How is NG911 progressing?How is NG911 progressing?

By Jackie Mines

The boxer Mike Tyson once famously said that everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. That statement can be applied quite aptly to what’s happening these days in the world of next-generation 911 (NG911), where things certainly have not gone according to plan. Indeed, there has been a lot of chatter throughout the public-safety sector lately, especially in the 911 community, that NG911 ultimately might be infeasible and that the standards established by the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) might not be the path forward.

This represents wrong-headed thinking. The struggles notwithstanding, NG911 remains the quantum leap forward concerning emergency-response capabilities that was envisioned when it first was contemplated a couple of decades ago. Moreover, NENA’s i3 standards remains viable.

The evidence that supports these statements can be found in the numerous NG911 implementations that exist across the United States. According to the most recent data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)’s National 911 Program, dozens of states have developed statewide NG911 implementation plans that addresses governance, funding, and a technology path.

Most of these states have implemented system components—for instance, Emergency Services Internet Protocol networks (ESInets) and next-generation core services (NGCS)—on some level. The former enables delivery of NG911-compliant emergency calls to 911 centers, while the latter consists of numerous functional elements that enable such calls to be processed.

Notable among these states are Indiana, Maine, Tennessee, and Vermont — all of which delivered an aspect of statewide NG911 capability at least a decade ago — and Connecticut and Massachusetts, which did so in 2017 and 2018, respectively. Some of these states are on the second or third iterations of their enabling technology.

Despite these successes, however, it has been discovered that NG911 service implementation represents a very complex labyrinth. To achieve end-state NG911, states also must have in place compliant call-handling, computer-aided dispatch (CAD), and recording equipment. Further, their geographic information system (GIS) data must align with the data models established for NG911, because that environment relies on more-accurate geospatial data to locate callers and dispatch the appropriate response. Finally, originating service providers (OSPs) must deliver calls in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) format.

Clearly, states have found achieving these milestones elusive, especially smaller states that lack the requisite financial and personnel resources. So, while significant progress has been made to establish NG911 service in the U.S., there’s a lot more work to do.

A common refrain

The biggest factor pertaining to the lack of resources is that large-scale federal funding to support implementation from coast to coast hasn’t materialized, despite several attempts by Congress to enact such legislation. Transitioning to NG911 is a resource-intensive effort, requiring significant investment in infrastructure, software, and training. Funding shortfalls, especially at local levels, delay projects and reduce NG911 readiness. So, there’s little question that the lack of federal support has slowed the pace of implementation.

More importantly, it seems prudent to acknowledge at this point that federal legislation might never materialize. Consequently, it is time for states to commit to finding the money necessary to implement NG911. Clearly, it can be done, as evidenced by the states that have delivered statewide service.

One approach would be to analyze current federal grant opportunities tied to homeland security or the delivery of broadband services to underserved areas — NG911 systems might qualify on both counts, depending on the grant guidance.

In addition, the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) reported last fall that state “rainy-day-fund” balances reached an all-time high of $164 billion in fiscal year 2022. Such funds exist to protect states during severe economic downturns when tax revenues nose-dive. It’s conceivable that such funds could be transferred to support NG911 system buildouts with the right persuasive argument. As the adage states, where there’s a will, there’s a way.

Another compelling factor is that NG911 gestation has experienced the same thing that occurs every time new technology emerges. It starts with a tremendous amount of time and effort expended by the technology developers. Plans ensue. Excitement builds. Expectations rise and then rise some more. The technology is tested and then tested again. Eventually, the time arrives to bring plans to fruition — and that’s when the inevitable punch in the mouth occurs, because things almost never play out as expected.

Now, it’s time to regroup. The developers consider what went wrong and go back to the drawing board to execute a course correction. Sometimes the plans weren’t as foolproof as first thought. Sometimes unforeseen circumstances occur. Sometimes execution was substandard. It’s usually a combination of the three. New plans then are made. Updated versions of the technology are tested thoroughly and then implemented again — and then the same thing happens, though not as egregiously, because important lessons were learned during the first cycle.

This development cycle then is repeated multiple times until, finally, the technology not only is as it should be but also is performing according to expectations.

Virtually every technology has moved through a similar development arc, and NG911 is no exception. It’s the reason why hardware and software go through multiple revisions, many in the beginning and less as they are fine-tuned over time. Almost always, this takes longer than expected, which is why managing expectations is so important — something that becomes more challenging when technology is transformative.

Unforeseen consequences

Let’s now apply this evolutionary cycle to NG911, starting with the fact that this clearly is a transformative technology, as different from the circuit-switched technology that enables legacy 911 services as night is different from day.

NG911 systems are Internet Protocol (IP)-based and, as such, they are designed to transmit and receive bandwidth-intensive data—for example, video and images—that can enhance situational awareness and lead to better-informed response decisions. This is something that bandwidth-constrained legacy 911 systems have no hope of doing.

In addition, geospatial data is used to locate callers in this environment—an approach that is much more accurate than the legacy MSAG/ALI (master street address guide/automatic location identification) databases, reducing response times and leading to more lives being saved. Finally, NG911 systems foster enhanced data-sharing, a long-standing goal of the 911 community, particularly in the context of multijurisdictional and cross-jurisdictional incidents.

But IP-based communication technologies also bring new challenges—notably, cybersecurity—that virtually didn’t exist in the legacy environment. Further, geospatial routing, a hallmark of NG911, introduces new complexities. Ensuring accurate geographic information system (GIS) data and integrating it with existing systems requires collaboration across jurisdictions. Consequently, states without unified GIS frameworks struggle to implement geospatial routing effectively.

Now, let’s consider the i3 standards that govern NG911 systems. The standards are intended to provide an interoperable framework for implementing NG911 service. They were written to give vendors some latitude in interpreting them, so as not to stifle their creativity and to provide centers with numerous options. In retrospect, they might have been given too much latitude.

There are seven functional elements identified in the i3 standards that interconnect and/or interoperate on some level. Some states have tried to employ elements from more than one vendor, usually to reduce costs but also to ensure specific functionality. While the standards were written with interoperability in mind, if Vendor A interprets them differently than Vendor B, interfacing the systems doesn’t go well and sometimes is nearly impossible. Implementation progress then is slowed considerably, because the 911 authority and vendors must figure out what to do about this.

Imagine this scenario playing out across all the functional elements, and it’s easy to see why NG911 implementation isn’t progressing as quickly as expected. It’s possible—even likely—that NENA’s i3 architecture working group will need to review and revise the i3 standards to limit vendor interpretation.

But a parallel can be drawn to the Project 25 (P25) standards that govern land-mobile-radio (LMR) systems and devices. First, the P25 standards took more than two decades to develop. Next, the standards give vendors some latitude in terms of adding proprietary features for competitive purposes, but these features erode the intended interoperability to some degree.

Finally, the working groups understood that not every agency would have the financial resources to migrate to P25 mobile, portable, and console radios. Consequently, they included in the standards the Inter-RF Subsystem Interface (ISSI) and the Console Subsystem Interface (CSSI), which let non-P25 devices communicate with compliant devices.

How does this relate to the i3 standards? Simply that the developers anticipated that not every OSP will deliver calls in SIP format. There are several reasons for this, with financial constraints chief among them.

In July 2024, the FCC ordered that OSPs must deliver their traffic to delivery points—also known as demarcation points—designated by the 911 authority and cover the cost of connecting to those delivery points. This clarification reduces ambiguity for state 911 authorities and local agencies, providing a clearer framework for funding and maintaining NG911 systems.

While the order is expected to streamline and accelerate the migration from legacy 911, the real-world reality almost certainly will be a little different. Many OSPs have yet to disconnect from selective routers, which are part of the legacy 911 call-delivery infrastructure, thus slowing the full transition to NGCS. The FCC’s demarcation order likely will help, but legacy-system decommissioning will remain a slow process. But like P25 standards development, the i3 working groups anticipated this and created the Legacy Network Gateway (LNG) functional element, which exists to translate non-SIP traffic so that it can be handled by NG911-compliant 911 centers.

All of this leads to what arguably is the most vexing challenge that NG911 implementation has faced thus far — which is that the real world is very different than the laboratory environment. ESInets and NGCS have undergone extensive testing for many years, led by NENA via its Industry Collaboration Events (ICE), of which 12 have been conducted to date. Invariably, the associated hardware and software performs as designed, albeit with some tweaking — but that’s why the lab environment exists and why the ICE program and the NG911 Interoperability Task Force are so essential. Just as invariably, however, when attempts have been made to implement NG911 in the field, circumstances emerge that previously weren’t contemplated.

This forces 911 authorities, vendors, and the standards working groups back to the drawing board to revise and clarify the standard. The task is akin to putting together a giant jigsaw puzzle whose image changes often, as does the size and shape of its pieces. But it needs to be done — standards are meant to be tested and refined as new technologies and best practices emerge.

Size matters, somewhat

Finally, scale has been an issue. The simple truth is that NG911 is easier and faster to implement in smaller states than in larger ones. One of those smaller states is Arizona, where the number of 911 centers totals 78, while another is Tennessee, which has 134 centers. Both of these states have established a component of statewide NG911 capability.

Contrast these states with California, where the number of 911 centers totals 440. (The rest of this article focuses on Arizona and Tennessee because they are clients of Mission Critical Partners [MCP]. We have supported their implementations for several years and have an intimate knowledge of why they’ve been successful.)

While scale is a significant factor, the relatively small number of 911 centers in Arizona and Tennessee pales in importance compared with key decisions these two states made that smoothed their path toward NG911.

Both states have strong state-level leadership. This takes the form of the Arizona 911 Program (AZ911) within the state’s Department of Administration and the Tennessee Emergency Communications Board (TECB). The result has been centralized coordination of the implementation efforts; stronger and more consistent funding advocacy; better alignment, transparency, and engagement with stakeholders, and effective vendor oversight.

For example, AZ911 personnel crafted strict service-level agreements (SLAs)—with uptime and repair-time requirements and monetary penalties for noncompliance—to hold its vendors accountable. Further, officials met weekly with vendor representatives and were in constant communication with local 911 centers during the transition to work out any issues that emerged. The result was a feedback loop that expedited issue resolution, created transparency regarding challenges and solutions, and. Perhaps most importantly, these meetings built trust and collaboration that drove improved outcomes.

Both states made key decisions early in the implementation process that paid huge dividends. They include:

• AZ911 and TECB decided to use a single vendor for their statewide ESInet and NGCS, which greatly simplified and streamlined coordination and integration, while reducing complexities.

• AZ911 and TECB both used a phased-implementation approach. The technology first was tested rigorously by the vendors and then scaled from there. This methodical approach enabled early detection and resolution of technical challenges. It also demonstrated the value of thorough testing in a real-world environment. By starting small and scaling gradually, states can identify and resolve issues early, minimizing disruptions. Further, AZ911 and TECB insisted on i3 compliance at every phase and never deviated from that mandate.

• Providing hosted NG911-capable call-handling equipment options on a state contract and advanced GIS integration were key components of AZ911’s and TECB’s strategies. The former makes it easier to resolve issues and track SLAs, reducing some of the burden associated with procurement and implementation. The latter ensures accurate GIS data across all jurisdictions. States that lack unified GIS frameworks struggle to implement geospatial routing effectively, which is the key to improving caller location in the NG911 environment.

It should be noted that these deployments are as i3-capable as they can be right now and that some of the NGCS functional elements continue to be refined. Nevertheless, the success demonstrated by Arizona, Tennessee and many other states in implementing NG911 is undeniable.

In Arizona, all 911 centers are connected to an ESInet, are leveraging NGCS, and are receiving emergency calls in SIP format—a process that took just two years to complete. While not all OSPs in Tennessee support SIP connections, the state is steadily progressing toward full i3 compliance. In fact, almost 90% of calls today are routed through SIP connections in Tennessee.

Conclusion

It is well argued that NG911 implementation across the United States should be further along, but how much further is open to debate. An equally compelling argument is that the road to NG911 is fraught with challenges, many of which were unforeseen a decade ago, from funding and vendor accountability to the complexities of interoperability and geospatial routing.

However, states like Arizona and Tennessee demonstrate that success is achievable through meticulous planning, rigorous testing, and strong vendor accountability and collaboration. The best practices they embraced will serve every jurisdiction well. Progress toward NG911 is happening, albeit not as quickly as expected or even hoped. It’s time now to leverage the many successes that have taken place, via numerous organizations, toward NG911, to manage expectations and — most importantly — to stay the course.

Jackie Mines is a senior communications consultant who supports several state-level 911 programs. Email her at [email protected].