9-1-1 Apps: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Fletch: We’re sitting down with Todd Piett, who is the Chief Product Officer at Rave Mobile Safety, and he also sits on the Board of Directors of the Next-Gen 9-1-1 Institute. Welcome to the podcast, Todd.

Todd Piett

Todd: Thanks, Fletch. It’s great to be here.

Fletch: The emergence of the app, Next Generation 9-1-1, there’s a lot happening in public safety for 2014.

Todd: Yeah. The emergence of the app is a really interesting topic. You see it everywhere in our day-to-day life and consumers; we’re seeing tons and tons of apps coming out there. The app stores, whether they be Android or iTunes, are filled with things that do everything from help you count to three to buy groceries. Now we’re seeing that same kind of promulgation of apps come out around public safety.

Fletch: Yeah. We’ve got the whole new initiative with text to 9-1-1, even though that’s not as widespread as some of the media reports want to make it. There’s a really small percentage, but it’s coming; Next Generation 9-1-1 is coming. It’s all about the additional data and delivering that additional data to PSAPs.

Todd: Yeah. As you well know, Next Gen is a network that enables a lot of really cool things, and part of it’s the communications around texting or in the future of video, instant messaging, email. The standard defines just about any type of communication you could imagine.

Then there’s the data that I like to think of as the fuel that drives these rules engines that are in this network that allow us to do really cool things, whether that be identifying the right resources to dispatch, whether that be finding more information about the individual that’s texting in.

It’s really difficult to pull that data out of somebody over 160 characters. It takes awhile, but if it pops up and gives their medical history and things like that, it can really enable a faster response. The data is kind of a key contributor to allowing all of these amazing use cases that we’re envisioning with Next Gen to really happen.

911 Apps

Fletch: It’s the additional data, getting that additional data from the originator of the event to the call-taker at the 9-1-1 center. That’s the challenge, just getting that data. The existing network won’t allow the intelligent transfer of data.

You’ve got a limited analog-based voice-only circuit there. Delivering it over the top is something that we’ve been talking about, correlating that with data aggregation. Do you see that going away with Next Gen 9-1-1 or do you see it actually expanding?

Todd: I really don’t see it going away. What you’re talking about, at least in our approach for going over the top or using the existing Internet to take what we see coming into a PSAP and then reaching out to the Internet and going, okay, what can you provide me, through a very secure means, but what can you provide me about this caller or this location based on what I’ve seen in the ANI ALI. That’s really how we define over the top. It’s using other available networks to append information onto that call. That’s kind of the baseline.

Obviously, from a technology standpoint in Next Gen, the networks allow a lot more of that. They’re more designed to allow rich data to come into the PSAP, but there’s still that problem of where is this data coming from. We feel the need for an aggregator and somebody to manage what’s a legitimate source, what’s the format that this needs to come in.

All of the things that need to be done to data to make it trustworthy and usable are still necessary in the Next Gen world. As we really look at all of the different sources that are envisioned, there aren’t a lot of really good standards out there.

Frankly, 9-1-1 is not going to drive the healthcare industry to do a standard that it hasn’t done in 40 years. There is a need to aggregate this data, synthesize it down into a way that’s consumable and makes sense for public safety. That’s a key role we see in the Next Gen of the future.

Fletch: With the penetration of smart devices, there’s a smartphone on everybody’s hip out there right now. The thing is, the app is really common. There’s an app for everything. We’re seeing a big development effort in a lot of apps around 9-1-1. There’s, I think, some question on the usefulness or the value of those apps. Some of them may actually be creating more of a problem, right?

Todd: It’s going back to the analogy that I said before where you’ve got apps that will help you count to three. Just because the technology enables something to be possible doesn’t mean it really makes sense or helps out.

There are some really cool things being done out there with apps. I was looking at a company the other day that does some really cool sharing of video and things like that between the PSAP and responders. There’s a lot of very, very helpful tools out there, but there’s also some that, frankly, not only aren’t helpful but are really detrimental to the process.

We see apps out there all the time that are- Somebody calls 911, they press a button to call 911, it is broadcasting to all their friends in the area that they’re in trouble. If you start to walk through the steps around what makes sense in that response, that’s pretty scary that now you’ve got a bunch of people that are either self-dispatching and trying to respond on their own or calling their local 9-1-1 center that could be miles or states away, driving traffic there to the PSAP that really can’t do anything about the incident.

Then worst case, if the PSAP really takes some steps to try and route the call back to the local area, you’ve got from a single incident a whole bunch of calls coming in that actually can’t contribute to the response.

There’s a number of apps, not just like that one, but other ones out there that are doing things around self-dispatching, off-duty responders, things like that that are- I think we really need to think through the use case and the long-term impacts. It’s not just about a technology that can do something cool; it’s about whether that thing that it’s doing actually helps or hurts the process. We’ve got to think hard about that.

Fletch: NENA, the National Emergency Number Association [www.nena.org], APCO, the Association for Public-Safety Communications Officials [apcointl.org], they have a joint document that’s out there, the dos and don’ts for smartphone app developers, and there are some specific guidelines in there that a lot of the bad apps just basically don’t follow.


Todd: It’s kind of disheartening. I think NENA and APCO did a really good job at walking the fine line between dictating and saying something’s not possible and then in that manner stifling innovation, and on the flip side pretty strongly stating this doesn’t make sense and we recommend you stay away from it.

The example that stands out most to me is as a nation, we’ve decided and we’ve built a lot of time, infrastructure, and process around 9-1-1 being the way you contact emergency response services, and the thing, 9-1-1 is not just calling, it’s texting, it’s all of the things that are enabled in the future by Next Gen 9-1-1. Our response process is designed around that communication. We’ve got call-takers; we’ve got redundancy; we’ve got operational procedures that make sure that that’s as efficient as possible.

Now, all of a sudden, some apps that- That’s the clear thing in the NENA and APCO standard is, hey, that is the way we contact people for emergencies, but you get apps out there that are going around that. I’m not sure whether a lot of the app community really just doesn’t know about these standards. Not everybody is involved in public safety when they build an app. Then some of them just disregard it. It’s a little disheartening that NENA and APCO did such a good job to put this together, and in a lot of ways, it’s disregarded.

Fletch: You also see people with some seemingly impressive industry credentials that are saying things are a good idea when, in fact, a lot of public safety would disagree with that. I think the uninformed person becomes confused; whom do I listen to?

Todd: We’ve been doing a lot of work lately around schools and panic button applications and things, and that’s a great example of- A superintendent or principal at a elementary school has a lot of things on their plate, and safety is one aspect, a very important one, but one tiny aspect. They’re not safety experts. If somebody comes to them and says, hey, here’s a solution, they’re probably going to take that vendor at their word and look at that solution.

One of the things that we’ve seen is that need to bring holistically all of the people involved in the response process. It’s 911, it’s the schools, it’s school resource officers, it’s all of the law enforcement, fire, and EMS folks, bringing them together, work through how is this going to help you or hurt you, and let’s really think through the solution. That part is missing. Lots of people, they’ll buy something because it sounds great without thinking through all of the ramifications.

Fletch: We see that even in the enterprise space, too. One of the things that some people present out there is the bridging of the 911 call with local onsite people so they can “hear what’s going on,” not thinking about that they have the potential of injecting additional audio and messing with the pristine audio that the call-taker is listening for.

They’re listening for background noises. Now you’ve got somebody else on the line contributing to that. The call-taker doesn’t understand that; they don’t know that. They could hear something from the person that’s listening that is assuming that it’s coming from the person who is calling. Just things that sound like they’re a good idea, but really when you look at the use case, it really is not a good idea. Let public safety do their job. That’s what they’re trained to do.

Todd: I agree. Funny you mention that. I just saw an app the other day that does that same thing as well. From the technology standpoint it was very cool, but as soon as you dug into the fact you can’t tell who is trying to tell you something on the other end of the line and, oh, by the way, the second person that got bridged in really doesn’t know anything about what’s going on other than being nervous that their family member is in trouble. It gets really to the point of impeding an effective response.

Fletch: Years ago, somebody actually played me a recording. I wish I had this and saved it. It was a hotel where someone in a room had started a fire accidentally and dialed 911. The front desk was bridged in with that 911 call and got on the phone. All you could hear was the fire alarm located at the front desk, waa-waa-waa, blaring away and nobody could hear anything. I’m thinking, my god, what a great example of why you don’t want to bridge other stations in on an emergency call.

Todd: There’s stories you hear now, and you chuckle at them, but when you think back about the ramifications and risks that happen and life and limb are involved, it’s not always humorous.

Fletch: No, absolutely. What do you think is the way forward? How do we fix all of this?

Todd: One of the things that I think we have to do a better job is just educating the public-safety community. Partly it’s about apps, but partly it’s more broadly about how do you get out to the people that are interacting with you and really get them to understand the implications.

Again, I’ll go back to my most recent experience, and it’s a little bit disheartening to me how many times I’ve gone and had meetings with school superintendents, school resource, police chief and the 9-1-1 center, and it’s the first time they’ve all been sitting together discussing that topic.

Often, 9-1-1 is not involved or it might be one-on-one meetings, but that kind of simple meeting and education for something that we all recognize is a risk, whether it be an active shooter situation, gas leaks, fires at schools, whatever it might be, that important goal of protecting our children. Those are things that we can just start having an honest dialogue about, hey, before we all spend money, let’s think through what we want to do to help this process.

The second part is I think NENA and APCO have- A lot of times they don’t work all that well together, but they’ve done a great job on putting together this listing of app recommendations. I know that there’s been some efforts to really get the app-development community more aware of those, which is great, but at the same time, we continue to see, whether it be hackathons or things that don’t even bring those developmental guidelines up front at the beginning of the process and say, if you think about what you’re building, here’s the kind of public-safety context. A lot of it is educational. That’s something that we all have to take some responsibility for.

Fletch: Yeah. It was amazing. I interviewed Bill Schrier when I was out in California for the APCO event. Bill has done tremendous amounts of work in the state of Washington, in the city of Seattle, opening up that dataset for a hackathon. It was just amazing what the community came up with. Unfortunately, not every major city has a Bill Schrier out there. I think we need more of those types of people in the CIO-type role.

Related article: Government Thought Leadership with Bill Schrier

Todd: I can’t say enough good about Bill. He’s an amazing guy. I agree that that kind of approach and really bringing a knowledge base to bear. It’s not just about opening up data. What Bill’s done in terms of giving some guidance and helping to set a framework for making sure that the apps and the things that are developed actually make sense is really helpful.

Fletch: Todd thanks very much for sitting down with us. You’re a good colleague. I’ve enjoyed talking with you about a lot of stuff over the years, and you guys at Rave are really doing some innovative stuff with the whole Smart911 concept. I see you guys as the consummate data aggregator that’s out there and really bringing a lot of value to all this.

The app side, definitely another alternative to bring more data in, but it’s got to be done with caution; it’s got to be done with standards; it’s got to be done with the use cases that are vetted by public-safety people and the app people, not just developed in a vacuum by someone with some credentials.

Todd: I appreciate your endorsement, and we look forward to doing some work together soon.

Fletch: Absolutely. We’ll see you down at NENA in Nashville, I assume?

Todd: We’ll be there. It’s a Smart911-supported community as well, so we hope you guys can make the tours to the PSAP and see our stuff in action.

Want more technology, news and information from Avaya? Be sure to check out the Avaya Podcast Network landing page at http://avaya.com/APN. There, you will find additional podcasts from industry events, such as Avaya Evolutions and INTEROP, as well as other informative series by the APN staff.

APN Blog Banner

Thanks for stopping by and reading the Avaya Connected blog on E911. I value your opinions, so please feel free to comment below or, if you prefer, you can email me privately.

Public comments, suggestions, corrections and loose change is all graciously accepted 😉 Until next week. . . dial carefully.

Be sure to follow me on Twitter at @Fletch911


Related Articles:

E911’s Fatal Flaw is Lack of Location Data—How Avaya Breeze Can Solve

The night of her husband’s death, Alison Vroome did everything she knew to be right. She grabbed her phone, called 911 and told the operator her address. Then she repeated her address a second, third and fourth time.

The call went to a different North Carolina county; the operator couldn’t understand her address. It was more than 10 minutes into the 911 call before paramedics arrived. Like anyone calling 911 in an emergency, Vroome expected her call to go quickly and smoothly, but it didn’t. Vroome’s call was one of 5.7 million 911 calls that come from wireless phones in NC—about 74% of all 911 calls in the state according to data from 2015. Yet 911 call centers rely on the cellular carrier to provide a cell phone’s location data. The legacy 911 network is voice only and cannot pass any data from the device. Instead, they can only receive the location data from the tower pinged by the call, something not nearly as accurate.

No one can say for certain if Vroome’s husband would be alive today had paramedics arrived sooner, but there isn’t any doubt that the current technology used in E911 emergency situations fails citizens. And this isn’t an issue isolated to the U.S. With the rise of mobile devices, countries and communities around the globe face the same technological flaw—the lack of location information.

As Avaya’s Jean Turgeon addressed in his recent blog on the current state of public safety and E911, accurate location information is one of, if not the most important piece of information that an emergency responder needs; and resolving this fatal flaw requires proactive urgency.

How Today’s #Tech Can Address E911’s Fatal Flaw

My Avaya colleague Mark Fletcher, ENP, recently wrote that when it comes to significantly improving public safety and E911 response times, tech is king. He’s right.

Case in point: In Europe, the introduction of EU eCall to become an integral element of the European emergency number 112 is solving the GPS precision challenge for new passenger vehicles sold in the EU after 2018. In an emergency, an eCall will relay a vehicle’s exact location, time of the incident, and direction of travel to emergency personnel, as sourced from the device, and very accurate. This is done automatically by the vehicle or can be triggered manually by the driver by pushing a button inside the car. That’s technology in action! While we have about two years to go before it becomes available large scale, we’re heading in the right direction.

In addition to eCall, there’s another remarkable solution called Advanced Mobile Location (AML). When a person in distress calls emergency services with a smartphone where AML is enabled, the phone automatically activates its location service to establish its position and then sends this info to emergency services via an SMS. The current downside to this is that AML is only compatible with Android mobile devices (R3.4 or greater). But still … it’s a huge step forward, and sets an excellent example for others.

The concept of AML was developed in the UK by BT’s John Medland in partnership with mobile service provider EE and handset manufacturer HTC initially. First tests were so promising that the European Emergency Number Association (EENA) began to promote AML, which sparked the interest of Google, ultimately getting AML introduced into Android natively. Talk about a ripple effect!

As the world’s leading software and services company, Avaya understands there are better ways to deliver public safety and emergency services, and we’ve been innovating these same capabilities in many commercial arenas for years. Our efforts there have set off their own ripple effect across the public safety industry, urging government agencies around the globe to harness the power of technology to enhance public safety services for citizens. What’s more, our teams are leveraging the Avaya Breeze™ Platform to intelligently link the location data to the incoming eCall or AML call and make it available to the E911 responder. Recently, in partnership with Engelbart Software and Oecon, we’ve developed a flexible and scalable solution for this type of enhanced emergency calling scenario and the results have been positive.

In fact, eCall is looking more and more like a potential game changer, and here’s why.

Let’s look at the technology side of the overall process:

  • A car is involved in an accident.
  • Sensors in the car trigger a sequence of events performed by the In-Vehicle System (IVS).
  • The SIM card registers to the strongest mobile network to raise the emergency call to the EU E112.
  • A modem kicks in, coding the GPS data and other car-related information as audio tones into the voice channel.
  • Immediately following the data transmission, the IVS switches to the hands-free communications system allowing the people in the car to communicate with the E112 responder.

What does this mean for the emergency responder?

  • The E112 responder picks up a call from a mobile device, immediately receiving precise location information. That’s new!
  • The E112 responder can be sure that it’s a serious situation because the airbags have been deployed, which triggers the emergency call sequence to start. So no one is left to wonder the seriousness of the call.
  • Most likely there’s no one for the E112 responder to speak with in the car. Why? Because this is an automatic call, not a call voluntarily initiated by a real person. And while the modem is beeping its data to the Public Safety Answering Point, the passengers might already have stepped out of the car and can’t hear the E112 responder’s “Are you OK?” Or they simply can’t respond because they’re unable due to the severity of the accident.

So are we still talking about a normal emergency call? From my point of view, this is the Internet of Things (IoT) plunging right into public safety and emergency services: sensors, data, processes and integrations. IoT under the disguise of a voice call … this IS a game changer!

At Avaya, we leverage our Breeze workflow engine to tie together voice calls and the IoT. Even though eCall is an initiative in the European Union, we see the concept of telematic calls being discussed around the globe, in public safety as well as in private businesses like the automotive industry. And, yes, we strongly believe that this approach of integration building on Avaya Breeze can also work to help overcome E911’s same fatal flaw, location.

I’ve delivered a series of Avaya Breeze webinars with my colleague, Andrew Maher, featuring Engelbart Software developers. Together, we demonstrate how to deal with eCall and AML. Have a look to learn more about the capabilities of Breeze and its impact on public safety. The demo starts at 00:19:30.


When Is Enough Actually Enough? Exploring the Lagging Face of Public Safety (Part 2)

In Part 1 of this series, Avaya Vice President and Chief Technologist for software-defined architecture Jean Turgeon opened up a much-needed conversation about the current state of public safety and E911 (which, for the record, doesn’t look good). Just consider that a 2014 study of 1,000 public safety answering points (PSAPs) found that only 18.7% are confident in the location data they receive from wireless callers.

It’s no surprise that technology is vital for improving public safety. The way I see it, this is like a three-legged stool. We need:

  1. Originating devices to support location accuracy

  2. 911 call center networks capable of receiving the information

  3. A Public Safety Emergency Services IP Network to connect them

PSAPs must ensure all three legs are sturdy and of equal length, otherwise fundamental capabilities will be severely limited or missing altogether.

Let’s take a look at the networking side of public safety for a moment. Today in the U.S., there are life-threatening complexities associated with dialing 911 for no other reason than the restrictive legacy networks that transport these calls.

That’s a terrifying thought.

Many times the system programming in hotels and office buildings has similar restrictions. This is why I fight tirelessly in support of Kari’s Law, a U.S. Senate bill introduced earlier this year designed to improve 911 services for multiline phone systems. The law is named in honor of Kari Hunt, who was killed by her estranged husband in late 2013 at a motel in Northeast Texas. One of Hunt’s children tried repeatedly to dial 911 from the motel room’s phone, but wasn’t able to get through because the motel required people to dial 9 to get an outside line. This is a fact I continue to repeat, as I still find people who have not heard of this tragedy, or gave it a second thought.

At the same time, the majority of the emergency call centers today have a serious problem with grade of service. It’s something that’s often in the news, constantly talked about, but rarely acted upon. Our public safety networks are something rarely thought about. Consider the fact that there are somewhere close to 6,000 911 call centers across the U.S. today. Given this, what do you think is the average number of positions staffed in those centers? You likely think dozens, and maybe even hundreds. In actuality, that number is a sparse four people.

So, what happens when all four employees at the average 911 center are tied up because 20 people are calling about the same car accident? Those calls will likely overflow to a neighboring town or city, which then also immediately becomes tied up. This cascading effect starts to immediately make sense how quickly several local governments can be taken out of service. This becomes a serious issue when a person is having a heart attack and dials 911 only to get a busy signal or to be put through to a city 10-20 miles away. A more nefarious problem is how easily it would be to disrupt the U.S. 911 network via Telephony Denial of Service (TDoS) attacks, something the FBI and Public Safety worry about daily.

Overcoming Today’s Greatest 911 Challenges

In Part 1 of this series, JT mentioned a few reasons why PSAPs may overlook infrastructure upgrades. In my opinion, there’s only one primary reason: it’s cost-prohibitive. Why? Because at one point, a handful of businesses in the industry decided they wanted to capitalize on the market by creating very specialized and expensive equipment. Because so few people understand 911, these cost-prohibitive solutions (which run on old technology with massive limitations) are widely believed to be the only options available in the market today.

It has never been more evident that almost every 911 center is currently grappling with technological, financial and operational challenges that seem difficult to overcome. As FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said July 12 in a congressional testimony: “Unless we find a way to help the nation’s [911 centers] overcome the funding, planning and operational challenges they face as commercial communications networks evolve, NG911 will remain beyond reach for much of the nation. Let me be clear on this point: 911 service quality will not stay where it is today, it will degrade if we don’t invest in NG911.”

But remember the three-legged stool, and the originating network, or the enterprise customer. For example, we recently worked with a large customer based in New England that boasted more than 25,000 network endpoints across 700 locations. This included everything from small two-person offices to regional medical centers all the way to large teaching hospitals and universities. The 911 solution this customer was originally going to deploy was estimated at $650,000 in CAPEX, in addition to a monthly recurring operational cost of about $25,000.

Thankfully, this organization came to Avaya before signing the contract and asked if we could assess the situation. After consulting with them, and examining their workflows, we engineered a new operational model that only cost $130,000 in CAPEX, and would be less than $1,500 a month in recurring operational costs. With Avaya functionalities along with technologies delivered by our trusted Select DevConnect Partner Conveyant Systems, Inc., we were able to hand this customer a half a million dollars back in CAPEX, and decreased their OPEX by $282,000 annually. The result of building an efficient 911 solution was the organization now being able to allocate hard-earned dollars towards other top-priority initiatives that had previously gone unfunded. That’s the beauty of it all.

The lesson learned and the key to easily and cost-effectively upgrading your 911 infrastructure is to not accept the status quo, and partner with the right provider for your needs. At Avaya, we know there’s a better way to deliver 911. We take pride in our commitment to driving awareness around this need. It gives us great honor to be advocates for those whose voices must be heard or whose voices have been silenced, like Kari Hunt. We’re dedicated to teaching organizations and our customers that there is in fact a way to seamlessly overcome today’s greatest 911 challenges. We hope that you’ll join us in this very important mission.

When is Enough Actually Enough? A Hard Look at the Lagging Face of Public Safety (Part 1)

When we talk about the state of public safety today, we unfortunately have to recognize the devastating tragedies that have forever affected our communities, schools and businesses worldwide. Research shows that we’re currently experiencing four times as many terrorist attacks globally than in 1990. This month alone, there have been 120 confirmed or suspected attacks—an increase from around 95 in January.

People are being targeted based on their religious beliefs, ideologies and even identities. In France, for instance, we’re seeing new laws that ban certain cultural garbs for fear of terrorist-related threats. Meanwhile, in the U.S., we’re seeing a divide between law enforcement and the very citizens that officers have sworn to serve and protect. In the Middle East, we continue to see unthinkable devastation as violence escalates daily. I understand these aren’t things we want to talk or hear about, but it’s important that we do in order to improve communication infrastructure and transform the global state of public safety and emergency response.

To this end, we’re seeing technology rapidly evolving to a point where there are next-generation solutions available that can help get us to where we need to be. For example, consider the all-new, reopened Sandy Hook Elementary School. On Dec. 14, 2012, the Newtown, CT-based grade school suffered the deadliest mass school shooting in U.S. history. Last month, however, the school reopened its doors equipped with extraordinary technology that ensures next-generation protection for children and staff this school year.

The new design boasts advanced security features that are hidden in plain sight, improving natural surveillance of the grounds. The technology also offers increased situational awareness through a series of impact-resistant windows. Overall, the hope is that the rebuilt school will be the first within the state of Connecticut to be compliant with a new state school safety code, the School Safety Infrastructure Council guidelines.

The redesigned Sandy Hook Elementary School proves that technology can reimagine the possibilities of public safety, if only we allow it to. Examples like this make it really difficult for me to accept that our current state of public safety lags so much. At Avaya, we’re doing all we can to actively bridge this gap. One massive inadequacy we’re especially passionate about improving is the accuracy of E911, or Enhanced 911.

E911 was designed to allow emergency responders to determine the location of a caller based on the caller ID. Today, however, devices have become nomadic and the phone number to location correlation is no longer a valid assumption. Fortunately, there are alternative solutions available that can detect the exact location of a device, an IoT object, or an individual by leveraging smart devices, wearable technologies, and more.

This combination of advanced technology (i.e., Wi-Fi triangulations, GPS, wearables with NFC capabilities) is a key to overcoming 911’s greatest flaw: lack of location data. These advances in technology make it possible, for example, to detect a child that has left a secure area and then immediately send an alert to emergency response teams. These different mechanisms make it possible to save lives. Imagine if someone was suffering a heart attack in an office complex. In this case, standard 911 will enable first responders to locate the building the person is in, but how do they know if the person is on the fifth floor, the 40th floor or in the basement? This same scenario applies to any suspected or proven terrorist.

All of this sounds great, but there’s one problem: for many, deploying these technologies isn’t top of mind. Just consider findings from a 2015 national investigation conducted by USA Today. After sorting through hundreds of pages of local, state and federal documents, it was discovered that:

  • The average chance of 911 getting a quick fix on location ranges from as low as 10% to as high as 95%.
  • In California, 63% of cell phone calls to 911 didn’t share location in 2014.
  • In Texas, two-thirds of cell phone calls reached 911 without an instant fix on location during 2010 to 2013.

No two ways about it: the reason why so many emergency calls today reach 911 without an accurate location is because there’s a severe technology issue at play. Public safety access points (PSAPs) still rely on technology that was designed to locate landlines, despite the fact that the number of 911 calls that come from cell phone networks is 70% to 80% and growing.

Users are evolving from land lines to wireless technologies, but PSAPs continue to remain behind, locked into technology designed in the 1960s. Despite technology being readily available, it isn’t being implemented. Why does this travesty exist? The reason for this is simple: because providers choose not to. Because it’s too costly. Because it’s too much of a hassle or inconvenience. Meanwhile, the reason for implementation is and always will be more important: because lives hang in the balance when archaic infrastructure remains in place.

The bottom line is this: there needs to be a greater movement towards next-generation methodologies of tracking one’s location. PSAPs need to effectively keep up with today’s pace of innovation in order to better serve the general public. It’s great to have a caller’s general location, but responders need richer and more relevant caller information to elevate public safety to where it needs to be today. We need to create proactive urgency around this issue—otherwise, we’re going to keep suffering preventable tragedies until someone finally decides that enough is enough.

Coming up: In Part II of this series, Avaya’s Chief Architect for Worldwide Public Safety Solutions Mark Fletcher will dig into specific technology deficiencies and how to overcome them by easily and cost-effectively upgrading your 911 infrastructure.