NG9-1- 1 Deployments in U.S.A. Presented to EENA 112 Commi<ee February 2013 Byron L. Smith, Consultant Skype: Byron L Smith (psapman) Email: byron@psapservice.com Mobile: +1-574- 286-4265
Disclaimer The contents of this presentawon include my personal opinions I am not aware of all NG9-1- 1 deployments occurring in the US Some facts have been rounded for ease of presentawon and discussion
Discussion Topics PoliWcal / Funding History and Context Drivers for NG9-1- 1 MigraWon Sampling of NG9-1- 1 efforts in USA Three examples (with lessons learned) State of Kansas Pilot Project East Texas Council of Governments (ETCOG) State of Tennessee How do we get from here to there?
History and Funding Original 9-1- 1 deployments in U.S. were for local wireline telephone service (early 1990s) Local telephone company was service provider Funded and administered via local taxes at county or large city level State oeen provided enabling legislawon NENA was only nawonal- level organizawon, li<le nawonal funding or involvement Re- addressing rural areas to tabular addresses, e.g. 1506 Apple Road, rather than Rural Route Box 27
Wireless (Mobile) add- on Deployed early 2000 s, FCC requirements Technical soluwon required pani dynamically and temporarily assigned to call; changed ALI system Mostly funded at State level with Board/ Commi<ee administrawon of funds Lat/Lon posiwon reporwng required PSAPs to install mapping systems to plot caller locawon
Drivers to NG9-1- 1 70% or more 9-1- 1 calls are now from mobile devices Seven to 17% of mobile 9-1- 1 calls require inter- PSAP transfer, but 9-1- 1 network not interconnected at service provider boundaries NG9-1- 1 may be 50% legacy network costs NG9-1- 1 provides flexibility to accommodate new communicawons models & technologies
Sampling of NG9-1- 1 efforts in the U.S. Majority at state- level Maine complete turnkey statewide system, RFP issued, vendor selected, in contract negowawon ConnecWcut like Maine, but state already deployed fiber- based IP infrastructure to all PSAP sites Palm Beech County Florida 27 PSAP sites, deployment in final stages Michigan state driven IP network planning, GIS, and PSAP consolidawon studies
Sampling (conwnued) Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon, Florida, Colorado, Kentucky, Massachuse<s, others various stages of state level NG9-1- 1 planning South Dakota in process of procuring consulwng services Projects differ in extent of state involvement with local PSAP equipment replacement Many state- level projects centralize some NG9-1- 1 funcwons such as the ECRF
Kansas NG9-1- 1 Pilot Project
Kansas Context PopulaWon approximately 2.8 million Area approximately 213,000 square kilometers Two major ciwes (Wichita and Kansas City) have more than 1/3 of state s populawon Most of state is very rural, low populawon density One county in pilot project had PSAP serving 2,400, another county had PSAP serving 550,000.
9-1- 1 Funding / PoliWcal Structure Local PSAP administrawon and funding Only state- level funcwon was commi<ee to distribute wireless (mobile) 9-1- 1 funds to PSAPs Li<le understanding of NG9-1- 1 among public safety community Pilot effort funded by state funds with federal matching grants Pilot final report due September 2012
Scope of Pilot Build state- wide database of basic PSAP data: Addresses, contacts, call volumes, equipment types, operawonal characteriswcs, etc. NG9-1- 1 educawon effort: what, why, how InvesWgate models for providing ESInet and NG9-1- 1 services that fit state culture Select representawve sites for NG9-1- 1 pilot Implement a demonstrawon NG9-1- 1 system
Pilot Outcomes State Office of InformaWon System Technologies built and operated pilot ESInet Shared WAN faciliwes with Kansas Criminal JusWce InformaWon System (KCJIS) to lower cost and provide redundancy and diversity (win- win) Performed GIS study to determine effort and cost to build state- wide NG9-1- 1 GIS database, GIS effort is ongoing State legislature expanded scope of 9-1- 1 Advisory Council, changed poliwcal structures to accommodate NG9-1- 1 Deployed centralized ( hosted model ) NG9-1- 1 services, PSAP equipment just browser- based work stawons
Lessons from Kansas Pilot Deploying NG9-1- 1 may require changes at layer 8, the poliwcal layer Full NG9-1- 1 (locawon- based rouwng) requires a public safety- quality GIS database Providing a quality ESInet (IP infrastructure) is straighsorward, but providing quality NG9-1- 1 services is more problemawc EducaWon of stakeholders is very important
East Texas Council of Governments
ETCOG Context 14 CounWes in east Texas, mostly rural Approximately 810,000 people Approximately 26,000 square kilometers Approximately 600,000 emergency calls / year Approximately 80 emergency call answering posiwons, 40 provided by the COG Several municipaliwes operate PSAPs independently of the COG
NG9-1- 1 Deployment Three year effort, completed August 2012 Issued RFP for ESInet, awarded to a telco Issued RFP for CPE, awarded to a vendor Deployed two redundant server sites (on- line/hot standby), servers capable of accepwng NENA i3- compliant signaling Server sites contain CAMA to SIP gateways, 48 ports each site Replaced ETCOG- supplied PSAP CPE with SIP telephones and web- browser- based terminals
ETCOG NG9-1- 1 Costs COG was facing significant legacy CPE replacement, upgrade, and maintenance costs NG9-1- 1 CPE paid for by just a few years (3-4) of legacy MRC for maintenance services Monthly recurring charges (MRC) for network did not change much or increased slightly; new ESInet costs offset by eliminawon of ALI circuits and old GIS update network System is legacy (with all related costs) to the two server sites, the system is all IP from the server sites to the PSAPs
Lesson from ETCOG ExisWng CAMA trunks were re- provisioned from the PSAP sites to the server sites This involved three telcos, and was very painful, Wme- consuming, and expensive Telcos have limited resources that have knowledge of legacy CAMA technologies (in other words, all the old guys who know how this works have rewred) If we were doing it again, we would gateway the legacy CAMA trunks at the PSAP sites onto the IP infrastructure, to avoid moving these trunks.
Tennessee Statewide NG9-1- 1
Tennessee Context PopulaWon approximately 6,500,000 Area approximately 110,000 square kilometers Approximately 140 PSAPs Pre- exiswng statewide contract for WAN services PSAPs provide own equipment locally NG9-1- 1 deployment for wireless calls only (for now)
Tennessee Architecture Telco providing ESInet (NetTN), IP- based selecwve router services, and legacy to IP gateways RFP issued and awarded for separate company to maintain 9-1- 1 databases and manage NG9-1- 1 deployment LocaWon- based rouwng not deployed at this Wme NENA i3 compliant interfaces required at PSAP to NetTN interface Some PSAPs may gateway to legacy equipment, others have installed / are installing NENA i3 compliant local equipment
NG9-1- 1 Deployment NG9-1- 1 overlays legacy 9-1- 1 network which is lee in place for now for wireline and backup Several fully NENA i3 PSAPs are in producwon State has developed list of CPE vendors with equipment tested and known to work on NetTN IPv4 address space limitawons has been an issue due to ESInet provider policies Probably largest i3 compliant system in US that is in producwon
Lessons from Tennessee Limit number of conversions between Legacy and VoIP to prevent voice quality problems Plan ahead for IPv4 address space limitawons, or (even be<er) deploy with IPv6 LocaWon- based rouwng may be cost effecwve only if/when legacy selecwve routers can be eliminated Wireless carrier trunk grouping / default rouwng differences and related issues
Lessons Learned Many Sources Various security issues PSAPs may have interconnected CAD / mapping systems which access public internet Must establish security zones / layers PSAP to ESInet firewalls are required MigraWon issues Legacy databases may contain obsolete data Recording system considerawons legacy trunk based and captured pre- call- answer audio ESN numbering conflicts among legacy service providers Network design IP network providers may not understand highly reliable / available IP infrastructures MTU / UDP size limitawons on SIP messages with PIDF- LO, must use TCP
How do we get to NG9-1- 1? IETF- based standards, such as NENA i3 and EENA 112, appear to be viable, but not completely understood or accepted by all vendors Legacy and NG9-1- 1 must coexist for a period of Wme Must carefully consider migrawon to minimize gateway requirements and conversion costs