« On the Road Again: Next stop Israel | Main | US Senate Confirms FCC Nominations (but does not move forward on E-911 for VoIP Bill) »
December 22, 2005
Sometimes Wireless 911 Fails? Does the FCC Know This?
Last May, the FCC paraded in a series of victims, who experienced tragedy because dialing 911 did not connect them to a live voice during an emergency. The result of this regulation by anecdotal scare tactic was the adoption of E-911 rules for Interconnected VoIP Providers, and an obligation to institute E-911 within 120 days. I was forced to wonder whether these three incidents accurately depicted the world of emergency response in the US. What about the countless users of traditional wireline and wireless services who have experienced tragedy as a result of failed 911 calls? Was there never such a failure on a wireline or wireless network? (Forget about the 16 years it took wireless to develop even a rudimentary E-911 capability.) It turns out that there are many such failures on traditional networks, but I guess these anecdotes would not have communicated the point the FCC was trying to make in imposing rules for VoIP E-911.
Here is one such example from yesterday's Boston Globe:
Boston Globe: Cellphone 911 calls failed in big storm Verizon promises to ferret out why system broke down
"At the height of a blinding afternoon snowstorm almost two weeks ago, the
state's enhanced 911 cellphone system failed, leaving motorists stuck on
highways unable to reach police easily.
State authorities said the glitch, which appears to have been in the Verizon
network that routes all cell 911 calls, lasted as long as 40 minutes. The
result: Users who called 911 around 3 p.m. on Dec. 9 heard only a busy
signal.
''Something jammed the system. The calls never got through," said Edward M.
Merrick Jr., the chairman of the standards committee for the Statewide
Emergency Telecommunications Board, which oversees the system. ''It's a
serious concern."
The breakdown coincided with a Northeaster that barrelled across
Massachusetts, icing roads, crippling traffic, and decreasing visibility to
just a few feet. Parts of the state received 15 inches of snow and
experienced wind gusts of up to 70 miles per hour.
The hour before the storm hit, the State Police enhanced 911 center in
Framingham answered about 500 calls. But between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m.,
operators received fewer than 200. It is not clear how many calls failed,
but it appears a switch that controls which cell calls enter the 911 system
was overwhelmed and shut down. Land-line calls still went through.
Merrick was aware that call volume had lessened during the storm, but until
he was contacted by the Globe, he attributed it to not having enough
operators on duty. It was only after some inquiries, and 10 days after the
storm, that Merrick learned the problem may have been on Verizon's end..."
Share this post:
Digg |
del.icio.us |
Reddit |
Newsvine |
Google Bookmark |
Yahoo MyWeb |
StumbleUpon
Posted by jeff on December 22, 2005 09:18 AM | Permalink
Additional resources: Watch PrimeTime TV Shows | Watch the Jeff Pulver Show | Jeff's Qik Videos
Comments
Perhaps the greatest advantage of VOIP is the ablity to buy a VOIP gateway/router "magic box" and take it where you go.
My "magic VOIP box" was purchased in Kansas. I have moved it to Uijonbu Korea, then Daegu Korea. So who is going to answer my 911 call? (Koreans do not dial 911).
Will the FCC require my US based VOIP provider to forward my 911 call to a Korean emergency dispatcher?
Posted by: Martin at December 25, 2005 09:40 AM
All the elements you point out are true, lack of access, waivers, etc. However, again, IMHO, its certainly seems reasonable that if I have my phone connected to a VoIP provider in my house, I should expect that if I dial 911 in distress, that I am going to be connected to emergency services in AT LEAST the same way as if I were connected using the PSTN. The only way to really guarantee that happens is to regulate the VoIP providers too.
It seems like the argument has been characterized as about whether VoIP provider should be required to provide 911 at all. I've heard arguments about the difficulties with mobility and other things. A telephone should connect you to 911 services in a predictable way, regardless of the technology underpinning it. What needs to be fixed is exactly what you brought up, the devil of the details.
Also, I completely agree with your point that there is tremendous oppurtunity for innovation here and the regulatory environment should be structured so that that innovation (in the form of improved 911 services, e.g. support automatic location determination and automatic routing to the closest PSAP for mobile users, etc.) is incentivized (sp?)!
All the best for the holidays to you, your family, and everyone else!
Posted by: Frank Miller at December 23, 2005 10:23 AM
To respond to Frank's argument that the VoIP E-911 Order just puts VoIP providers on even footing with traditional carriers, I have to point out that VoIP providers, unlike traditional telecom carriers. have no liability immunity, no ability to seek waivers where providing E-911 is infeasible, no g
uaranteed right of reasonable access to the selective routers and other facilities needed to reach local emergency response centers, and were only given 120 days to implement what it has taken the well-heeled wireless industry 16 years to implement. On top of that, VoIP is global in nature, and offers unique emergency response capabilities t
hat do not fit neatly into the US Federal regulators' conception of E-911.
Posted by: ja at December 22, 2005 10:36 PM
Very good point Frank. Very good point......
Posted by: JR VanOoteghem at December 22, 2005 08:59 PM
I'd like to point out something in your post. Your logic seems to be that since there are emergency service outages in the traditional phone networks, the VoIP community is being singled out unfairly.
The difference is this. Prior to the order to institute the E911 facilities for PSTN connected VoIP providers, there was no regulatory vehicle to force them to provide 911 type services. With the enactment of these regulations, these VoIP providers have been told to provide at least the same service that the PSTN providers are compelled to provide. That basically makes things even between the VoIP and traditional carriers.
Had these outages been pointed out after the regulations were enacted, I would tend to agree with you about the VoIP providers being singled out unfairly. However, they were singled out primarily because of the regulatory imbalance which made their being singled out much less unfair IMHO.
Posted by: Frank Miller at December 22, 2005 06:30 PM