Relay Services in Europe
Technical perspectives
November 2011
Communication for all
Why should deaf people worry about the kind
phone they are using to call each other ?
 Why should deaf people not be reacheable over the
phone like hearing people?


Why is there a different communication system for
hearing a deaf people in the first place?
We want communication for all regardless of the
terminal used, the provider used. True
interoperability.
Plan
1. Lessons from the USA
2. The situation in Europe
3. The REACH 112 proposal
4. Next Gen Emergency Services
5. Comparison between models
5. New needs to accommodates
Lessons from the USA
Audio call
Video call
(212) 333 4444
Deaf person
Relay service
Internet
Public
Téléphone network
Video
call
(212) 335 4523
hearing person
Video call
(907) 555 4444
Deaf person
iTRS
DB
Emergency services
Relay service
(507) 235 5562
hearing person
Lessons from the USA
• Services covered
– Person to person calls
– Relay services: from and to PSTN
– Access to emergency services (911)
• Technical features
– H.323 protocol for interoperability between
devices.
– E.164 numbers registered one by one in an ENUM
database for each user.
Lessons from the USA
• H.323: key for interoperability
– Users may call any VRS provider
• Use of public IP of the caller as proof of identity
• Fraud handled at billing time
– No gatekeeper / registrar
• Direct IP to IP call between devices
• End to end interoperability using H.323 protocol
• Text and video relay separated
– Separated services not interoperable
• Access to Emergency: caller ID
The situation in Europe
• Several member states
– Different sign languages (even regional ones)
– Different accessibility legislations
– Funding: ok for work accessibility, not in place for
private persons except in Sweden.
• Relay Services
– Sweden and Denmark: public service.
– Privatly held organisations: France and England
The situation in Europe
• Users bound to one relay service
– Closed garden approach. Few interconnections
agreements.
– Most used protocols: SIP and RTMP (Flash)
– No uniform ENUM tree available.
• Emergency service access
– Access using SMS (Uk, France, Sweden, Finland,
Iceland)
– Through textphones, but textphones fade away
– Through the relay services in an unregulated way
– Through REACH112 – until May 2012
Changing factors
• The Universal Service Directive Amended 2009
– 2002/22/EC Whereas (13), Articles 7, 23a, 26.4 ...
– Provide an equivalent of telephone service
– Requires standards to be registered in the Official Journal
– Deadline: May 2011
• But
– No standards registered yet in the Official Journal
– No implementation guidline
• Hence the REACH 112 project
– Feedback from technical people actually running relay
services
The REACH 112 initiative
• Our interpretation of the directive
– Provide one E.164 number per user
– European wide person to person call
– Number portability between providers
– Technical standards for terminals as a baseline
• Total conversation
– Efficient person to person calls
– Merge text and sign relay
– A standard for calling emergency services
The REACH 112 model
The REACH 112 model
Convergences with NG112
• NG112 work to define IP based standards
– Discussion led by EENA member of REACH
– Include total conversation support
• NOVES 3GPP IMS Emergency service access for more media
than voice. Use cases TR 22.871 include relay and Total
Conversation use.
• IETF draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp approved Sep 2011, specifies IP
access to emergency services including Total conversation.
• EMTEL DTS 103 170 Total Conversation Access to Emergency
Service. Ongoing work
• NENA i3 technical specification. US NG9-1-1 specification.
Includes Total Conversation. Approved June 2011.
US / REACH112 comparison
Feature
why
consequences
Use of E.164
number for users
enable seamless calls
from and to PSTN
Need for an ENUM tree
shared by all TC providers
User registered to
a provider
NAT traversal + history
Technical standard Market size and terminal
for terminals
interoperability
TC provider mandatory
interconnection
Need for some legal bases
to enforce it
Easier to integrate with
History + migration path mainstream
Use of SIP protocol to IMS and NG networks telecommunication
PSAP stage 1 equipped
Emergency
with TC. Need for a
services may be
European agreement on
called in TC
Better call handling.
standard to use.
VRI + sign / text
calls handled by
Need for a European
companies /
Employement of disabled agreement on standard to
councils
people.
use
New requirements
• Interoperability with other technologies
– Skype, Gtalk,ooVoo and others
– US / Europe interconnection
– Rich Communication Suite and other pre-IMS
• Smartphone and tablets
– User now wants mobility
– Issue: Trafic shaping on mobile data network
• Going mainstream
– Add feature (document sharing, camera control and
remote measurment)
Our platform, our vision
REACH112 10 commandements
1. All shall be able to call all.
2. Call by number shall be supported. user@domain is acceptable.
3. Call between two TC terminals can use any of the common media.
4. Total conversation (RFC 5194 ) shall be supported (three media or a
subset)..
5. TC Relay service shall be available for interaction with voice only users.
6. Dialing 112 shall send the call to emergency service.
7. TC Call back from Emergency Services shall be possible
8. Provide Location in emergency calls.
9. Record emergency calls.
10. Use CAP for data transmission on emergency cases between PSAP stages
Questions?
emmanuel.buu@ives.fr
didier.chabanol@ives.fr