Memo 6: "Hello, emergency?....this is 911..I need help.."!

9-1-1 needs emergency help! It is not the the technology but the lack of regulatory vigilance, administrative inefficiency, executive indiscipline and ethical misbehavior that have now led us to a situation where we need to fund the funding of the E911 fund.

A brief background
The significance of providing emergency service through a common number all across the nation, reveals some interesting aspects with regards to technology, economics and policy surrounding a national telecom infrastructure. In US, all the states levy a 911 surcharge on a per line basis. On an average, in the US, a monthly charge of $0.70 per line has been mandated. This helps create a strong pool to support funding of E-911 services which include
enabling the call routing, caller identity and location information technology, establishing and maintaining PSAPs (public safety answering points) and notifying the appropriately located and designated authorities promptly. This works fine when we consider only the legacy wireline telephone services as technologically, things are very simplified. Now, as parallel communication technologies evolve, one has to device ways to inculcate the same emergency service provision. The FCC then mandated that all technologies including wireless and the VoIP telephony, should incorporate this aspect of the service.
As far as providing wireless 911 services is concerned, it is technologically feasible. It has been done in 2 phases. The phase I deployment involves dealing with the routing technology. It has been achieved in 80 % of the states in the US. The phase II deals with location identity and its notification mechanism to the nearest PSAP. Till date it has been made completely functional only in 8 states.

The problem

Prof. Dale Hatfield describes the 911 issue as "a wonderful systems engineering problem. It's really a perfect example." In his Report on Technical and Operational Issues Impacting The Provision of Wireless Enhanced 911 Services, Prof. Hatfield points out that lack of coordination among the various stake holders has delayed the issue and as a result there are now questions with regards to its funding. Initial delay can be attributed to service providers that relied on the FCCs recovery clause. In a way they were justified because the cess was collected by the respective state governments' advisory boards in an effort to provide funds for provision of the service. The advisory board now has the onus to distribute the funds efficiently among the carriers, PSAPs and the LECs. Here lies the problem. Inefficient mobilization of the funds, as a result of lack of initiative and lethargy displayed by the FCC, has made funding E911 services, an issue. The funds have been collected quite efficiently, it is redistribution that is the primary issue. Inefficient mobilization of the funds, as a result of lack of initiative and lethargy displayed by the FCC, has made funding E911 services, an issue. We are now facing a black hole situation wherein all the money that has gone in, because of some administrative and regulatory lapses, is not actually coming out!
Here is one reason, “Reports from the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) showed that several state legislatures had diverted E911 funds to shore up budget problems elsewhere. The NENA report identified a dozen states--Arizona, California, Maine, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia and Washington plus the District of Columbia--that diverted as much as $400 million away from E911.”[1] Also,as Ken Louden, director of communications for Steuben County, Ind.,who serves on the Indiana wireless E911 board, says, “The FCC has not stepped up to the plate to police the LECs”. This has been frustrating the PSAPs too LECs are disallowing them from accepting calls.

Proposals:
In this chaos, we are sidelining the fundamental aspect of 911. Come what may, every citizen, irrespective of the technology he uses, must be able to access the service efficiently. Service provision is the key requirement. On the administrative front, people, who pay the surcharge and are still deprived of what they pay for, need to be more proactive in pressurizing the respective state governments. Public awareness campaigns, political pressure, etc. are some ways people need to adopt aggressively as no one realizes the importance of 911 unless one faces a situation where it has to be used.
On the technological front, network based technology, rather than a device based technology, will be more efficient and economical. The simple reason being that one cannot expect to modify end systems continually as the technology evolves. Instead, modifying the network for once will solve the problem and will prevent revisiting the problem with every upgrade in the access technology. Also, if one considers the economics, handset-based technology requires phasing on an individual basis which is not only time consuming, but also an expensive option as far as the end consumer is concerned. Network technology, on the other hand, immediately reflects the upgrade and service incorporation and provides an array of opportunity for an entire content based market (safety instructions, nearest help center directions, safety ads etc.). This will automatically provide a self -sustaining mechanism.
On the regulatory front, mechanisms need to be evolved to induce transparency into the entire process of fund management. Accountability cannot be neglected and misappropriation should not be permitted a camouflage of inadequacy.

References:
[1]Chamberlain, David - Law makers to blame for E911 scandal on http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DUJ/is_14_108/ai_n9505612