ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8663-C12-200402892
This page has been archived on the Web
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.
LetterOttawa, 28 July 2008 File No.: 8663-C12-200402892 Mr. Yuval Barzakay Re: Emergency service obligations of local VoIP service providers The Commission is in receipt of Comwave Telecom Inc.'s (Comwave) representations, dated 27 June 2008 , made in response to Commission staff's letter, dated 5 June 2008, regarding the tragic 9-1-1 incident involving a Comwave VoIP subscriber in Calgary that occurred on 29 April 2008. Commission staff's letter was written after Commission staff reviewed Comwave's report into the incident, dated 14 May 2008 , and the 9-1-1 tape submitted by Comwave's third-party operator, API. After considering Comwave's representations, Commission staff maintains its view that Comwave is under an obligation to ensure that its third-party call centre operator verbally determines a 9-1-1 caller's location. In Commission staff's view, verbally determining a 9-1-1 caller's location clearly formed part of the interim solution mandated by the Commission in Emergency service obligations for local VoIP service providers, Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-21, 4 April 2005 (Telecom Decision 2005-21). [1] Commission staff considers that because of the primary obligation to verbally determine a 9-1-1 caller's location, when a 9-1-1 call is disconnected before a caller's location can be verbally determined, the call centre operator must attempt to call back. Furthermore, Commission staff notes that Comwave has clearly represented to its customers, through its approved customer notification text, that its call centre operators will attempt to call back in the event that a 9-1-1 call is disconnected. Although a call centre operator may use the service/9-1-1 address to verbally confirm with a 9-1-1 caller his or her location, Commission staff considers that it should not be used as the sole basis for determining a 9-1-1 caller's location unless a 9-1-1 caller cannot communicate his or her location or a 9-1-1 call is disconnected and contact with the 9-1-1 caller cannot be re-established. In light of the above and Commission staff's review of Comwave's report and the 9-1-1 tape, Commission staff considers that, on the basis of the facts as it understands them, Comwave's third-party call centre operator did not follow the proper procedures for determining a 9-1-1 caller's location when it responded to the call involving Comwave's subscriber in Calgary on 29 April 2008. Comwave is to take the necessary steps to ensure that 9-1-1 calls made by its subscribers are, henceforth, handled in a fashion consistent with its obligations, which are set out in Telecom Decision 2005-21 and outlined in this letter. These obligations are also described in an Information bulletin issued today, entitled Emergency service obligations of nomadic local VoIP service providers related to determining the location of a 9-1-1 caller , a copy of which is enclosed. Confidentiality By letter dated 20 June 2008, Comwave agreed to the disclosure of an abridged version of (i) its report, (ii) Commission staff's letter dated 5 June 2008 regarding Comwave's report, and (iii) Comwave's letter of 12 June 2008. Comwave also agreed to the disclosure of Comwave's letter of 14 May 2008 and Commission staff's letter of 13 June 2008. Commission staff therefore considers that these documents, to the extent that they have been abridged by Comwave, are no longer subject to a claim of confidentiality under section 39 of the Telecommunications Act . As such, they will be made available for public consultation upon request. Commission staff considers that this letter does not contain any information that is subject to a claim of confidentiality under section 39 and therefore it will also be disclosed upon request. Yours sincerely, Original signed by Paul Godin John Traversy cc Lorne Abugov - LAbugov@osler.com Encl. [1] The nature of this solution was again described by the Commission in Routing of fixed/non-native and nomadic VoIP 9-1-1 calls to public safety answering points , Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-44, 15 June 2007 , at paragraph 10. Date Modified: 2008-07-28 |
- Date modified: