DG eCall Steering group meeting PSAP working group Brussels

1
DG eCall Steering group meetingPSAP working
groupBrussels
14 October 2005
2
Content

• Introduction
• Objectives.
• Stakeholders.
• Executive summary.
• Network issues
• Performance indicators.
• Open issues.
• Next steps.

3
Participants/stakeholders.

• The Netherlands
• Tjerk Terpstra
• Jan Malenstein
• Chris van Hunnik
• Finland
• Mikko Jaaskelainen
• United Kingdom
• Martin Hill.
• Andy Rooke.
• Spain
• Xavier Castells

4
Network issues.

• Architecture
• Network access to PSAPs and Emergency Services.
• Organisation of Public Service answering
  points/emergency Services
• Carrier aspects.

5
112 network archtitecture
6
Performance indicators.

• Four questions
• Is there a performance indicator for the time it
  may take for an emergency call to reach the PSAP
  when initiated from the handheld GSM?
• Is there a performance indicator for the time in
  which an emergency call has to be relayed from
  the PSAP to the appropriate emergency service?
• Is there a performance indicator for the time in
  which an emergency unit has to be dispatcheda
  after the reception of the emergency call at the
  emergency service?
• Do we, as PSAPs, know how many calls are simply
  lost before they reach the PSAP?
• Captured in table.

7
Open issues

• Location accuracy.
• Location databases.
• Location accuracy EU.
• Location Accuracy USA
• EU approach
• 1 meter accuracy
• Status of MSD

8
Location accuracy EU
9
Location accuracy US

• Phase I wireless carriers have to deliver the
  telephone number and the location of the base
  station or cell site together with its radius of
  service in meters to the designated Public Safety
  Answering Point (PSAP).
• Phase II is depending on the technology used
  the use of handset-based technology requires 50 m
  accuracy for 67 of calls, and 150 m for 95 of
  calls the use of network-based technology
  requires 100 m accuracy for 67 of calls, and 300
  m for 95 of calls.

10
EU Approach

• Took note of US pitfalls.
• Consensus driven approach was chosen in the EU.
• 1st and 2nd communication on e-112

11
Need for 1 meter accuracy.

• Limited by todays technology and costs.
• Acknowledged by the PSAPs.
• GPS already improved.
• SA abandoned.
• 2008 combined Galileo GPS.
• More robust.
• More accurate
• Also in problem areas
• Examples given why 1 meter.
• Natural migration path OK.

12
E-call consolidated
13
Next steps

• Spanish contribution to be consolidated.
• Status and consolidation MSD.
• Status and consolidation FSD.
• Role SPs
• FSD
• Relation to Control centres EAs
• Backoffice
• E.g. insurance companies.
• Coverage of hazardous materials transport.
• Future coordinated action.
• Dialogue PSAP industry.
• More functionality MSD
• More functionality FSD
• Voice over IP.