Re: Canadians Mandate 9-1-1 for all VoIP Service Providers

["CHRIS PEABODY" <>]

Couple of things:

1. It definitely is State by State.  This will change, as IP Enabled
Rules AND/Or MLTS (MultiLine Telephone Systems) legislation becomes
defined by the FCC.  Note - FCC, not PSC's.   The FCC ruled in November
2004 that they were in fact going to be the legislative body for VoIP,
and E9-1-1 calling is one of the 5 area's that they said that they would
write rules for. They're expected to rule in 2005, but with the change
in the Chair (Powell out, Martin in) this may take awhile.  NENA has a
pretty updated listing of the state rules at:
http://www.nena.org/9-1-1TechStandards/state.htm 

Some states that are on there, like Maine, have pending legislation.


2. Basic 9-1-1 service is defined by NENA as: " Basic 9-1-1 means that
when the three-digit number is dialed, a call taker/dispatcher in the
local public safety answering point (PSAP), or 9-1-1 call center,
answers the call.  The emergency and its location are communicated by
voice (or TTY) between the caller and the call taker. "    ANI and ALI
are not required as part of "basic 9-1-1.  VSP's that are forwarding
9-1-1 calls to 10 digit administrative numbers at PSAP's are essentially
meeting this standard (they may be sending ANI - and the PSAP may be
able to see it, if the 10 digit number is terminating on PRI's etc....)

3. Walt is correct when he talks about the $$ issue.  I, and many
others see this as a major stake in the ground by the Canadian
authorities to say that VSP's will pay into the 9-1-1 funds.  However,
enforcement and collection of this will be interesting to monitor over
time.  

This is an issue being debated here in the states right now that is
reminiscent of the cellular debates from the past.  Collection of 9-1-1
fees from the VSP's presents the same problems since the phone number no
longer must work in a defined geographical area.  Should there be a
national collection agency (a - la -Universal Service) or should it be
collected by the States.  If it's the states, then who should get the
fee for "FX numbers" - the state which has historical ties to the area
code - nnx (301-365 = Bethesda, MD) or the State where the number
terminates (most argue that it's where the number terminates, since the
fee's are supposed to support the PSAP's that will provide you help in
an emergency.  This gets complicated with roaming of your VoIP
Number.....).

It's not technically that complicated, but it's incredibly complicated
from a "program" perspective.  I'm going to be doing an update at ACUTA
this summer and happy to help with any I2-ers as needed.

4. As per Candice's question about Skype - their SkypeOut service says
that they do not support 9-1-1 service at all. Not sure how this will be
impacted by the ruling.  Most "commercial" VSP's have realized very
quickly that they need to offer 9-1-1 access in order to sell their
services commercially.  Groups like Skype will be interesting to watch.



Chris Peabody
Director, Enterprise Network Communications
L Robert Kimball & Associates
8500 Leesburg Pike  Suite 210
Vienna, Va  22182
703-288-0577 Main
703-288-0445  Direct
301-529-3825 Cell

>>> "Walt Magnussen" 
>>> <>
>>>  4/19/2005
11:04:17 PM >>>

Steve,

   As Chris can (and will I assume) attest, what is required for 911
for wireline and cellular is mandated on a state by state basis but it
is an FCC issue (as of November 2004) for VoIP.   I don't think that the
FCC has set any real VoIP requirements yet but I could be wrong here
(again, help me out Chris).

   For example in Texas a residence that is wireline has to pass the
ANI (number info) and the location has to be in the ALI database
(location info).  A campus does not have to send the exact station
number (it can just send the trunk info) unless the campus has residence
halls, in which case it has to comply with residential requirements.

    Again the VoIP requirements are different since they are under a
different jurisdiction.

   The Canadian rule also does something that no one in the US has done
to this point if it goes a mentioned below in that if it adds the 911
surcharge to the VoIP providers, it would be the first instance of the
myriad of telco based surcharges being added to VoIP services.  A
slippery slope once we start down that path.

Walt



>>> Steve Blair 
>>> <>
>>>  04/19/05 6:41 PM >>>

   Also I'm unclear on exactly what is required for basic 911 in the
U.S.
Do the rules vary by State? From what I have read basic 911 only
requires
the calling party number be passed to the PSAP. Everything else that
makes
the call to the PSAP "useful" to Emergency Personnel is expected to be

passed
verbally.

-Steve

Candace Holman wrote:

> Does this mean that people cannot use Skype in Canada until "an 
> interim solution which provides a level of service comparable to
Basic 
> 911 service" is implemented?  According to the article, Basic 911 is

> similar to what providers like Vonage are offering voluntarily in the

> states, but only when the PSAPs will allow in-calls to their 
> administrative lines.
>
> I wonder how will this will be enforced?
>
> Candace
>
> At 09:46 AM 4/18/2005, CHRIS PEABODY wrote:
>
>> http://www.govtech.net/magazine/channel_story.php?channel=7&id=93642

>>
>> The Canadians have spoken! Their rulings are fairly concise on all
>> issues, including VSP's that enable roaming being required to have
an
>> interim solution in place that provides basic 9-1-1 service. If you
>> drill down into the report, it even concludes that funding should
be
>> identical to legacy telecom service.
>>
>> ".....With respect to the funding of the provincial 9-1-1 networks,
the
>> Commission considers that the ILECs' current provincial 9-1-1
tariffs
>> should apply to local VoIP service providers in the same manner as
they
>> apply to other carriers and resellers...."
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris Peabody
>> Director, Enterprise Network Communications
>> L Robert Kimball & Associates
>> 8500 Leesburg Pike  Suite 210
>> Vienna, Va  22182
>> 703-288-0577 Main
>> 703-288-0445  Direct
>> 301-529-3825 Cell
>