« The Top VoIP Bloggers of 2005: | Main | Broadcast 2.0 in Motion: Filmmaker Debuts Movie on Akimbo »
December 01, 2005
A little Thursday Morning Quarterbacking on the Media Coverage of the E-911 for VoIP Deadline
I keep thinking that most in the media (not to mention government and industry) are missing the bigger picture by focusing on the short-term issue of immediate compliance with the FCC's E-911 for VoIP Order.
In hindsight, I think we – those that wanted to devote time and resources to advance an IP-based emergency response capability (as opposed to the backward-compatible, narrowband capability that the FCC has compelled) -- might have lost this debate even before it began, simply because we have been forced to argue within an illogical framework that suggests that the FCC has advanced emergency response by compelling VoIP providers to provide a cookie-cutter E-911 service ASAP. The lesson I have learned is that he who frames the issues and the parameters of the debate wins the debate. I see this playing out in the context of the Congressional reform of communications law and policy –- we are forced to accept the initial premise that it is logical to continue regulating along service categories –- if it looks like video, regulate it like video; if it sounds like voice, regulate it like voice. And, I saw this play out in the context of the E-911 for VoIP issue.
We live in a policy arena in which, if you challenge the assumption that the traditional E-911 rules should not apply to the emerging IP-based communications services, you are automatically designated an opponent of public safety and emergency response. I genuinely believe that those who have challenged the FCC’s short-sighted approach to emergency response (an approach that provides government with immediate platitudes and soundbites suggesting that government really, really, really cares about public safety) are the true advocates for public safety and the creation of a better emergency response network –- just not the emergency response network of the last century. The problem is that no one will ever know what could have been, because it may never be, and it comes down to our long-winded explanations (that don’t lend themselves to pithy soundbites) about what could have been possible versus the regulators’ ability to point to immediate results about VoIP E-911 services. Even the VoIP providers are forced to brag about how they can now offer what looks and feels like traditional E-911, without consideration of what could have been.
The fact is that the FCC Order sold out the future of emergency response, a future with an advanced, IP-enabled emergency response capability. As I have said within this blog many times before, IP technology could allow for a much more robust emergency response system -- with presence, video, data capabilities, with better communication by and between emergency responders, with the ability to include "reverse E-911", with the ability to have immediate access to particularized information such as an individual's medical history, and with the ability to contact all relevant parties during an emergency. The entire industry, however, had to stop in its tracks and devote all of its time and resources to figure out how to build a backward-compatible network to reach the emergency response centers that are currently inaccessible except by going through the narrowband networks of the LEC gatekeepers/toll-collectors. For a fraction of the cost of compelling VoIP providers to build backward-compatible capabilities within an otherwise all-IP network, America could have brought broadband and IP technology to every emergency response center in America and allowed the emergency response network to interconnect and catch up with the IP-based communications industry. Not to mention the other benefits of increasing broadband penetration, the benefits to emergency response and public safety of building an interconnected, all-IP emergency response network of networks would have been better use of industry and government time and resources.
If it is not too late, I hope that we in the IP-based communications industry will try to reframe and focus the debate and explain better to the media (and to government) how IP-based technology could revolutionize emergency response if given the latitude and support to do so. The problem is speculating in the abstract about what the IP-enabled world could look like. Where is the crystal ball we need to show the hypothetical future, or, more topical and as the Holidays approach, I am forced to wonder, where is Capra’s “Clarence the Angel” when you need him?
Share this post:
Digg |
del.icio.us |
Reddit |
Newsvine |
Google Bookmark |
Yahoo MyWeb |
StumbleUpon
Posted by jeff on December 1, 2005 10:13 AM | Permalink
Additional resources: Watch PrimeTime TV Shows | Watch the Jeff Pulver Show | Jeff's Qik Videos
Comments
I like Patrick's idea, but there needs to be some sort of "invalid address" support, examples include:
"rack 37, 2nd shelf, 3rd from the left" is not going to help anyone although it may be from the node with the last known location.
Some people will set their routers with the wrong address, for example teenagers who don't want to be tracked down because they P2P music files or even less "desirable" files.
How many routers will respond with "default" like many WiFi network names or VCRs that
flash "12:00" (do they still make VCRs?).
Some adresses are just plain unuseable, as my Vonage box thinks it's in northeast Philly, but in reality it's 6,000 miles southeast of there.
GPS is often unreliable as it needs to see the sky for location. A cell phone stuck in a pocket or purse and then pulled out for a 911 call inside a building may direct help to the wrong place.
As for spending money on wonderful hi-tech solutions, local response providers should, IMHO do what is being done here in Israel. With a network of volunters with pagers and motorbikes, the "first in" response time in the cities has been reduced to 72 seconds.
In conclusion I think Patrick is correct with "do it to show it can be done" instead of "wait for the FCC to require it".
Geoff.
Posted by: Geoff Mendelson at December 2, 2005 01:22 AM
Instead of speculating, why don't we build it? I never managed to master the controls of my crystal ball so that others see the same thing I see anyway. So when someone says it can't be done, the most effective argument is to do it.
Once it's done, it would be difficult to regulate against its use, and since it can be both better and cheaper by orders of magnitude, the argument would end.
As I see it, all of the necessary elements are already in place, except one: a standard means of requesting and receiving the physical location of the nearest network node that is capable of knowing its own location (which may be the caller's phone or computer itself).
This type of problem has already been solved many times in network protocols - bootp, DHCP, etc. - and the most widely-deployed home network hubs, routers, and wireless access points use upgradable firmware that can quickly be patched to implement this protocol and the means to administer it.
Given such a facility, an emergency call would flow thus:
1. Caller initiates a request for the type of emergency service needed (police, fire, ambulance, road assistance, pizza, etc.).
2. Device gets physical location information via the protocol described above. The first network node reached that is able to respond will do so. If the phone itself has GPS or other signal-triangulation capability, of course, it needn't ask anyone else.
3. Device contacts web service at known, highly replicated address, requesting the network address of the service of the requested type that is nearest to the physical location.
4. Device connects to the returned address, sending request for assistance.
Because the network doesn't have to rely on its own knowledge of where the user is, the potential for misdirection due to stale or unavailable database records is eliminated.
Because the calling device finds out its own location, it can choose whether or not to share that information as the situation warrants.
My inclusion of "pizza" in the list of emergency services is not just geek humor, but is intended to illustrate two things: first, that from an implementation standpoint, not only can the definition of "emergency" be subjective but apart from the degree of urgency, protocols to ask "where's the nearest X" don't vary based solely on the value of X; second, while communities normally accept the costs of making the set those values of X satisfying their definitions of "emergency" services accessible to all, the much broader range of commercial services have long shown their willingness to pay well for such targeted, localized, classified advertising, and suggests a proven means of financing the whole thing.
The point is, it's not a complex, high-tech wonder, requiring years of research and billions of dollars for deployment; rather, it's a simple composition of existing pieces following a well-understood model: the local Yellow Pages. The difference is that the device needs help finding the right book, but once that's done it can do the rest much faster.
I've mentioned this before, Jeff, but you haven't replied that I know of. What do you think I'm missing here? In large part, Google and other services provide clear examples for nine tenths of what I've described, and the potential ad revenue makes it attractive for any of them to host. After that, specify, implement, and deploy the location protocol, and moronically simple scripting does the rest.
Why wait for permission from the Feds, who don't get it? Just do it.
Posted by: Brian Thomas at December 1, 2005 02:43 PM
Good points here Jeff, but its hard to disagree with the FCC about "if it sounds like voice, regulate it like voice" when it is being sold like voice. If your goal is to sell a service to replace POTS, it better act like POTS.
Read an interesting article in the news yesterday where Vonage "said it won't obey the ban and will continue trying to recruit and sign up customers in Seattle and elsewhere in the country." Not sure if I would want to be on that dime. Hopefully the folks at the FCC don't read west coast sites.
Posted by: Patrick at December 1, 2005 01:04 PM
"The entire industry, however, had to stop in its tracks and devote all of its time and resources to figure out how to build a backward-compatible network to reach the emergency response centers that are currently inaccessible except by going through the narrowband networks of the LEC gatekeepers/toll-collectors."
The Vonage waiver filed yesterday is perhaps the best representation of the reality of what you articulated here. It's worth reading every page.
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518184187
Posted by: Michael McGhee at December 1, 2005 01:00 PM