On December 1, 2013, Kari Rene Hunt was murdered by her estranged husband. The murder took place in a hotel room in Marshall, Texas. One of the many tragic elements of this brutal crime was the fact that the attack on Ms. Hunt was witnessed by her young children. Seeing their mother in grave danger, the kids tried to call 9-1-1. But they had no luck reaching first responders, because the way that the hotel’s phone system was set up, an extra “9” needed to be dialed before a caller could reach an outside line. This is something that Kari Hunt’s young kids would not have known.
Although the need to dial an extra digit before reaching first responders has surely cropped up before, this case has received considerable attention because of the brutality of the crime, and the fact that the kids in the room with the victim did precisely what they’d been trained to do. Unfortunately, their actions weren’t enough.
NENA (National Emergency Number Association), an organization that represents more than 7000 members dedicated to saving lives, has long promoted the simple concept of “One Number, Any Device, Anywhere.” The phrase is way more than a catchy tagline. With personal communications devices like cell phones and home landlines, an extra digit need not be dialed to reach fire, police or ambulance personnel. However, this is not the case for telephones serviced by multiline telephone systems (MLTS/PBX), such as those that exist in offices, hotels, hospitals and many other locations.
Multiline systems often require a special access code (in most cases a dialed “9”) that provides the caller with information necessary to reach an outside line. An individual who is situated “behind” an MLTS/PBX is likely required to dial 9 9-1-1 in the event of an emergency. As communications system technology has become increasingly sophisticated, the conflict of dialing 9-1-1 and dialing 9-9-1-1 has been recognized and addressed by many vendors in many ways that are internal to the MLTS/PBX, and often at no additional cost to the MLTS/PBX owner/operator.
On May 21, 2012, the Federal Communications Commission Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau requested industry comments regarding multiline telephone systems pursuant to the Next Generation 9-1-1 Act of 2012. Comments on elements of the feasibility for precise 9-1-1 location information, as well as comments on the NENA model legislation, were included in this request.
The response by NENA, along with other industry players, has been clear. There was then--and is now--no technology gap. There is no financial barrier. Affordable and easily implementable solutions exist in most environments today, and it is merely the lack of education and awareness that remains as a barrier between MLTS/PBX users and Public Safety officials who every day make the difference between life and death.
Certainly the most desirable solution is what’s known as “on-site alert capability.” This internal system process allows for some form of immediate notification between the telephone system and the front—or security--desk once someone has dialed the emergency digits. That is, when a guest in Room 624 dials whatever digits he/she is supposed to dial to reach an outside first responder, the PBX or device that’s doing the switching recognizes the digits simultaneously and notifies someone at the front desk or in an administrative position. This capability saves time by both notifying house staff of an emergency and its location within the building.
Stickers on phones-were once the only way of ensuring that everyone in a building had some form of notice about what numbers to dial in an emergency. However, by themselves, stickers are not a good idea because while individuals may see them, they tend not to remember them or benefit from the information that’s contained on them. At best, emergency stickers—even if they’re printed in fluorescent colors—are an ugly step-sister when compared with the capability that on-site notification offers.
Often, when implementing new technology, customers inquire about the status of the law with respect to E9-1-1 notification and MLTS/PBXs. Unfortunately, that answer is often unclear, particularly when an enterprise has locations in multiple states where no statutes or rules exist on the issue of the kind of information that must be provided from a multi line telephone system. Lack of existing rules in a particular state does NOT relieve the enterprise from taking basic steps to ensure employee and guest (including contractor) safety, a federal obligation that OSHA is more than happy to enforce with significant penalties for non-compliance.
New York has no laws mandating specific information provided by MLTS/PBX (phone system). However, enterprises are not excused from providing a safe workplace under any circumstances. Basic good business practice dictates (and the maintenance of a safe workplace in an essential element of a safe workplace) that first responders identify the location of an individual who has called for emergency assistance.
As increasing numbers of enterprise users of telecommunications services move to IP (Internet Protocol)-based phone systems, the issue of location identification has become more critical because often, such systems will a) not work in a power failure situation absent a generator and b) extensions that may “look” like they’re in one location (a local number provided to an executive who is really sitting in Florida) are really in another. What happens when the remote worker dials 911? Are first responders dispatched from Buffalo because that’s the address in the database, when, in fact, the emergency is in Ft. Lauderdale? Absent affirmative steps taken by the employer/enterprise to make sure that location information databases are current and accurate, this unnecessary delay could, in fact, be the difference between life and death.