtle nuances of these terms. People hear Next Generation 911, and immediately equate that to being better, more capable and something they should spend money on. But then the inevitable network outage occurs, and the public is left in the dark wondering what happened to that shiny New Generation thing that was featured on the 6 o’clock news and that cost all that money?

A classic example of the NG911 term being misused is with Text to 911. Here is the logic that I commonly used:

• Text to 911 is something that was never before available therefore it’s new.
• Text to 911 is delivered from a device that has Internet connectivity

Based on these facts, this must be Next Generation, right?
Sadly this is not the case, but I believe that many are simply too afraid to admit it. Why would this be so? Much time and money likely spent on delivering text messages to the PSAPs, and shoehorning that new technology into an existing infrastructure not designed to handle it. In the end, what was actually delivered was nothing more than a hollow shell masquerading as something it is not. We need NG911 services, and if we sign off on what has been delivered, we are

In most cases, location is not being delivered with the text messages, and  information is a long way off. What is needed is true NG911 services, delivered over a real Emergency Services IP Network. If we sign off on anything less, or what currently has been delivered, we are short-changing the American people on a life-saving technology that is available, but not deployed.

Follow me on Twitter @Fletch911
Read my other AVAYA CONNECTED Blogs

Mark J. Fletcher, ENP is the Chief Architect for Worldwide Public Safety Solutions at Avaya. As a seasoned professional with nearly 30 years of service, he directs the strategic roadmap for Next Generation Emergency Services in both the Enterprise and Government portfolios at Avaya. In 2014, Fletcher was made a member of the NENA Institute Board in the US and is a 2-term member of the APCO Standards Development Committee. In 2014 – 2015 he served as co-chair of the EENA NG112 Committee in the European Union, providing valuable insight to State and Federal legislators globally driving forward both innovation and compliance.