Next Generation 911

The emergency communications network of the future is envisioned as IP-based, using
standardized protocols, and providing a nationwide overlay of system links that can operate at the
national, regional, tribal, state, or local level to best meet the needs of specific circumstances.
Such a network, if fully realized, could support many types of emergency communications needs,
including first responder networks and emergency alerts. A network overlay for 911 systems can,
for example, facilitate interoperability and system resilience by bringing extra resources to
devastated areas where 911 call centers are damaged or overwhelmed with calls. On a daily basis,
it can provide foreign language assistance at any time, anywhere.5 Other benefits include better
connections between 911 call centers, emergency responders, and alert and warning systems;
more robust capacity; and the flexibility to receive calls for help in any format. Benefits like these
are among the reasons that Congress has required the preparation of a National Plan to prepare
911 for the transition to an IP-enabled emergency communications network.6 An IP-enabled
network for emergency communications has been defined as a "network based on an
infrastructure allowing secured transmission of data among computers that use the Internet
Protocol."7

Implementing NG9-1-1 will require not only the development of an IP-enabled network and
systems but will also entail changes in operational procedures, training, funding models, and
state--and possibly federal--regulations and laws. The National Emergency Number Association
(NENA) began planning for the future of 911 under the banner of NG9-1-1 in 2000.8 NENA
started work on standards development for NG9-1-1 in 2003 and since then has taken the lead in
defining, designing, and developing NG9-1-1 systems and solutions in partnership with other
associations, as well as representatives from industry, government, and the public safety
community.9 Support for NG9-1-1 now comes from a broad base, including

· State and local managers for emergency communications and 911.
· Associations such as NENA, COMCARE,10 the National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC),11 the Association of Public-Safety
Communications Officials International, Inc. (APCO),12 and the National
Association of State 911 Administrators (NASNA).13 Many other international,
national, and state and local associations are also actively involved in supporting
911.14
· Alliances such as the 911 Alliance,15 the Alliance for Telecommunications
Industry Solutions (ATIS),16 the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF),17 and
the E9-1-1 Institute--which supports the Congressional E9-1-1 Caucus.18
· Corporations and other commercial organizations serving public safety and
emergency communications.19
· The Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Public Safety Program and the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) within the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notably, NENA and DOT have partnered to encourage the deployment of NG9-1-1. Among
DOT's contributions in support of NG9-1-1 are the funding and supervision of five proof-of-
concept pilots to test key components of NG9-1-1 in PSAPs.20 In addition to the pilots established
by DOT, at least six states and the District of Columbia are reported to have IP-based networks
for emergency communications that will support NG9-1-1 systems.21

Congress created an E-911 Implementation Coordination Office (ICO) to participate in the efforts
to improve 911 systems. The ENHANCE 911 Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-494) directed NHTSA to
serve as co-administrator with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) in establishing and directing the ICO.22 The NET 911 Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L.
110-283) gave the office the further responsibility of creating the National Plan for the transition
to an IP-enabled emergency communications network.23

NENA estimates that the earliest a fully standards-compliant NG9-1-1 system could be in place
would be mid-2010.24 Two key federal programs--DOT's NG9-1-1 proof of concept and the
ICO--are currently scheduled to end just as states and communities are beginning to deal with
the logistics and costs of replacing out-of-date systems. Congress has set an April 2009 deadline
for completion of the National Plan. This leaves little time to implement recommendations before
the ICO's authorization expires on October 1, 2009. If ICO and DOT programs are not extended
or replaced, the only federal agency with a continuing role in implementing national policies to
improve 911 systems and services will be the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The
FCC has so far used its powers primarily as a regulator to enforce requirements for provision of
911 connections, not as an E-911 policy-making body.

Congressional Policy for NG9-1-1
The implementation of IP-based NG9-1-1 embraces many complex and inter-related decisions
about, for example, governance, standards and technology, funding, and leadership. Congress has
addressed some of these issues in the context of existing 911 infrastructure and technology, and
has recognized the need to plan for the transition to the next generation. This transition will, over
time, present many new policy issues. Congressional policy goals for the future could include

· Addressing emergency communications needs and goals with a policy statement
that recognizes the convergence of technologies, especially IP-based networks
and standards, that will place first responder networks, 911 systems, and
emergency alert systems on common, interoperable platforms.
· Identifying the federal role in implementing national policies for emergency
communications without eroding state or local authority.
· Defining the role of the Department of Homeland Security, especially the
Regional Emergency Communications Coordination Working Groups that it
supports, in guiding policies to sustain and improve 911 as part of its Emergency
Communications Plan.
· Reviewing the federal regulatory role in promoting competition in the provision
of network services to PSAPs.25
· Designating radio frequency spectrum to provide connectivity to PSAPS, for
example by using wireless technologies such as microwave transmission in place
of fiber-optic cables.
· Addressing the quality of interfaces with other emergency communications
networks, especially the radio links to first responders, and their spectrum needs.
· Providing funding solutions.
· Establishing national guidelines or requirements for minimum levels of 911
service.
· Establishing a program to assure that the quality of 911 services improves
steadily, nationwide.

The balance of this report describes the development of Congressional policy in support of 911,
technology and infrastructure, federal programs, the transition to IP-enabled emergency
communications, costs, and other elements of change before returning to a discussion of goals for
the future.

Endnotes

5
For example, the Washington Post reported that in 2007, in Fairfax County, VA, 911 calls were translated into 66
different languages. "Cellphones Drive Jump in 911 Use; Workloads and Costs Soar with Increased Calls and
Translation Needs," by Amy Gardner, October 26, 2008 at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/
2008/10/25/AR2008102502052.html.
6
P.L. 110-283, Sec. 102, (3) "(d) "(1); 122 STAT. 2623.
7
47 CFR Part 400, E-911 Grant Program, §400.2 Definitions. Federal Register, October 3, 2008; link at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2008/FR_E911grants_081003.pdf.
8
NENA NG9-1-1 Project at http://www.nena.org/pages/ContentList.asp?CTID=65.
9
For example, on May 2, 2007, NENA and The Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials International,
Inc. (APCO) issued a joint statement announcing an agreement to work together in advancing the transition of 911 to
new technologies and capabilities. The two associations agreed to share information and coordinate activities. NENA
will focus on technical and architectural components of new 911 systems and APCO will focus on the operational
utility of these systems. See http://www.nena.org/media/files/NGNENA-APCOAllianceRelease.pdf.
10
COMCARE, Emergency Response Alliance at http://www.comcare.org/.
11
Information at http://www.naruc.org/about.cfm.
12
Information at http://www.apcointl.org/new/commcenter911/.
13
Information at http://www.nasna911.org/current-issues.php.
14
For example, the European Union supports the European Emergency Number Association--EENA 112, see
http://www.eena.org/.
15
At http://www.911aliance.org.
16
At http://www.atis.org/esif/.
17
At http://www.ietf.org/overview.html.
18
At http://www.e911institute.org/e911caucus.html; additional information at the E911 Institute web page
http://www.e911institute.org/index.html.
19
For example, members of the NENA Next Generation Partner Program as listed in A Policy Maker Blueprint for
Transitioning to the Next Generation 9-1-1 System: Issues and Recommendations for State and Federal Policy Makers
to Enable NG9-1-1, op. cit.
20
Participants that are testing the network prototype are: City of Rochester, NY--Emergency Communications
Department; Seattle, WA--King County E-911 System; St. Paul, MN--Metropolitan Emergency Services Board,
Ramsey County Emergency Communications Center; State of Montana--Public Safety Services Bureau; and State of
Indiana--Office of State Treasurer, Indiana Wireless 911 Board. Source: "US DOT Announces Partnerships For Next
Generation 9-1-1 Initiative--Proof of Concept," e-mail announcement, Laurie Flaherty, U.S. Department of
Transportation, January 16, 2008.
21
These are Florida, Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Rhode Island. Source: NENA, Status of NG9-1-1 Related
IP Networks, Demos and Trials at http://www.nena.org/pages/Content.asp?CID=373&CTID=65. Indiana is also
participating as one of the DOT pilot projects to test the interface between state IP-networks and the national overlay
being considered in DOT's NG9-1-1 program. According to DOT, Vermont has also established an IP backbone and
numerous regional/local networks are upgrading to an IP-based network. Source: e-mail communication from Will
Otero, Director, Legislative Affairs, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, October 21, 2008.
22
P.L. 108-494, Sec. 104, "Sec. 158, "(a) "(2);118 STAT. 3987.
23
P.L. 110-283, Sec. 102, (3) "(d) "(1); 122 STAT. 2623.
24
Ibid.
25
The wireline circuits that complete the connection to the PSAPs are usually owned and operated by either an
Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) or a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC), operating under different
regulatory requirements and protections. The Wireline Competition Bureau of the FCC oversees federal regulation of
ILECs and CLECs.