Efficient and timely communication is critical to public safety. This blog examines the differences between legacy and NG9-1-1(Next Generation 9-1-1) PSAP-to-PSAP (Public Safety Answering Point) interagency communication for incident resolution, and analyzes factors influencing NG9-1-1 adoption.
Let’s start with a scenario: a 9-1-1 caller reports a reckless driver on a busy freeway. The driver is observed crossing jurisdictional boundaries, leading to a complex call transfer situation.
Scenario: reckless driver
Telecommunicator: “9-1-1, what is the location of your emergency?”
9-1-1 caller: “I’m on Highway 20, northbound, following a white truck that is weaving all over the place. It nearly caused several accidents. The truck is exiting at Riverside Drive, and I think there is a child in the front seat. Looks like the driver is heading to Butler city.”
A common challenge
This scenario highlights a common challenge faced by PSAPs – transferring a mobile incident across multiple jurisdictions. While the ability to conference or transfer 9-1-1 calls has been a fundamental requirement and function since the inception of 9-1-1, the methods used have evolved significantly. Today, a substantial number of PSAPs in the United States continue to rely on either the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) or 9-1-1-based methods that do not permit the receiving PSAP to obtain the caller’s location for interagency communication, failing to leverage the advanced capabilities of NG9-1-1.
Why does this matter? What are the differences between legacy and NG9-1-1 regarding interagency communication?
Legacy
In our scenario, the PSAP uses a 10-digit transfer and conference call to connect the caller to the next jurisdiction, inefficiently tying up both telecommunicators. The initial telecommunicator must provide continuous location updates to the receiving PSAP which has no ability to obtain a new location or any location at all.
This process is a wasteful use of resources, prone to errors, and could potentially delay critical response efforts. Further, the lack of digital information sharing hinders situational awareness and may impede coordinated responses across jurisdictions.
Bottom line, it underscores the need for efficient and seamless communication between PSAPs.
NG9-1-1
In contrast, NG9-1-1 offers a more effective means of sharing incident information.
NG9-1-1 leverages IP technology based on the NENA (National Emergency Number Association) i3 architecture which standardizes the structure and design for the software services, databases, network elements and interfaces needed to process emergency calls and their associated data. The i3 standard details a rich exchange between originating service providers (OSPs), NGCS (Next Generation Core Service) providers, emergency call handling systems, PSAPs and Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) systems.
In the NG9-1-1 environment, when the 9-1-1 call is answered, the telecommunicator receives the caller’s location and can obtain caller location dynamically across the balance of the 9-1-1 call duration.
In addition, in scenarios involving pursuits or incidents that cross multiple jurisdictional boundaries, NG9-1-1 facilitates seamless handoffs. In our reckless driver scenario, for example, an NG9-1-1 environment would enable the initial PSAP to transfer the incident to the appropriate jurisdiction with a simple “push of a button” and then disengage, freeing up resources to handle other calls once the receiving PSAP had taken control of the call.
Unlike legacy systems, NG9-1-1 enables the digital transfer of incident information with Emergency Incident Data Object (EIDO) exchange. EIDO allows receiving PSAPs to access and share critical incident details between public safety platforms (CAD, call handling, etc.), rather than relying on verbal relay. When law enforcement is dispatched, the initial jurisdiction and subsequent jurisdictions involved have the capability to see all of the information, where agencies agree to share such data. If the incident tracks into multiple jurisdictions, then, rather than having to place a phone call to the other agencies, they would access the data through functionality that the EIDO exchange provides. The ability to share CAD data ensures all involved agencies have access to the most up-to-date information, enhancing situational awareness and coordination.
In essence, NG9-1-1 transforms interagency communication from a cumbersome, voice-based process to a streamlined, data-driven operation. This shift not only enhances efficiency and reduces telecommunicator workload but improves the speed and effectiveness of emergency response.
Barriers to adoption
The primary obstacle we see in peer jurisdiction NG9-1-1 adoption is not technology but the operational readiness of PSAP-to-PSAP communication influenced by the practices and agreements between NGCS providers.
To accomplish the seamless inter-PSAP communication we have described, PSAPs require interoperability between their NGCS provider and their neighboring agencies’ NGCS provider. This interoperability enables communication in a standardized format, as outlined by the NENA i3 standard.
The NGCS service providers receive 9-1-1 calls from the OSPs and deliver them to the appropriate PSAP, playing a critical role in PSAP-to-PSAP communication.
The driver for interoperability is the Network-to-Network Interface (NNI) agreement between the service providers. The core problem around adoption is the pace at which NGCS providers negotiate and implement NNI agreements. These agreements are business-to-business negotiations and essential for establishing how different NGCS providers will interoperate, share data and ensure calls are delivered correctly and efficiently.
Currently, there is no regulation mandating that service providers complete these agreements. Each provider must individually engage with its peers to negotiate the terms of the NNI, conduct lab testing to ensure interoperability and then operationalize the negotiated NNI.
Without ubiquitous NNI agreement coverage, PSAP-to-PSAP communication can offer only a patchwork of sharing capabilities, stalling the seamless inter-agency communication that NG9-1-1 promises.
Third-party testing and adoption
The question arises whether an independent third party could expedite interoperability for interagency adoption.
While third-party testing and certification might seem beneficial, the NENA standard has traditionally served as a blueprint, allowing NGCS providers some amount of latitude to tune features supported based upon market need and/or provider discretion. Consequently, the core challenge of interpretation and negotiation remains with the NGCS providers themselves. Effective interoperability hinges on their collaboration to negotiate, test and implement the standard based on their mutual understanding. Imposing an independent certification program could potentially add unnecessary cost and time to the process.
Moving Forward
While the benefits of NG9-1-1 are evident, widespread adoption for PSAP-to-PSAP communication across disparate NGCS provider boundaries has been gradual. NGCS providers, such as Motorola Solutions, support NNI agreements and are working diligently to complete these agreements with our service provider peers.
To accelerate NG9-1-1 adoption and realize its full potential, the following steps are vital:
- NGCS providers must prioritize and expedite the negotiation and implementation of NENA i3 peering NNI agreements.
- PSAPs should advocate for NG9-1-1 capabilities and work with their providers to ensure seamless interoperability and be specific in the features that their respective provider is expected to provide.
- Public safety agencies should explore potential regulatory mechanisms to encourage NGCS provider collaboration on the peer interconnection front.
NG9-1-1 offers significant advantages over legacy and transitional systems, enabling faster, more efficient incident management and response. By fostering collaboration and prioritizing essential capabilities, we together can pave the way for a more robust and responsive 9-1-1 system to better serve our communities and save lives.
Here are several resources to help you explore Next Gen call routing in greater detail.
Location-based routing: FCC Report and Order
What PSAPs say about their Next Gen call routing
Maximize integration between Next Gen call routing and the PSAP workflow
Contact us to learn more about our Next Gen call routing service and emergency call handling solutions. Visit us at www.motorolasolutions.com/ng911.
