Subject: RE: [Ecrit] Proposed requirement: split responsibility

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 08:48:32 -0400

Andrew et al;

This is background information only:

In my 15+ years in 9-1-1 I have never seen a community change its
borders (or rename streets) without seriously considering the impact on
9-1-1 and correctly addressing it. The primary concern is dispatch
response in most cases. Dispatch response scenarios can get rather fuzzy
in some border areas and new roads can create dispatch confusion. It has
never been a problem for PSAP call answering and I challenge you to
provide specific proof of where this is occurring. So, it is not a
matter of "which PSAP answers the phone" it is a matter of correctly
identifying emergency responders (police, fire and EMS). To state that
elected officials make road name changes without first considering
emergency response scenarios (and call handling responsibilities) is a
gross misrepresentation of the actual process.

Also, ENHANCED 9-1-1 PSAP boundaries do not primarily align with telco
rate centers (as was suggested in an earlier e-mail). The notion of
E9-1-1 is to break the connection between telco rate center and
political boundary. They mostly align with town and/or community
boundaries. If a town plans to move a boundary or change a response
scenario to a particular area, both police and fire officials are
included in the planning process (same with road name changes). This
naturally extends to the 9-1-1 call routing process as well and is
carefully orchestrated with the 9-1-1 system service provider who,
manages the changes in the MSAG. 

On average in Vermont we move or change the PSAP footprints (mostly
based on dispatch re-alignment) about once or twice a year and only for
a few small communities. The bulk of the coverage area for a PSAP
generally does not change. The challenge is going to be conveying those
changes in coverage areas to any system now also responsible for
determining location and routing 9-1-1 calls.

Nate Wilcox
Systems Administrator
Vermont 9-1-1
802.828.4093

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 10:51 PM
To: 'Andrew Newton'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Ecrit] Proposed requirement: split responsibility

The following applies to North America:

Look at it this way: While a political boundary can in fact cut across a
building (I know of a warehouse that has the front door in one county,
and
the back door in another), for responder purposes, the address of the
building determines which PSAP responds to it.  

Mapping, at least today, always falls cleanly on a civil address field.

In fact, while you CAN get a polygon that is as accurate as the civil
address, in fact, in the cases I know about, the available polygons are
not
as accurate as the civil address boundary.

Politicians cause all kinds of silly address analomies all the time.
The way they are dealt with now is that the PSAP issues a change to the
MSAG, which is the civil address database.  At the present time, there
is no
organized way to get that change into the polygons, but presumably we'll
be
asking them to do that.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 6:03 PM
> To: Brian Rosen
> Cc: [email-masked]; 'Ted Hardie'; 'Henning Schulzrinne'
> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Proposed requirement: split responsibility
> 
> 
> On May 23, 2005, at 3:10 PM, Brian Rosen wrote:
> > We seem to be talking past one another.
> 
> I guess we can agree on this. :)
> 
> > But the bottom line is that routing data today is most often civic
> > address
> > based.  Geo based routing is available in most places, applied
mostly
> > to
> > mobiles, and may have different routing than wireline.
> 
> I'm not arguing against this.
> 
> What I'm arguing against is an assumption being applied to our
> requirements that somehow mapping services are always going to fall
> cleanly across the civil address field boundaries (all those nice
> little elements in PIDF-LO that begin with "A").
> 
> As it so happens, my brother actually runs a PSAP and I get to bounce
a
> lot of these ideas off of him.  His big comment regarding this notion
> was that politicians usually don't take into consideration which PSAP
> answers the phone when they rename a street.
> 
> -andy
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit