[*] VOIP 9-1-1 CALLS CANNOT TERMINATE ON ADMIN NUMBERS

[John Lange]

On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 14:00 -0500, Ron Dallmeier wrote:
> The following from Angus Telemanagement:
> 
>   VOIP 9-1-1 CALLS CANNOT TERMINATE ON ADMIN NUMBERS:  CRTC Telecom
> Decision 2007-44 rules that VoiP providers must use “zero-dialed
> emergency call routing service” (0-ECRS) to route 9-1-1 calls to public
> safety answering points. Within 30 days, any providers that currently
> route 9-1-1 calls to administrative lines or other low-priority numbers
> must implement 0-ECRS, and carriers who provide services to VoIP
> providers must amend their contracts to require compliance with the
> ruling.
> 
> I take it that “zero-dialed emergency call routing service” (0-ECRS) means
> if the client dials zero (or 9-1-1 and roaming), they should reach an
> operator that can determine their location and forward to the appropriate
> 911 center.

The name is really a hold-over from wireline. On Wireline a lot of
people still press 0 when they have an emergency and so they are routed
to a 0-ECRS service which is usually an operator which routes the call
to the PSAP.

However, this type of operator service is not actually available from
the ILECs. On Bell's network it routes to a automated (IVR style) system
where you have to dial a code (touch-tone DTMF) which corresponds to the
area plus a PIN number to route the call.

> Has there been any progress on creating a method of sending 911 calls to
> the appropriate 911 center assuming the ITSP knows the location of their
> client

The report on Enhanced 911 for nomadic VoIP was sent to to the
Commission for consideration at the start of this month. It was a
bitterly contested non-consensus report.

Its anyone's guess what the CRTC will do but there will be no E911 for
VoIP for some time yet.

>  (perhaps a database of POTS lines that reach various 911 centers
> that are not admin numbers but proper queues)?

Don't even get me started on that. On the one hand the PSAPs complain
bitterly that calls are not coming in through the 'front door'. But on
the other hand they keep the front door numbers secret and then they
complain to the CRTC that nobody uses the front door.

> Does anyone know if the 911 centers have a way of transferring a call to
> another 911 center in the event that the wrong area was reached?

HA! Ironically, they transfer the call to the admin numbers or the
secret 10 digit numbers.

>  Would
> this not be a more reliable way of dealing with the problem?

PSAPs are not in the call location determination/call routing business
and their systems are not designed to transfer calls outside their local
area. In fact, if they call outside their local area they do it the same
way as anyone else and they pay long distance.

> Does this really change much for before for those ITSPs that only serve a
> local area and have a PRI to a local LEC with operator and 911 services.

Depends; If your devices are nomadic; ie they could conceivably be moved
by the user, you are not CRTC compliant unless you are using an operator
service that confirms location before routing calls. So that hasn't
changed.

If your operators are sending calls to the PSAPs on admin or alarm lines
they can no longer do that.

> This brings me to another discussion we had at one of the meetings. Is
> Skype allowed to offer Skype-In and Skype-Out in Canada?

No they are not. Thats why you can't get Skype-In in Canada and there
are no Skype-Out locations inside Canada.

>  Where does the
> CRTC draw the line of a pure Internet voice application and a VoIP
> provider. I recall the - "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck -
> it must be a duck" test. If I have a Skype phone that recieves POTS calls
> and more importantly can place POTS calls, do they not have to solve the
> 911 issues?

Yes. If the device is able to place calls to and from the PSTN it's
considered a "phone". As mentioned, Skype does not do this in Canada so
it side-steps the issue. On the other hand you could argue that it's
offering a nomadic non-native VoIP service in Canada and file a
complaint with the CRTC.

>  There is also the issue of foreign ownership and control which
> could be another obstical in Canada (but maybe not for long).

Exactly, not for long.

John Lange