Help112-D2 1-2 2-2 3

Ref.
Ares(2017)3702069 - 24/07/2017
Pilot project on the design,

implementation and execution
of the transfer of GNSS data
during an E112 call to the PSAP
Contract No 440/PP/GRO/PPA/15/8308
Deliverable D2.1-D2.2-D2.3 – Cost Benefit Analysis
Philippe Brousse, Alberto Lodieu, Maria Grazia Verardi

July – 2017
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
Contract No 440/PP/GRO/PPA/15/8308
Deliverable D2.1-D2.2-D2.3 – Cost Benefit Analysis
Pilot project on the design, implementation and execution of the transfer of GNSS data during an
E112 call to the PSAP
Responsibility-Office-Company Date Signature
Philippe Brousse / Alberto Lodieu /

Prepared by 23 March 2017
Maria Grazia Verardi
Verified by Alberto Lodieu 27 March 2017
Approved by Alberto Lodieu 27 March 2017
LEGAL NOTICE
This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only
of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of
the information contained therein.
2/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
CHANGE RECORDS
ISSUE DATE § : CHANGE RECORD AUTHOR
1.0 29/03/2016 Deliverable outline P. Brousse
1.1 14/06/2016 First draft of the final deliverable D2.1 D2.2 P. Brousse
M.G. Verardi
A. Lodieu
F. Bruneteau
1.2 16/06/2016 Revised version of draft of the final deliverable D2.1 D2.2 P. Brousse
M.G. Verardi
A. Lodieu
F. Bruneteau
1.3 16/06/2016 1. D2.1: Review proposed changes by EENA and Creativity P. Brousse
Software
M.G. Verardi
2. D2.1 sections updated:
A. Lodieu
- 5.6 Evolution of PSAPs systems
F. Bruneteau
- 6.4.1 Time-value of a minute in emergency services
3. D2.3 New sections:
20/07/2016 to
15/09/2016 - Executive summary
- 11. Risk analysis
- 12. Mandate scenario impact
- 13. Recommendations for the implementation
- Appendices
1.4 20/09/16 Integration of feedback from consortium members P. Brousse

M.G. Verardi
A. Lodieu
F. Bruneteau
3/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
1.5 05/12/16 Review post checkpoint 4 P. Brousse

- Integration of comments from EC/GSA/Consortium M.G. Verardi
- Integration of comments from minutes of checkpoint 4 meeting A. Lodieu
- Updated risk analysis F. Bruneteau
- Additional mandate scenario
2.0 08/12/16 Revision: P. Brousse

- 5G Perspectives A. Lodieu
F. Bruneteau
2.1 06/01/17 Review post checkpoint 5 P. Brousse

- Revision following comments from EC/GSA/Consortium A. Lodieu
F. Bruneteau
2.2 27/01/17 Minor revisions following final meeting P. Brousse

A. Lodieu
2.3 27/03/17 Minor revisions following final deliverables submission P. Brousse

A. Lodieu
4/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
TABLE OF CONTENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 14
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 17
1.1 PLACE OF THIS DOCUMENT AND OBJECTIVES....................................................................... 17
1.2 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS ............................................................................................... 19
1.3 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS ............................................................................................... 19
2. IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS................................................................................ 20
3. METHODOLOGY OF THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS .................................................. 21

3.1 THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS COMPARES DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGY SCENARIOS ........................... 21
3.2 THE LOCATION AND TRANSMISSION TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS CAN BE ASSESSED SEPARATELY...... 21
3.3 BASE CASE DEFINITION ................................................................................................. 22
3.4 OUTPUTS OF THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 22
4. DEFINITION OF TECHNOLOGY SCENARIOS FOR THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS .... 24

4.1 LOCATION AND TRANSMISSION TECHNOLOGIES ................................................................... 24
4.1.1 Location technologies ...................................................................................................... 25
4.1.2 Transmission technologies................................................................................................ 27
4.2 TECHNOLOGY SCENARIOS FOR THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS .................................................. 27
4.3 TECHNOLOGY SCENARIOS VS ARCHITECTURES ..................................................................... 31
5. EVOLUTION OF KEY TECHNOLOGIES FOR LOCATION AND TRANSMISSION ........... 32

5.1 MOBILE PHONE SUBSCRIPTIONS IN THE EU ........................................................................ 32
5.2 PENETRATION OF MOBILE BROADBAND .............................................................................. 33
5.3 GNSS-ENABLED AND GALILEO-ENABLED HANDSETS PENETRATION ........................................... 33
5.4 HANDSET MANUFACTURER AND OPERATING SYSTEM MARKET SHARES ....................................... 34
5.5 EVOLUTION OF CELLULAR NETWORKS ............................................................................... 36
5.5.1 The transition to 4G is underway ...................................................................................... 36
5.5.2 Perspectives on 5G .......................................................................................................... 39
5.6 EVOLUTION OF PSAP SYSTEMS ....................................................................................... 40
5.6.1 Ability to receive and display location data ......................................................................... 40
5.6.2 Ability to centralize HELP112 location data at national level ................................................. 41
6. BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF THE LOCATION TECHNOLOGIES .......................................... 44

6.1 METHODOLOGY TO ESTIMATE THE BENEFITS ...................................................................... 44
5/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
6.2 EMERGENCY CALLS BENEFITING FROM THE HELP112 SOLUTION ............................................... 45

6.2.1 Total number of mobile emergency calls............................................................................ 45
6.2.2 Distribution of the emergency calls along the use cases ...................................................... 46
6.2.3 Estimate of emergency calls benefiting from HELP112 solution ............................................ 46
6.3 EVALUATION OF THE EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS PER ADDRESSABLE CALL ................................... 47
6.3.1 Impact of emergency caller location solution on the emergency call chain of event ............... 47
6.3.2 Availability and precision of technology components ........................................................... 49
6.3.3 Average time saved depending on the location precision ..................................................... 51
6.3.4 Average time saved for location technology components .................................................... 52
6.3.5 Evaluation of the impact of expected benefits .................................................................... 56
6.3.6 The time value of a minute in response time for emergency services ................................... 56
6.3.7 Valuation of the benefits .................................................................................................. 58
7. BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSMISSION TECHNOLOGIES ................................. 61

7.1 NETWORK TRANSMISSION .............................................................................................. 61
7.2 SMS ........................................................................................................................ 62
7.3 DATA CHANNEL (HTTPS) .............................................................................................. 63
7.4 DATA CHANNEL (IMS/SIP) ............................................................................................ 64
7.5 VOICE CHANNEL (PERSONAL ECALL) ................................................................................. 65
7.6 IMPACT OF TRANSMISSION METHODS ON BENEFITS .............................................................. 66
8. COST ANALYSIS OF THE LOCATION TECHNOLOGIES ............................................... 68

8.1 COST ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... 68
8.2 COST ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................................ 69
8.3 SUMMARY OF COSTS PER LOCATION METHOD ...................................................................... 71
8.4 ENHANCED NETWORK-BASED LOCATION - CONTROL PLANE ................................................... 72
8.5 CELL-ID – A-GPS ....................................................................................................... 72
8.6 CELL-ID – A-GNSS (WITHOUT GALILEO) – WI-FI .............................................................. 73
8.7 CELL-ID – A-GNSS (WITHOUT GALILEO) – WI-FI – ENHANCED NBL (USER PLANE) ................... 73
8.8 CELL-ID – E-GNSS (INCLUDING GALILEO) – WI-FI ............................................................ 74
8.9 CELL-ID – E-GNSS (INCLUDING GALILEO) – WI-FI – ENHANCED NBL (USER PLANE) ................. 75
8.10 ENHANCED NBL – A-GNSS (CONTROL PLANE) ................................................................... 76
9. COST ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSMISSION TECHNOLOGIES ...................................... 77

9.1 SUMMARY OF COSTS PER TRANSMISSION METHOD ............................................................... 77
9.2 NETWORK TRANSMISSION .............................................................................................. 78
9.3 SMS ........................................................................................................................ 78
6/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
9.4 DATA CHANNEL (HTTPS) .............................................................................................. 79

9.5 DATA CHANNEL (IMS SIP) ............................................................................................ 80
9.6 VOICE CHANNEL (PERSONAL ECALL) ................................................................................. 80
9.7 TOTAL COSTS FOR THE TECHNOLOGY SCENARIOS................................................................. 82
10. PRESENT VALUE OF NET BENEFITS FOR TECHNOLOGY SCENARIOS ....................... 83

10.1 OPTIMAL SCENARIO...................................................................................................... 83
10.2 SCENARIOS USING THE NETWORK TRANSMISSION METHOD .................................................... 84
10.2.1 Enhanced Network-Based Location ................................................................................... 84
10.2.2 Enhanced Network-Based Location – A-GNSS (Control plane) .............................................. 85
10.3 HANDSET-BASED HYBRID LOCATION SCENARIOS .................................................................. 86
10.3.1 Cell-ID – A-GPS (single constellation) ............................................................................... 86
10.3.2 Cell-ID – A-GNSS (multiple constellations without Galileo) – Wi-Fi........................................ 87
10.3.3 Cell-ID – A-GNSS – Wi-Fi – Enhanced NBL (user plane) ...................................................... 88
10.3.4 Cell-ID – E-GNSS – Wi-Fi.................................................................................................. 89
10.3.5 Cell-ID – E-GNSS – Wi-Fi – Enhanced NBL (user plane) ...................................................... 90
10.4 PUTTING THE RESULTS IN PERSPECTIVE ............................................................................ 90
11. RISK ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TECHNOLOGY SCENARIOS 93

11.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE MAIN RISKS IDENTIFIED .................................................................... 93
11.2 LINKING MAIN RISKS AND TECHNOLOGY SCENARIOS- ............................................................ 96
11.3 ENHANCED NETWORK-BASED LOCATION ........................................................................... 97
11.4 ENHANCED NETWORK-BASED LOCATION – A-GNSS (CONTROL PLANE) .................................... 98
11.5 CELL-ID – A-GPS (SINGLE CONSTELLATION) ..................................................................... 99
11.6 CELL-ID – A-GNSS (MULTIPLE CONSTELLATIONS WITHOUT GALILEO) WI-FI .......................... 100
11.7 CELL-ID – A-GNSS – WI-FI – ENHANCED NBL (USER PLANE)............................................. 101
11.8 CELL-ID – E-GNSS – WI-FI........................................................................................ 102
11.9 CELL-ID – E-GNSS– WI-FI – ENHANCED NBL (USER PLANE).............................................. 103
11.10 INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................... 103
11.11 IMPACT OF RISKS: CONSERVATIVE SCENARIO ................................................................... 104
12. IMPACT OF EUROPEAN COMMISSION INTERVENTION .......................................... 108

12.1 REGULATORY IMPACTS CONSIDERED ............................................................................... 108
12.1.1 Enhanced Network-Based location .................................................................................. 109
12.1.2 Enhanced Network-Based location – A-GNSS (control plane) ............................................. 109
12.1.3 Cell-ID – A-GPS (single constellation) .............................................................................. 110
12.1.4 Cell-ID – A-GNSS – Wi-Fi ............................................................................................... 110
7/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
12.1.5 Cell-ID – A-GNSS – Wi-Fi – Enhanced NBL (user plane) .................................................... 111
12.1.6 Cell-ID – E-GNSS – Wi-Fi................................................................................................ 111
12.1.7 Cell-ID – E-GNSS – Wi-Fi – Enhanced NBL (user plane) .................................................... 112
12.2 IMPACT OF MANDATE SCENARIOS ON NPV ....................................................................... 113
12.2.1 Mandate applying to all GNSS-enabled phones sold in the EU ............................................ 113
12.2.2 Mandate applying to all GNSS-enabled phones sold in the EU only impacting handset
manufacturers ........................................................................................................................... 115
12.2.3 Mandate applying to all phones sold in the EU ................................................................. 116
13. MAIN TECHNOLOGICAL, FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS... 118

13.1 TECHNOLOGY SCENARIO RECOMMENDATION ..................................................................... 118
13.2 OPERATIONAL & FINANCIAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION ............................ 121
13.2.1 Synthesis of key actions required for step 1 ..................................................................... 121
13.2.2 Key actions required by type of stakeholders ................................................................... 122
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 127
1. APPENDIX A: COST TO TRANSMIT THE HELP112 LOCATION THROUGH SMS, DATA

OR VOICE CHANNELS ................................................................................................... 128
2. APPENDIX B: ROAMING COSTS ANALYSIS ............................................................. 130

2.1 HOW ROAMING WORKS ............................................................................................... 130
2.2 THE COSTS INVOLVED IN A ROAMING COMMUNICATION (SMS, VOICE, DATA) ............................ 131
2.3 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 134
8/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - HELP112 project flow chart ...................................................................................... 17

Figure 2 - Selected location and transmission technology components ....................................... 24
Figure 3 – Selection process of technology components ............................................................ 25
Figure 4 - Selection process of the technology scenarios ........................................................... 28
Figure 5 - Technology scenarios for the cost-benefit analysis ..................................................... 29
Figure 6 - Matching WP2 technology scenarios with WP3 architectures ...................................... 31
Figure 7 - Number of mobile phone subscriptions (millions) ....................................................... 32
Figure 8 - Penetration of mobile broadband in mobile phone subscriptions ................................. 33
Figure 9 - Penetration of GNSS-enabled handsets in mobile phones in use ................................. 33
Figure 10 - Penetration of Galileo in GNSS-enabled handsets in use ........................................... 34
Figure 11 - Smartphone handset manufacturer market share in Europe ..................................... 35
Figure 12 - Smartphone Operating System (OS) market share in Europe .................................... 35
Figure 13 - 4G coverage and adoption in Europe ...................................................................... 36
Figure 14 - RCS & VoLTE status ............................................................................................... 38
Figure 15 - High-level methodology to estimate the location benefits ......................................... 44
Figure 16 – Number of emergency calls made from mobile phones in the EU (thousand) ............ 45
Figure 17 - Distribution of emergency calls by use case ............................................................. 46
Figure 18 - Number of mobile emergency calls benefiting from HELP112 (thousand) .................. 47
Figure 19 – The emergency call chain of events ........................................................................ 48
Figure 20 – Estimated availability of location technology components ........................................ 50
Figure 21 – Estimated accuracy of location technology components (meter) ............................... 50
Figure 22 - Average time saved per call - Enhanced network-based location (minutes) .............. 52
Figure 23 - Average time saved per call – Cell-ID A-GPS (minutes) ........................................... 53
Figure 24 - Average time saved per call – Cell-ID A-GNSS Wi-Fi (minutes).................................. 53
Figure 25 - Average time saved per call – Cell-ID A-GNSS Wi-Fi Enhanced NBL (User plane)
(minutes) ........................................................................................................................ 54
Figure 26 - Average time saved per call – Cell-ID E-GNSS (including Galileo) Wi-Fi (minutes) ..... 54
Figure 27 - Average time saved per call – Cell-ID E-GNSS Wi-Fi Enhanced NBL (User plane)
(minutes) ........................................................................................................................ 55
Figure 28 - Average time saved per call – Enhanced network-based location A-GNSS (control
plane) (minutes).............................................................................................................. 56
Figure 29 – NPV of benefits for the location technology components .......................................... 58
Figure 30 - Breakdown of NPV of benefits by nature of time saved (€ million, 2015-2025) ......... 59
9/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
Figure 31 - Number of lives saved at EU level (2015-2025)........................................................ 60

Figure 32 - Share of users on networks equipped with enhanced location solutions .................... 61
Figure 33 - Share of PSAPs able to receive HELP112 SMSs ........................................................ 62
Figure 34 - Share of PSAPs able to receive HELP112 HTTPS messages ....................................... 63
Figure 35 - Share of PSAPs able to receive HELP112 IMS/SIP messages ..................................... 64
Figure 36 - Share of PSAPs able to receive HELP112 location with Personal eCall ........................ 65
Figure 37 – Impact of each transmission component on location benefits (€ million, 2015-2025) . 66
Figure 38 – NPV of total benefits of technology scenarios (€ billion, 2015-2025) ......................... 67
Figure 39 – NPV of total costs of technology scenarios (€ million, 2015-2025) ............................ 82
Figure 40 – NPV of net benefits for technology scenarios (€ billion, 2015-2025) ........................ 83
Figure 41 – NPV for Scenario 2: Enhanced NBL (Control plane) – (€ million)............................... 84
Figure 42 – NPV for Scenario 8: Enhanced NBL – A-GNSS (Control plane) – (€ million) ............... 85
Figure 43 – NPV for Scenario 3: Cell-ID – A-GPS ...................................................................... 86
Figure 44 – NPV for Scenario 4: Cell-ID – A-GNSS – Wi-Fi ......................................................... 87
Figure 45 - NPV for Scenario 5: Cell-ID – A-GNSS – Wi-Fi – Enhanced NBL (user plane) .............. 88
Figure 46 – NPV for Scenario 6: Cell-ID – E-GNSS – Wi-Fi ......................................................... 89
Figure 47 – NPV for Scenario 7: Cell-ID – E-GNSS – Wi-Fi – Enhanced NBL (user plane) ............. 90
Figure 48 – Comparison of estimated annual net benefits (€ billion)........................................... 92
Figure 49 – Risk assessment for the implementation of Scenario 2............................................. 97
Figure 50 – Risk assessment for the implementation of Scenario 8............................................. 98
Figure 51 – Risk assessment for the implementation of scenario 3 ............................................. 99
Figure 52 – Risk assessment for the implementation of Scenario 4........................................... 100
Figure 53 – Risk assessment for the implementation of scenario 5 ........................................... 101
Figure 56- NPV of benefits - Conservative adoption (€ billion, 2015-2025) ................................ 106
Figure 57 - NPV of costs - Conservative adoption (€ billion, 2015-2025) ................................... 107
Figure 58 - NPV of net benefits - Conservative adoption (€ billion, 2015-2025) ......................... 107
Figure 59 - NPV of benefits - Mandate scenario - GNSS-enabled phones (€ billion, 2015-2025) .. 113
Figure 60 - NPV of costs - Mandate scenario - GNSS-enabled phones (€ billion, 2015-2025) ...... 114
Figure 61 - NPV of net benefits - Mandate scenario - GNSS-enabled phones (€ billion, 2015-2025)
.................................................................................................................................... 114
Figure 62 - NPV of benefits - Mandate scenario - GNSS-enabled phones - only handset
manufacturers impacted (€ billion, 2015-2025)................................................................ 115
10/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
Figure 63 - NPV of costs - Mandate scenario - GNSS-enabled phones - only handset manufacturers
impacted (€ billion, 2015-2025) ...................................................................................... 115
Figure 64 - NPV of net benefits - Mandate scenario - GNSS-enabled phones- only handset
manufacturers impacted (€ billion, 2015-2025)................................................................ 116
Figure 65 - NPV of benefits - Mandate scenario - All phones (€ billion, 2015-2025) ................... 116
Figure 66 - NPV of costs - Mandate scenario - All phones (€ billion, 2015-2025) ....................... 117
Figure 67 - NPV of net benefits - Mandate scenario - All phones (€ billion, 2015-2025) ............. 117
Figure 68 - Synthesis of cost-benefit analysis results (SMS transmission) (2015-2025, € billion) . 119
Figure 69 – Recommended high level implementation plan ...................................................... 120
Figure 70 - Commercial link required for international mobile roaming ..................................... 130
Figure 71 - Cost centres and underlying cost elements ............................................................ 131
Figure 72 - Overview of the cost structure with wholesale IOT agreement and margins ............ 133
11/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Applicable documents ............................................................................................... 19
Table 2 - Reference documents ............................................................................................... 19
Table 3 - Major PSAP models in Europe .................................................................................... 41
Table 4 – Time value of a minute in response time for fire and rescue events in Sweden ............ 57
Table 5 – Summary of costs per location method ...................................................................... 71
Table 6 – Upgrades required for Enhanced NBL – Control plane ................................................ 72
Table 7 – Upgrades required for CELL-ID / A-GPS ..................................................................... 72
Table 8 – Upgrades required for CELL-ID / A-GNSS (without Galileo) / WI-FI ............................. 73
Table 9 – Upgrades required for CELL-ID / A-GNSS (WITHOUT GALILEO) / WI-FI / ENHANCED
NBL (User plane) ............................................................................................................. 74
Table 10 – Upgrades required for CELL-ID / E-GNSS (INCLUDING GALILEO) / ............................ 74
Table 11 – Upgrades required for CELL-ID / E-GNSS (including Galileo) / ................................... 75
Table 12 – Upgrades required for Enhanced NBL - A-GNSS Control plane ................................... 76
Table 13 – Summary of costs per transmission method ............................................................. 77
Table 14 – Upgrades required for SMS transmission technology ................................................. 78
Table 15 – Upgrades required for Data Channel (HTTPS) transmission technology ...................... 79
Table 16 – Upgrades required for DATA CHANNEL (IMS SIP) transmission technology ................ 80
Table 17 – Upgrades required for VOICE CHANNEL (PERSONAL ECALL) transmission.................. 81
Table 18 - Impact assessment of the costs & benefits of eCall (€ million) ................................... 91
Table 19 - Risk identification for the implementation ................................................................. 93
Table 20 – Matrix linking main risks and technology scenarios ................................................... 96
Table 21 - Potential impact of identified risks .......................................................................... 104
Table 22 - Synthesis of the results of our cost-benefit analysis ................................................ 118
Table 23 - Main actions required to support HELP112 implementation of Scenario 6 ................. 121
Table 24 - Impact of regulatory price caps in the EU ............................................................... 134
12/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
3GPP - 3rd Generation Partnership Project GSM - Global System for Mobile
Communications
A-GNSS - Assisted Global Navigation
Satellite System ICE - In Case of Emergency
ACE - Accredited Centre of Excellence IP - Internet Protocol
AML - Advanced Mobile Location IPR - Intellectual Property Right
API - Application Program Interface IRSN - French Nuclear Safety Institute
C&C - Command & Control KPI - Key Performance Indicator
CAD - Computer-aided dispatch LBS - Location based Services
CAPEX - Capital expenditures LTE - Long-Term Evolution
CERN - European Organisation for Nuclear MEP - Member of the European Parliament
Research
MNO - Mobile Network Operator
CNES - French Space Agency
NBL - Network-based location
EC - European Commission
E-NBL - Enhanced network-based location
ECAS - Emergency Call Answering Service
NG112 - Next Generation 112
ECC - Electronic Communications Committee
OPEX - Operating Expenditures
EE - British mobile phone operator, formerly
OS – Operating System
Everything Everywhere
PCO - Project Control Office
E-GNSS - European GNSS (Multi-
constellation solution including Galileo and PSAP - Public Service Answering Point
EGNOS) R&D - Research & Development
EGNOS - European Geostationary Navigation SIM - Subscriber Identity Module
Overlay Service
SLA - Service Level Agreement
EISEC - Enhanced Information System for
Emergency Calls SMS - Short Message Service
ESA - European Space Agency SUPL - Secure User Plane Location
ESSN - Emergency Services Staff Network TDOA - Time Difference of Arrival
ETC - Electronic Toll Collection TL - Task Leaders
ETSI - European Telecommunications TM - Technical Manager
Standards Institute TOA - Time of Arrival
EU - European Union WP - Work Package
FP7 - Framework Programme 7 WPL - Work Package Leader
GIS - Geographical Information System
GNSS - Global Navigation Satellite System
GPS - Global Positioning System
13/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the emergency rescue process, the geographic location of the caller is a critical piece of
information for both Public Service Answering Points (PSAPs) and first responders. Ensuring it is
accurate, reliable and timely can save both lives and emergency services resources.
Despite the existence of the Universal Service Directive since 2002, there has been a lack of
detailed prescription on the method to position emergency callers. Thus, in Europe, contrarily to
the US, emergency mobile caller location information typically relies on cellular network location
using the Cell-ID technology. In most cases, Cell-ID is inadequate because the cell radius is too
large, particularly in rural areas. Furthermore, the reported serving cell is sometimes not the
closest to the handset due to the reflection of radio signals.
As 230 million mobile emergency calls have been placed from mobile phones in 2015 in the EU,
developments in mobile location technologies and the proliferation of GNSS-enabled phones offer
new opportunities for handset-based location alternatives. Making new positioning information
available to PSAPs during emergency communications in a secure and reliable manner could
radically improve emergency caller location. It is striking to observe the contrast between the high
accuracy of positioning for less important consumer services such as social networking and the
antiquated process to deliver positioning for critical emergency services.
Our consortium, known as the HELP112 consortium, aims at evaluating the impact that various
network-based and handset-based location scenarios to estimate the location of mobile handset
making an emergency call can have on the European Union’s society and economy. It also studies
possible deployment strategies across Europe aiming at achieving implementation in a cost-
effective manner, securing better outcomes for our citizens as well as simultaneously minimising
the implied burden on EU citizens, emergency services, mobile network operators (MNOs),
handset/OS manufacturers and public authorities.
Improving caller location can save time during the emergency call chain of events, which
translates into cost savings and ultimately, saved lives. The present cost-benefit analysis reveals
that depending on the technology scenario and the implementation, economic and social net
benefits estimated between €55 and €100 billion could be generated over the next 10
years. Furthermore, we estimated that at EU level, almost 800 lives could be saved every
year thanks to the improvement in emergency caller location solutions.
Several technological choices can be made in order to maximise the benefits while keeping the
costs, constraints on emergency operators and the implementation risk at a minimum. First, we
recommend that Member States prioritise handset-based caller location solutions using GNSS and
Wi-Fi locations over pure network-based solutions. They can significantly improve most emergency
situations while remaining far less capital intensive to implement.
In addition, the solution should leverage the multi-constellation A-GNSS and Wi-Fi chipsets present
in most GNSS-enabled phones today. They enable a 32% increase in benefits generated over a
phone solely relying on single constellation A-GPS. We estimate that leveraging Galileo-enabled
multi-constellation chipsets would further increase the benefits generated (by around €1.3 billion
over 10 years).
Finally, over the next 5 years to 10 years, the transmission of the location to the PSAPs should be
conducted using SMS transmission. This option is the most widely available currently and does not
create additional costs or constraints.
14/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
The implementation of these technology scenarios involves many stakeholders at European level
including Member States with heterogeneous PSAPs models, generating significant hurdles.
Besides, in this context, cost bearers and beneficiaries are not the same stakeholders, which
makes a possible voluntary adoption less likely.
To make next generation emergency caller location solutions a reality, a regulation on
the approval process of cellular phones in the EU would mitigate critical risks linked to
the implementation.
A mandate on all smartphones sold in the EU to enable the use of handset-based locations with
multi constellation GNSS and WiFi, and on PSAPs to receive the location could generate an
estimated €95 billion of economic and social net benefits over the next 10 years.
To further accelerate the deployment of the solution and the generation of benefits, we
recommend that all stakeholders in the chain should play a role:
 Handset manufacturers should ensure the availability of a solution to automate the
acquisition of the location by the phone and ensure its transmission to the rightful
stakeholder in case of emergency call, and include Galileo-enabled multi-constellation
chipsets in their full range of GNSS-enabled phones, including lower-end phones, which
would imply that
– GNSS chipset manufacturers should include Galileo capability in their whole product
range
– Mobile OS providers should implement the so-called HELP112 software1 following the
ETSI TR 103 393 specification and provide support to PSAPs and MNOs for its
configuration
– HELP112 software is a generic name used within this deliverable to refer to a software
component running on the phone operating system, triggered in case of emergency call
and able to request the phone to provide its best possible location and transmit it the
rightful stakeholder. Based on the analysis conducted within the scope of this project,
the AML protocol appears today as the most suitable solution for the HELP112 software
15/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
as it is already available in the market and tested in the UK and has recently been
implemented by Google in Android as a result of this project. Furthermore, it is being
specified by ETSI (TR 103 393 Standard).
– MNOs should support the implementation by ensuring their network configuration
allows SMSs (free of charge, invisible to user) to be sent during emergency calls, and by
informing their users about the changes in emergency call location
 European public authorities should accompany this change with simple measures:
– The European Commission should further assess the feasibility of mandating the
HELP112 software1 and Galileo-enabled GNSS chipsets on all new GNSS-enabled phones
sold in the EU. Also, the EC could finance the creation of EU projects to facilitate the
implementation and coordination among stakeholders, generate awareness about the
project and favour knowledge sharing (similar to the I_HeERO projects for eCall)
– Member States should financially support the initial, marginal costs required for PSAP
systems upgrades,
– PSAPs should develop the capabilities to receive HELP112 SMSs and integrate the data
to their information systems. Also, they should train their call takers to work with
enhanced caller location solutions
Over the next decade, the new emergency caller solution could be upgraded to benefit from
maturing innovations both on the mobile location side and the transmission side, for instance by
leveraging the data channel and/or the IMS-SIP protocol.
16/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 PLACE OF THIS DOCUMENT AND OBJECTIVES

This document covers the cost-benefit analysis of various technology alternatives for emergency
caller location. Based on the cost-benefit analysis, recommendations on the selection of the
optimal technology deployment scenario are formulated. Finally, this document provides financial
and operational recommendations for the implementation.
This document covers deliverables identified as D2.1, D2.2 and D2.3, in the list of project
deliverables.
It is generated as part of the contract 440/PP/GRO/PPA/15/8308 with the European Commission.
The purpose of the document is to perform a cost-benefit analysis of the implementation of the
use of caller location data to enhance emergency calls.
 Define the key location and transmission technology scenarios and assess the costs and
benefits for each scenario,
 Recommend the optimal scenario(s) for 112 caller location based on the results of the
cost-benefit analysis,
 Provide a more detailed assessment of the costs linked to the implementation of the selected
technology scenario(s) as well as key operational and financial recommendations.
Figure 1 - HELP112 project flow chart
17/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
As a reminder, here are the goals of each Work Package’s deliverable:

 WP1:
o D1.1: Defines the user requirements and formulates a set of user scenarios that
will lead the implementation and evaluation of the architecture.
o D1.2: Analyses and compares the existing solutions and the underlying
technologies for the provision of caller location.
o D1.3: Analyses how existing solutions meet the requirements, reports the barriers for
deployment and provides recommendations for the implementation.
 WP2:
o D2.1: Defines the key location and transmission technology scenarios and assesses the
costs and benefits for each scenario.
o D2.2: Recommends the optimal scenario(s) for 112 caller location solution
based on the results of the cost-benefit analysis.
o D2.3: Provides a more detailed assessment of the costs linked to the implementation of
the selected technology scenario(s) as well as key operational and financial
recommendations.
 WP3:
o D3.1: Defines possible implementation architectures for the pilot sites,
covering location/transmission tech. alternatives of WP1.
o D3.2: Describes technicalities of these architectures and recommendations for
their implementation.
o D3.3: Selects the architecture to be deployed for the pilots based on outputs of
WP2.
o D3.4: Analyses the gaps between the selected architecture and the existing standards
(eCall, 3GPP, ECC-REP-225).
18/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
1.2 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

Table 1 - Applicable documents
AD Title of the document & reference
AD 1 Contract 440/PP/GRO/PPA/15/8308
AD2 Help112 Consortium Agreement
1.3 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

Table 2 - Reference documents
RD Title of the document & reference
RD 1 Help112 Technical, Management & Financial Proposal
TPZF/SSA-T2015-PP-0451 is1.0 31/07/2015
19/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
2. IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS
This document aims at presenting our cost-benefit analysis and the underlying assumptions made
in our model to estimate these costs and benefits.
The figures presented identify the detailed impact of 7 different location technology
implementation scenarios (combined with 5 transmission technology scenarios) and indicate an
optimal scenario based on performance benchmarks and assumptions about location technologies
and possible implementation scenarios.
Although we believe that our methodology is robust, we are aware that certain inputs may still
vary, notably with the results of the live testing undertaken as part of Work Package 4.
Please consider the present conclusions as an output that can be used for the project, but that
could still vary depending on the outputs of Work Package 4.
20/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
3. METHODOLOGY OF THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
This section defines the general methodology used to conduct the cost-benefit analysis (CBA) for
the HELP112 emergency caller location solutions.
The cost-benefit analysis follows the steps described below:
 Definition of technology scenarios for the cost-benefit analysis
 Evolution of key technologies for location and transmission
 Benefit analysis of the location technologies
 Benefit analysis of the transmission technologies
 Cost analysis of the location technologies
 Cost analysis of the transmission technologies
 Present value of net benefits for technology scenarios
 Risk assessment of the implementation of the technology scenarios
 Impact of European commission intervention
 Main technological, financial and operational recommendations
3.1 THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS COMPARES DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGY SCENARIOS

As described in the state-of-the-art analysis of emergency caller location solutions (deliverable
D1.2), the HELP112 recommended deployment scenario would be composed of location
technology components (Network location, GNSS, Wi-Fi, etc.), which can be transmitted to the
PSAPs using various transmission technology components (SMS, data channel, voice channel,
etc.).
In order for the CBA outputs to provide actionable insights for the European Commission, the
location and transmission components are combined in comprehensive technology scenarios
that take into account current and future technology trends, and enable the comparison with
solutions already implemented in the market.
3.2 THE LOCATION AND TRANSMISSION TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS CAN BE

ASSESSED SEPARATELY
Based on the state-of-the-art analysis, we believe that location and transmission components are
largely independent and can be assessed separately, as
 The majority of the benefits for the HELP112 emergency caller location solution are
expected to come from the location technology components,
 Several transmission technologies can be used simultaneously and the implementation
choice could vary depending on the country,
 Compliance with the user requirements should also be used in order to recommend the
best transmission technology alternative.
Consequently, our cost-benefit analysis will focus on assessing: first the benefits of the location
technology components only, then the impact of the transmission components on each location
scenario and finally the costs for both location and transmission technology components.
21/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
3.3 BASE CASE DEFINITION

To better comprehend the impact of the location and transmission technologies, the benefits
and costs involved in each technology scenario will be compared to the base case.
In the context of this cost-benefit analysis, the base case assumes for simplification purposes
that:
 Cell-ID is available in all EU countries (based on existing mandates on MNOs to provide
Cell-ID for emergency calls),
 All PSAPs in EU countries are able to receive and display Cell-ID locations (i.e. have GIS
availability),
 An average location accuracy performance of network location (Cell-ID) across all EU
countries
– Additional response time of countries with below-average performance such as Greece
or France is not taken into account in the base case
– The benefits of more advanced solutions already implemented such as AML in the UK
are not considered in the base case
It is important to note that we have included the benefits and costs of the different scenarios in 28
countries including the UK. We believe that the “Brexit” situation will not impact significantly the
results.
Furthermore, we estimate that further benefits will be generated within the EFTA region (Iceland,
Norway, Switzerland), corresponding to an increase in total benefits of about 1.35%.
3.4 OUTPUTS OF THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

To take into account the evolution of technologies involved in the analysis, such as the penetration
of smartphones and Galileo-enabled chipsets, the cost-benefit analysis is conducted over a 10-year
time frame, from January 2016 to December 2025 as requested by the European Commission.
Although significant benefits from the solution studied will be still generated after 2025, we believe
this time frame to allows to create conservative outputs, and that the main conclusions would be
still valid over a longer time frame.
To evaluate the benefits, we have estimated for each scenario:
 The number of emergency calls that would benefit from the technology scenario,
 The number of minutes saved in response time,
 The cost savings achieved thanks to the time saved,
 The number of lives saved.
To evaluate the costs, we have estimated for each scenario:

 The additional CAPEX (Capital Expenditures) and OPEX (Operating Expenses) required to
enable the use of the solution,
 How these costs would be distributed over the main stakeholders of the emergency
assistance chain (Handset manufacturers, OS providers, Mobile Network Operators, PSAPs,
other public authorities).
22/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
Our recommendations are based on an assessment of the net benefits, estimated by their Net
Present Value (NPV of total benefits – NPV of total costs) for each technology scenario, also
considering non-quantifiable benefits and costs as well as risks linked to the implementation.
Notes:
 Given the definition of the outputs, we establish the base case as being the current
situation and providing net benefits valued at 0 Euro,
 Unless otherwise mentioned, the analysis is conducted at EU level (28 countries).
23/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
4. DEFINITION OF TECHNOLOGY SCENARIOS FOR THE COST-

BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Based on the state of the art of location and transmission technologies for emergency caller
location completed in HELP112 deliverable D1.2, we have defined the technology scenarios that
are studied in the cost-benefit analysis.
4.1 LOCATION AND TRANSMISSION TECHNOLOGIES

We considered separately the location technology components and the transmission technology
components. The different technologies considered are listed in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2 - Selected location and transmission technology components
We first considered all network-based and handset-based location technologies and assessed
whether they could have been used as stand-alone technologies in the HELP112 solution.
Then, we identified the most likely hybrid deployment scenarios by identifying all possible
combinations between network-based and handset-based location technologies.
Finally, based on interviews with industry stakeholders and an analysis of the key market trends
and HELP112 solution requirements, we identified the most relevant location technology
combinations that will be compared in the CBA.
Once the standalone and hybrid combinations were identified, we assessed the possible
transmission methods for each selection. Figure 3 summarises all the identified possibilities and
those that were selected.
24/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
Figure 3 – Selection process of technology components

Selected technology scenario for the CBA
Possible alternative, but could be improved at no additional cost with hybrid methods
Not selected based on user requirements and market trends
Not relevant at the technical level
Transmission technologies
Network Data channel Data channel Voice channel
SMS
Location technologies transmission (HTTPS) (IMS/SIP) (Personnal eCall)
Standalone Network-based Cell ID X
solutions location
Enhanced network-based location - Control plane X
Handset-based Enhanced network-based location - User plane X X X X

location
Wi-Fi X X X X
GPS
Glonass
GNSS (multi-constellation without Galileo)
Galileo
E-GNSS non assisted (multi-constellation incl. Galileo)
A-GPS X X X X
A-Glonass
A-GNSS (multi-constellation without Galileo) X X X X
A-Galileo
E-GNSS (assisted multi-constellation incl. Galileo) X X X X
Sections
Hybrid
combinations
4.1.11 and 4.1.2 detail the selected location and transmission technology components
Cell-ID A-GPS X X X X
2 Cell-ID A-GPS Wi-Fi
3 Cell-ID A-GPS Enhanced NBL (User plane)
4.1.1 Location technologies

4 Cell-ID A-GPS Wi-Fi Enhanced NBL (User plane)
5 Cell-ID A-GNSS (wihtout Galileo)
4.1.1.1 Network
6
based
Cell-ID locations
A-GNSS (without Galileo) Wi-Fi X X X X
7 Cell-ID A-GNSS Enhanced NBL (User plane)
 Cell-ID:
8 Cell-ID A-GNSS Wi-Fi Enhanced NBL (User plane) X X X X
As stated in deliverable D1.2, Cell-ID positioning simply returns the geographic position of the
9 Cell-ID E-GNSS (incl. Galileo)
area potentially
10
covered by the device’s serving cell. This area is dependent on the angle of
Cell-ID E-GNSS (incl. Galileo) Wi-Fi X X X X
coverage and cell radius. The latter can vary from 550 meters to several kilometres. It is
11 Cell-ID E-GNSS Enhanced NBL (User plane)
important to remark that the serving cell is not necessarily the closest cell tower from the
12 Cell-ID E-GNSS (incl Galileo) Wi-Fi Enhanced NBL (User plane) X X X X
caller. In certain cases, notably in mountains and cities, this can lead to significant errors in
13 Enhanced NBL CP - A-GPS
Enhanced NBL CP - A-GPS Wi-Fi

positioning15 emergency callers.
14
Enhanced NBL CP - A-GPS Enhanced NBL (User plane)
 Enhanced
16 network-based location
Enhanced NBL CP - A-GPS Wi-Fi Enhanced - Control plane:
NBL (User plane)
17 Enhanced NBL CP - A-GNSS (wihtout Galileo)

We have 18included advanced network-based location solutions able to leverage the following
X
Enhanced NBL CP - A-GNSS (wihtout Galileo) Wi-Fi

techniques19 depending on network infrastructure:
Enhanced NBL CP - A-GNSS Enhanced NBL (User plane)
CITA (2G)
plane)& CITADV (4G): Cell-ID with Timing Advance
Enhanced NBL CP - A-GNSS Wi-Fi Enhanced NBL (User
– 20
21 Enhanced NBL CP - E-GNSS (incl Galileo)

– CIRTT
22
(3G): Cell-ID with Round Trip Time
Enhanced NBL CP - E-GNSS (incl Galileo) Wi-Fi
– CITARX
23
(2G): Cell-ID with Path loss and related measurements
Enhanced NBL CP - E-GNSS Enhanced NBL (User plane)
Enhanced NBL CP - E-GNSS Wi-Fi Enhanced NBL (User

24
Geo Multilateration (2G) RF Pattern Matching (RFPM)

plane)
–
– O-TDOA (3G, 4G): Observed Time Difference of Arrival
25/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
All techniques bring improved precision compared to the standard Cell-ID implementation.
In the control plane implementation, the location calculator is integrated in the network
infrastructure.
4.1.1.2 Handset-based locations
All of the following technologies could be considered as stand-alone alternatives.

However, as they often come together in current smartphones and can be combined to improve
the availability, precision and TTFF (Time-to-first-fix), we will only consider combinations of the
following location technology components in the CBA:
 Enhanced network-based location – User plane:
Behind Enhanced network-based location - User plane, we included the same advanced
network-based location solutions considered in Enhanced network-based location – Control
plane. However, in the user plane implementation, the location calculator is installed at stage 1
PSAPs and is not part of the network. Once installed on the handset and enabled on the PSAP
level, the handset would send back a copy of Radio Network Measurement Report to the
location calculator using the HELP112 software. The location is computed directly in the PSAPs.
This alternative is interesting since MNOs have very limited involvement (providing accurate
base stations database, periodically: to be equally provided in Control Plane too) in this
implementation. It also provides a fall-back method that is better than Cell-ID whenever a
GNSS/Wi-Fi location cannot be obtained.
 Single-constellation assisted GNSS - A-GPS:
Since GNSS chipsets performance can vary significantly between single-constellation and multi-
constellation chipsets, one technology scenario should include a single constellation GNSS.
According to the GSA, 100% of GNSS chipsets on the market have GPS capability1.
Consequently, A-GPS should be selected, as it is the most widely available and the most cost-
effective to integrate in mobile phones.
 Multi-constellation assisted GNSS: A-GNSS (excluding Galileo):
The trend of integrating multiple GNSS constellations in smartphone chipsets started in 2011
with the emergence of GPS/GLONASS devices. Furthermore, according to the GSA, more than
60% of [GNSS] chipsets available in the market for use in consumer devices support at least 2
constellations2. As stated in D1.2, the use of multi-constellation location technologies enables
better accuracy in addition to higher and faster availability.
 Multi-constellation assisted GNSS: E-GNSS (including Galileo):
In order to assess the costs and benefits of using Galileo in the emergency caller location
solution, a distinction between A-GNSS with and without Galileo shall be made. The Galileo
constellation is expected to bring performance improvement in terms of precision and
availability. In 2016 the first handsets integrating Galileo chipsets have been introduced in the
1
European GSA, “GNSS Market Report, Issue 4”, March 2015,
http://www.gsa.europa.eu/system/files/reports/GNSS-Market-Report-2015-issue4_0.pdf,
2
European GSA, “GNSS Market Report, Issue 4”, March 2015,
http://www.gsa.europa.eu/system/files/reports/GNSS-Market-Report-2015-issue4_0.pdf,
26/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
market. The GSA estimates a penetration of Galileo enabled handsets in GNSS enabled
handsets of 50% by 2019 and 85% by 2025.
 Wi-Fi
Wi-Fi location can prove to have a significant impact in challenging environments for GNSS
availability, especially in indoor environments. Since mobile phones with GNSS chipsets also
include Wi-Fi capabilities and the phone operating systems are able to leverage Wi-Fi location, we
believe that it is important to include it in hybrid scenarios.
Non-assisted technologies are not considered in our analysis because they typically do not meet
the response time requirements defined in deliverable D1.1, stating that “the response time shall
be less than 30 seconds for any location solution that provides more accurate and precise caller
location and satisfies the accuracy/precision requirements” (RESP_002 in D3.1).
4.1.2 Transmission technologies

Based on HELP112 deliverable D1.2, the following transmission technologies have been
considered:
 Network transmission,
 SMS,
 Data channel (HTTPS),
 Data channel (IMS SIP),
 Voice channel (Personal eCall).
4.2 TECHNOLOGY SCENARIOS FOR THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

In this section, we identify all potential combinations of location and transmission alternatives. In
order to best leverage the capabilities of handsets on the field, it is crucial to consider hybrid
positioning location technology scenarios (see Figure 4 below).
Additionally, we define a sufficient number of alternatives so that our analysis can cover all major
relevant individual technologies, i.e. Cell-ID, enhanced network-based location (Control Plane and
User Plane), A-GPS, A-GNSS, E-GNSS (including Galileo) and Wi-Fi.
27/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
Figure 4 - Selection process of the technology scenarios

Selected technology scenario for the CBA
Possible alternative, but could be improved at no additional cost with hybrid methods
Not selected based on user requirements and market trends
Not relevant at the technical level
Transmission technologies
Network Data channel Data channel Voice channel
SMS
Location technologies transmission (HTTPS) (IMS/SIP) (Personnal eCall)
Standalone Network-based Cell ID X
solutions location
Enhanced network-based location - Control plane X
Handset-based Enhanced network-based location - User plane X X X X

location
Wi-Fi X X X X
GPS
Glonass
GNSS (multi-constellation without Galileo)
Galileo
E-GNSS non assisted (multi-constellation incl. Galileo)
A-GPS X X X X
A-Glonass
A-GNSS (multi-constellation without Galileo) X X X X
A-Galileo
E-GNSS (assisted multi-constellation incl. Galileo) X X X X
Hybrid 1 Cell-ID A-GPS X X X X

combinations
2 Cell-ID A-GPS Wi-Fi
3 Cell-ID A-GPS Enhanced NBL (User plane)
4 Cell-ID A-GPS Wi-Fi Enhanced NBL (User plane)
5 Cell-ID A-GNSS (wihtout Galileo)
6 Cell-ID A-GNSS (without Galileo) Wi-Fi X X X X
7 Cell-ID A-GNSS Enhanced NBL (User plane)
8 Cell-ID A-GNSS Wi-Fi Enhanced NBL (User plane) X X X X
9 Cell-ID E-GNSS (incl. Galileo)
10 Cell-ID E-GNSS (incl. Galileo) Wi-Fi X X X X
11 Cell-ID E-GNSS Enhanced NBL (User plane)
12 Cell-ID E-GNSS (incl Galileo) Wi-Fi Enhanced NBL (User plane) X X X X
13 Enhanced NBL CP - A-GPS
14 Enhanced NBL CP - A-GPS Wi-Fi
15 Enhanced NBL CP - A-GPS Enhanced NBL (User plane)
16 Enhanced NBL CP - A-GPS Wi-Fi Enhanced NBL (User plane)
17 Enhanced NBL CP - A-GNSS (wihtout Galileo) X
18 Enhanced NBL CP - A-GNSS (wihtout Galileo) Wi-Fi
19 Enhanced NBL CP - A-GNSS Enhanced NBL (User plane)

Enhanced NBL CP - A-GNSS Wi-Fi Enhanced NBL (User
20
plane)
21 Enhanced NBL CP - E-GNSS (incl Galileo)
22 Enhanced NBL CP - E-GNSS (incl Galileo) Wi-Fi
23 Enhanced NBL CP - E-GNSS Enhanced NBL (User plane)
Enhanced NBL CP - E-GNSS Wi-Fi Enhanced NBL (User

24
plane)
Source: PTOLEMUS
28/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
As a result, the cost-benefit analysis will be based on the following 8 location technology
components, and consider for each of them the potential transmissions methods, thus defining the
technology scenarios:
Figure 5 - Technology scenarios for the cost-benefit analysis
Source: PTOLEMUS
1. Cell-ID – Base case

The first technology scenario is the base case. As mentioned earlier, our assumption is that Cell-ID
is available in all European Union countries today. In this scenario, the location is transmitted to
the PSAPs via the network.
2. Enhanced network-based location (Control Plane)
We believe it is important to retain a technology scenario which is independent from the mobile
phone type, as benefits could then be generated for all calls and would not be restricted to
smartphones. In addition, this scenario relies solely on network-based locations, which will enable
comparison with scenarios involving handset-based location. As stated in D1.2, this scenario has
been implemented by several MNOs in the US in the 2000s.
3. Cell-ID – A-GPS
Although A-GPS alone is not an optimized solution to best fit the accuracy requirements defined in
D1.1, it is a key scenario for the cost-benefit analysis. Not only it will let us assess the impact of
including satellite location only, but also it is the simplest hybrid solution that can be constructed.
In this scenario, the location can be transmitted to the PSAP via SMS, a data channel (HTTPS or
IMS/SIP) or a voice channel (personal eCall).
4. Cell-ID – A-GNSS – Wi-Fi
This scenario is critical since it includes the most common location technologies available in
smartphones today. In the case when an A-GNSS position can not be acquired, a Wi-Fi location
would complement it, a major improvement in indoor environments and in areas with poor GNSS
coverage (forests, urban canyons, etc.). In the case when no Wi-Fi location can be obtained, Cell-
ID would be used.
29/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
In this scenario, multi-constellation chipsets that are not Galileo-enabled are considered.
Additionally, the location can be transmitted to the PSAP via SMS, a data channel (HTTPS or
5. Cell-ID – A-GNSS – Wi-Fi – Enhanced network-based location (User Plane)
This scenario involves almost the same location technologies as scenario 4, except for the
network-based component, where the Cell-ID backup is complemented by an enhanced Cell-ID
(and more superior location algorithms) with a user plane implementation, as described above.
This can improve use cases where neither a GNSS location nor a Wi-Fi location can be obtained.
6. Cell-ID – E-GNSS – Wi-Fi
This scenario is essentially scenario 4 but with Galileo-enabled multi-constellation GNSS chipsets. It
is crucial to understand whether including additional constellations could further improve the
location, in particular Galileo.
7. Cell-ID – E-GNSS – Wi-Fi – Enhanced network-based location (User Plane)
This scenario is essentially scenario 5 but with Galileo-enabled multi-constellation GNSS chipsets.
This is probably the most complete of all scenarios. It includes all technologies and should
therefore provide the most accurate location.
In this scenario, the location can be transmitted to the PSAP via SMS, data channel (HTTPS or
IMS/SIP), or voice channel (personal eCall).
8. Enhanced network-based location – A-GNSS (Control Plane)
Finally, we consider in scenario 8 a combination of network-based and handset-based location.
The difference here is that the assistance data is actually provided by the network, following
existing 3GPP standards. Nevertheless, it relies on network components that are not currently
available on the European Union mobile networks, since MNOs have not invested in such
capabilities.
As depicted in HELP112 deliverable D1.2, this scenario represents the most implemented solution
in the US for 911 emergency caller location, thus providing an element of comparison with
scenarios involving mostly handset-based locations, such as number 3,4,5,6 and 7. In this
scenario, the location is transmitted to the PSAPs via the network.
Taking into account location and transmission components, a total of 23 different technology
scenarios will be compared.
30/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
Of course, many other combinations of location technology alternative and transmission

technologies could be analysed. However, by covering the previously mentioned technology
alternatives, we believe this cost-benefit analysis will provide the key results to answer the
following questions:
 What are the benefits and costs of using only network-based solutions in the 112
emergency caller location solution?
 What are the benefits and costs of combining handset-based and network-based location
technologies solutions in the 112 emergency caller location solution?
 What are the benefits and costs differences between using single and multi-constellations
in the 112 emergency caller location solution?
 What are the benefits and costs of including Galileo in the 112 emergency caller location
solution?
 What are the benefits and costs for each of the different transmission methods?
4.3 TECHNOLOGY SCENARIOS VS ARCHITECTURES

This section aims at clarifying the notions behind technology scenarios defined in this document
and the architectures presented in HELP112 Work Package 3.
Although there are a lot of similarities between them, their purpose is not the same:
 In the scope of the CBA, the technology scenarios shall include implementations that will
enable a comparison of all possible solutions available in the market,
 The architectures presented in HELP112 Work Package 3 have been defined so that they
can be tested during the pilot phase.
To simplify the connection between WP2 and WP3 deliverables, Figure 6 below matches the
technology scenarios previously defined in the architectures from WP3.
Figure 6 - Matching WP2 technology scenarios with WP3 architectures
Source: PTOLEMUS
31/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
5. EVOLUTION OF KEY TECHNOLOGIES FOR LOCATION AND

TRANSMISSION
To precisely identify costs and benefits for the emergency caller location solutions, one should first
understand the key technological trends impacting the mobile phone market in Europe.
In our analysis, we take into account the evolution of the mobile ecosystem’s technologies that
impact both the benefits and the costs. For instance, we consider the expected growing
penetration of GNSS-enabled phones in the EU.
However, the evolution of technologies from which the emergency ecosystem can benefit but
which are implemented for emergency services purposes, are not included in the estimate of the
benefits and costs. In particular, the cost of smartphones (beyond possible incremental chipset
costs), the cost to the networks (beyond new specific positioning deployment costs) and the cost
of satellite constellations are not considered, although they are obviously critical to the emergency
caller location solutions.
To summarise, our analysis only includes incremental benefits and costs related to the deployment
of new positioning solutions for emergency purposes.
5.1 MOBILE PHONE SUBSCRIPTIONS IN THE EU

With more than 720 million active subscriptions, the penetration of mobile phone subscriptions in
the European Union is already above 140% at the end of 2015. Over the next 10 years, mobile
phones are expected to become even more ubiquitous with active subscriptions growing beyond
800 million, thus reaching 155% penetration.
Figure 7 - Number of mobile phone subscriptions (millions)
Source: GSA
32/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
5.2 PENETRATION OF MOBILE BROADBAND

According to the GSMA, in 2015 mobile broadband connections, also known as data connections,
already represent more than 70% of active mobile phone subscriptions in the European Union. As
shown below in Figure 8, we expect them to exceed 95% of connections by the end of the
decade, facilitating the use of the data channel for messaging services, already preferred to
traditional SMS by 35% of European users today.
Figure 8 - Penetration of mobile broadband in mobile phone subscriptions
Source: PTOLEMUS estimates based on GSMA data
5.3 GNSS-ENABLED AND GALILEO-ENABLED HANDSETS PENETRATION

GNSS chipsets are becoming an increasingly common feature in mobile phones, mainly driven by
the adoption of smartphones. By the end of 2016, GNSS-enabled handsets are expected to
account for 74% of total mobile phones in use. By 2025, the penetration of GNSS-enabled
handsets is forecast by GSA to reach 100%.
Figure 9 - Penetration of GNSS-enabled handsets in mobile phones in use
33/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
Source: GSA
Furthermore, we expect that the penetration of Wi-Fi enabled handsets will follow a similar market
adoption rate, primarily because Wi-Fi chipsets and GNSS chipsets often come together in mobile
phones.
From the interviews we conducted with the largest smartphone chipset manufacturers (Broadcom
and Qualcomm), we understand that Galileo-enabled chipset are already commercially launched
and that Galileo-enabled handsets will be increasingly available in the EU. Given their expected
benefits in terms of availability, time-to-first-fix and accuracy, leading chipsets manufacturers
confirmed the intention of handset manufacturers to rapidly integrate Galileo capability.
By 2020, the GSA forecasts that 60% of smartphones in use in EU will be Galileo-enabled.
According to the GSA, the share of Galileo-enabled handsets in GNSS-enabled handsets is
expected to exceed 85% by 2025, as shown in Figure 10 below.
Figure 10 - Penetration of Galileo in GNSS-enabled handsets in use
Source: GSA
However, at this stage, it is important to bear in mind that these figures assume a voluntary
adoption from the eco-system stakeholders which is subject to several risks, as highlighted in the
risks analysis depicted in section 11.
5.4 HANDSET MANUFACTURER AND OPERATING SYSTEM MARKET SHARES

The smartphone market in Europe is very concentrated, both at handset manufacturer and OS
provider levels.
According to StatCounter Global Stats, at handset level, Apple and Samsung alone represent, in
June 2016, 62.2% of the smartphones in use, followed by Sony Ericsson and LG with respectively
6.7% and 5.4% market share.
34/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
Figure 11 - Smartphone handset manufacturer market share in Europe
Source: PTOLEMUS based on StatCounter GlobalStats

At operating system level, Google is a strong leader, with Android being the OS of 70% of mobile
phones in use. Its main rival, Apple’s iOS, has been progressively losing market share, ending up
at 27.3% in June 2016. Windows is struggling with a 3.8% market share.
Figure 12 - Smartphone Operating System (OS) market share in Europe
Source: PTOLEMUS based on StatCounter GlobalStats
In the framework of HELP112, the structure of the smartphone market plays a critical role since
user plane solutions rely on an activation software, the “HELP112 software” that can be
implemented either at handset or OS level. If implemented at OS level, the resulting cost in the
overall emergency services value chain is lower. Actually, at OS level, almost 95% of the
smartphones can be covered with the 3 main players.
However, at handset level, the top 10 handset manufacturers account for 89% of the smartphones
in the market. Additionally, Google announced in July 2016 that “Emergency Location Service is
35/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
supported by over 99% of existing Android devices (version 2.3 out and upwards) through Google
Play services. The service activates when supported by your mobile network operator or
emergency infrastructure provider.”3
Even though it is difficult to predict how the market will look like in 10 years, we anticipate that
the market will remain more concentrated at OS level with fewer main players than it will at
handset level.
5.5 EVOLUTION OF CELLULAR NETWORKS
5.5.1 The transition to 4G is underway

According to the GSMA, more than 90% of the European population benefited from 4G-network
coverage in early 2016.
As seen in Figure 13 below, LTE connections are expected to grow from over 20% end of 2015 to
close to 60% of mobile broadband connections by 20204.
Figure 13 - 4G coverage and adoption in Europe
Source: GSMA, The Mobile Economy Europe 2015
While 4G is becoming ubiquitous, Mobile Network Operators are already planning for the transition
to IP-based/all-IP networks. In 2015, 15 countries have already rolled out Rich Communications
3
https://blog.google/topics/google-europe/helping-emergency-services-find-you/
44
GSMA, The Mobile Economy Europe 2015
36/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
Services (RCS), allowing the development of inter-operator communication services based on the
IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) infrastructure. In short, these enhanced services differ from
traditional services by adding features typically provided by so-called “Over-The-Top”
communication services such as WhatsApp, Viber, Skype, Apple iMessage/Facetime etc.
Key services include Enhanced Phonebook, allowing user to check the availability of their
respondents, Enhanced Messaging, with receipt notifications or group chats, and Enriched Calls,
with the ability to switch to video during a call and make group calls. However, RCS is not
available in all mobile phones today in a native way, and dependent on the use of application for
unsupported phones such as the iPhone.
In parallel, Voice over LTE (VoLTE) deployments are also being carried out, with 8 countries
already able in 2015 to experience increased throughputs, and 6 countries planning for the
deployment (see Figure 14 below). VoLTE relies on the IMS architecture as well as the SIP
protocols for the establishment of the call and transfer of voice data over the network.
37/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
Figure 14 - RCS & VoLTE status

Country RCS VoLTE HD voice
Austria No plans No plans Available

Belgium No plans No plans Available
Bulgaria No plans No plans Available
Croatia Planning No plans Available
Czech Republic Available Available Available
Denmark No plans Planning Available
Estonia No plans No plans Available
Finland No plans No plans Available
France Available Planning Available
Germany Available Available Available
Greece Available No plans Available
Hungary Available No plans Available
Ireland Available No plans Available
Italy Available Available Available
Latvia No plans No plans Available
Lithuania No plans No plans Available
Luxembourg Available No plans Available
Malta Available No plans No plans
Netherlands Available Planning Available
Poland Planning Planning Available
Portugal Available Available Available
Romania Available Available Available
Slovakia Available No plans Available
Slovenia No plans No plans Available
Spain Available Available Available
Sweden No plans Planning Available
United Kingdom Available Available Available
Source: GSMA, The Mobile Economy Europe 2015

Although the transition to all-IP networks is already underway, we expect that it will
take at least 5 years for all countries and PSAPs to become IMS/SIP ready.
Consequently, to be operational in the short term, the HELP112 recommended solution
cannot be dependent on the IMS network infrastructure to deliver the location.
38/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
5.5.2 Perspectives on 5G
The main objectives for 5G are to enable a common global standardisation of all connected
(mobile) devices, while still allowing for significant variation in terms of requirements: From
extreme capacity and data rate to stream (U)HD content to enhanced security and reliability for
critical applications to low energy consumption and deeper coverage to allow the connectivity of
objects and infrastructure.
Although significant efforts have been undertaken for several years now to define the future
generation of mobile networks, the industry is converging towards the definition of the technology
requirements and initiated standardization activities. Today, no actual standard is available, and
the actual implementation is still far away.
The 3GPP standardisation body is aiming for a first wave of standard available around 2018, and a
second wave coming in late 2019 early 2020.
The current ITU programme targeting 5G activities, “IMT for 2020 and beyond”, currently finalized
a timeline for the development of the standard, aiming at providing specifications in late 2019 for
the World Radio Conference5.
In terms of timeline, a first set of trials have been announced for 2016 by MNOs and Network
equipment providers such as EE and Ericsson6 and EU funded projects are on-going. Several years
will still be required before the first large scale commercial launches, as they are planned for
beyond 2020 according to the European Commission 5G roadmap7.
If history is any indication and the 5G rollout follows similar path than for 4G, first commercial
implementations are likely to happen in urban areas, especially in large cities that often already
benefit from 4G. The main needs will first arise in large cities rather than rural areas. Preliminary
announcements tend to validate this assumption as 5G is expected to have early commercial
deployment for key sporting events such as the Euro 2020 and the Tokyo 2020 Olympics8.
Many more devices will be connected over the next decade, from cars to homes and utilities, but
the main drawbacks of current network location methods are likely to subsist.
As far as mobile location is concerned, 5G will include the LTE Positioning Protocol (LPP), recently
standardised for 4G LTE (3GPP TS 36.355 version 13.0.0 Release 13) and described in HELP112
deliverable 1.2 thus enabling enhanced cell-id, OTDOA and control plane A-GNSS. As confirmed by
modem manufacturer Sierra Wireless, 5G compatible devices will be compatible with LPP.
However, a key question remains: will location servers be included as standard components of the
new network infrastructure for 5G? or will it remain optional as it is the case in 4G LTE today?
This question remains open today as the standardisation process is not completed and will be of
critical importance for the future of mobile location in Europe and the role of MNOs.
5
ITU towards “IMT for 2020 and beyond”, http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/study-groups/rsg5/rwp5d/imt-
2020/Pages/default.aspx
6
EUROPE IS GETTING WORRIED ABOUT 5G PROGRESS, https://5g.co.uk/news/europe-worried-5g-
progress/4057/
7
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/research-standards
39/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
While 5G might enable a more accurate and ubiquitous location under such conditions, a
significant share of the benefits for emergency caller location precision improvements can today be
generated in rural areas. If the location server are not standard components, MNOs might not
implement them as it is the case today, and no benefit could be generated for emergency caller
location.
If location servers become mandatory parts of the 5G infrastructure, it would allow for a viable
network-based location alternative to the handset based scenarios considered, but would still take
a significant amount of time for the coverage to 100% of the population, justifying the need for
handset-based location solutions in the meantime.
Consequently, we anticipate that handset-based location method will remain a valid alternative
over the next decade. Thus, given the high level of uncertainty around it and the unclear benefits
for emergency caller location in the first years, we have kept 5G outside of the scope of this CBA.
5.6 EVOLUTION OF PSAP SYSTEMS
5.6.1 Ability to receive and display location data

If technologies available at the handset side are a key factor to take into account for the design of
the HELP112 solution, so is the ability for PSAPs to receive the positioning data and interpret them
correctly.
As stated in HELP112 deliverable D1.2, from the 28 Member States:
 19 Member States use GIS (Geographic Information Systems) in all PSAPs,
 6 Member States use GIS in some PSAPs,
 3 Member States do not use GIS.
Additionally, based on primary research conducted by EENA, from the 28 Member States:
 16 Member States use Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) systems in all PSAPs,
 6 Member States use CAD systems in some PSAPs,
 6 Member States do not use CAD systems,
 19 Member States are able to receive 112 SMSs in all PSAPs,
 1 Member States is able to receive 112 SMSs in some PSAPs,
 8 Member States are not able to receive 112 SMSs.
Finally, under the eCall mandate framework, PSAPs should be able to receive eCalls by April 2018.
Nevertheless, the eCall system proposed for vehicles is not exactly the same as the one that could
be used for HELP112, as detailed in Deliverable D3.1.
It should be noted that whatever the transmission method selected for user plane scenarios (SMS,
Data Channel (IP or IMS/SIP) or Voice Channel (Personal eCall)), a custom integration would be
required at PSAP level in order to receive, analyse, and present the HELP112 location information
transmitted by the phone.
40/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
5.6.2 Ability to centralize HELP112 location data at national level

Another key criterion that will impact the implementation on the HELP112 solution is the PSAP
model in place at country level.
According to EENA, most EU countries follow one of the 6 following models8 to handle emergency
calls placed to 112.
Table 3 - Major PSAP models in Europe
1 – EROs handling emergency calls 2 – Filtering Stage 1 PSAP and resource
dispatching Stage 2 PSAPs
3 – Data gathering Stage 1, resource 4 – Data gathering Stage 1, resource

dispatching by Stage 2 dispatching by Stage 2 in an integrated
control room
5 – ERO independent PSAPs Variant – Interconnected PSAPs
Source: EENA
Based on analysis from data gathered by EENA, most EU Member States have applied model 1 and
model 3, as detailed below:
8
Public Safety Answering Points in Europe, 2015 Edition, November 2015, www.eena.org
41/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
Model Number of Member States
Model 1 10
Model 2 3
Model 3 9
Model 4 3
Model 5 3
Depending on the model followed in a particular country, the amount of custom development
required to be able to receive, store and display the HELP112 location data will vary.
For instance, in countries following model 3 (e.g. the UK) and already capable of receiving 112
SMSs, the additional work is minimal. According to British Telecom, since there was already a
central location data hub as well as the capability to receive SMSs at the central Stage 1 PSAPs,
only an upgrade of systems to recognize HELP112 SMSs, clean and extract the location was
necessary. For stage 2 PSAPs, the process is transparent and they continue to request the
locations to the Stage 1 location hub as they used to with the Cell-ID locations.
However, in countries following model 1 like Austria or Belgium, the situation is more complex.
PSAPs request their locations directly from the networks and there is no central location data hub
available at country level. Several options would then be possible in order to get handset-based
location data, including:
i. Upgrading all Stage 2 PSAPs to receive and integrate HELP112 location data to their
workflows
ii. Creating a central location data hub at network level,
iii. Creating a central location data hub in a Stage 2 PSAP (or in another public
infrastructure) that will act as the national data repository,
iv. Creating a central location data hub at EU level. Minimal effort would be required at
local level, mainly changing the address of the server from which the location is requested.
Option i. would be the costliest to implement due the duplication of effort at every stage 2 PSAP,
and should consequently not be chosen.
Option ii. would enable a rapid implementation of PSAP level since they would still request location
at network level but would require involvement from every MNO in each country to set-up a
central location server or update their servers to receive Help112 location data.
Option iii. would require investment from governments to implement the central server, but this
would but a scaled implementation benefiting all stage 2 PSAPs at national level.
Finally, option iv. would make the most sense at technical level since it would enable significant a
cost savings by implementing a central emergency call location hub for all EU Member States
willing to participate. Since the location data is most often requested by stage 2 PSAPs using HTTP
requests, no additional technical complexity would be introduced by the international nature of this
option for PSAPs. To enable SMS transmission in that context, additional complexity would be
introduced by the fact that the SMS would need to be routed in a foreign country for 27 out of 28
42/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
countries. In addition, challenges are likely to arise at regulatory level, with each country’s
regulation for data storage.
43/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
6. BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF THE LOCATION TECHNOLOGIES
This section will describe the methodology used to estimate the benefits for the location
components, the main inputs impacting the benefits, as well as the results in term of cost savings
and lives saved.
Using HELP112 deliverable D1.2, we analysed the expected improvements to be brought by each
technology scenario. To do so, we followed 4 steps:
 Evaluation of the expected improvements,
 Quantification of the impact of the expected improvements,
 Identification of the economic benefits,
 Description of the non-economic benefits for each stakeholder.
6.1 METHODOLOGY TO ESTIMATE THE BENEFITS

In order to estimate the benefits for each technology scenario, we relied on a 3-step methodology:
1. Estimate the total yearly number of emergency calls that will benefit from the HELP112
emergency caller location solution,
2. Evaluate the benefits in terms of minutes saved in the emergency call chain of events,
3. Quantify the monetary value of the decrease in emergency response time, as well as the
number of lives saved.
The diagram below presents the key inputs used in each of the 3 steps.
Figure 15 - High-level methodology to estimate the location benefits
Source: PTOLEMUS
44/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
6.2 EMERGENCY CALLS BENEFITING FROM THE HELP112 SOLUTION
6.2.1 Total number of mobile emergency calls

Before estimating the number of emergency calls that can benefit from automated emergency
caller location, we first forecasted the number of emergency calls made from mobile phones in the
European Union.
On the basis of the data reported by member states in the 112 COCOM report with regard to calls
made to 112 and further figures extrapolated by EENA and PTOLEMUS, 285 million emergency
calls were placed in 2015 in total9. A large majority (79%) of these calls were placed from
mobile phones.
Figure 16 – Number of emergency calls made from mobile phones in the EU (thousand)
Source: PTOLEMUS estimates based on data from COCOM 16-01 and EENA
We expect the number of mobile emergency calls to continue to increase from about 230 million
in 2016 to more than 270 million by 2025, mainly driven by:
 Population growth,
 The increased penetration of mobile phones particularly in the below 18 and above 60-year
old age categories,
9
The number of mobile emergency calls is not available for all EU countries. Based on available data points, we
computed an average number of mobile emergency call that we used to estimate the number of mobile emergency
calls for countries that did not communicate the right data points.
45/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
 The increased use of mobile vs. landline phones.
6.2.2 Distribution of the emergency calls along the use cases

Based on information gathered from the Help112 project stakeholders, the emergency calls have
been distributed alongside the use cases defined in deliverable D1.2.
The uses cases were defined by combining 2 variables, namely the location type (urban,
suburban, rural) and sky visibility (clear, partial, no sky visibility). These two variables have been
identified as the ones having the most direct impact on the availability and precision of the location
technologies studied in the CBA.
Given that no statistics are available from PSAPs and Member States on the breakdown of calls by
location type, we have assumed that it follows the distribution of population in the EU.
We estimate that at European level, about 42% of the emergency calls are made in an urban
environment, 36% in a suburban environment, and 22% in a rural environment. We have also
assumed that the call distribution will not significantly change over the next years.
In the absence of relevant data, PTOLEMUS has made assumptions related to the share of calls
made in clear, partial and no sky visibility. We notably extrapolated evidences brought by BT’s AML
data in the UK, as it collects the technology used for positioning. We assume that most calls using
Wi-Fi have been made indoors.
Figure 17 - Distribution of emergency calls by use case
Source: PTOLEMUS estimates based on Eurostat population information
6.2.3 Estimate of emergency calls benefiting from HELP112 solution

Not all mobile emergency calls would benefit from the improvement of emergency caller location
solutions. As a consequence, we will not consider benefits for the following types of calls:
 False calls,
 eCalls, which are already located,
 Calls not related to an actual emergency.
46/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
In total, these calls are estimated to represent as much as 68% of all mobile emergency calls and
we do not expect this share to change significantly in the coming years.
We have assumed that benefits can arise on all other call types. Thanks to interviews with the pilot
PSAPs (Austria, Italy, Lithuania and the UK), we know that in most cases the caller can
communicate his/her location; however, increased location accuracy always saves time in the call
handling process. Indeed, with precise location in hand, the operator should only validate the
caller’s location.
Additionally, there is a small share of calls in which the caller is neither able to communicate his
location properly nor able to communicate at all. In these cases, the benefits will not only apply to
the time saved on the call, but also to the time saved in the ‟On-scene” arrival time. We will detail
this analysis in the following section.
Thus, as seen in Figure 18 below, we estimate that the total number of addressable
emergency calls for HELP112 solution will range from 73 million in 2016 to 85 million
in 2025.
Figure 18 - Number of mobile emergency calls benefiting from HELP112 (thousand)
Source: PTOLEMUS
6.3 EVALUATION OF THE EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS PER ADDRESSABLE CALL

As previously mentioned in the methodology, in order to quantify the benefits, we first assessed
how the emergency caller location solution can impact the emergency calls. We then evaluated the
availability and accuracy of the location technology components and combined them in order to
determine expected improvements for each scenario in terms of time saved. Finally, we quantified
the time saving and estimated the number of lives saved in the European Union.
6.3.1 Impact of emergency caller location solution on the emergency call

chain of event
Based on an analysis of the emergency call chain of events described below in Figure 19, we
identified two steps that will most benefit from emergency caller solutions.
47/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
Figure 19 – The emergency call chain of events
Source: PTOLEMUS research and analysis

The main steps of the emergency call chain of events are described below:
 Call processing time

The processing time actually starts as soon as the emergency call is received by the call-taker.
His/her objective is to determine the caller's location, the main complaint/incident and the
action required by the emergency organisation such as the category of resource (i.e.
paramedic, advanced paramedic, armed police response, traffic police) and vehicle that must
be dispatched (i.e. ambulance, helicopter, motorbike, etc.)10.
An improved emergency caller location solution could significantly impact the call processing
time by reducing the time needed to identify the caller’s location, especially when the caller is
a foreigner, is lost or can’t talk due to their current health condition or others.
We assumed that the benefits in call processing time are considered for 100% of addressable
calls.
 Mobilisation time
The mobilisation time is the time taken for the allocated resource to prepare and depart the
base, and begins when the notification to mobilise is sent by the emergency dispatcher11.
We assumed that emergency caller location solutions would not bring significant benefits in the
mobilisation time.
10
EENA Operations document, “Assessing meaningful response time”, 21-07-2014
11
EENA Operations document, “Assessing meaningful response time”, 21-07-2014
48/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
 Driving time
In the context of the HELP112 project, we defined driving time as the time between the
moment the first emergency vehicle is out and the time they arrive at the centre of the
location received from the automated caller location solution.
Therefore, we assumed that emergency caller location solutions would not bring significant
benefits in the driving time.
 “On-scene” arrival time

“On-scene” arrival time is defined as the time taken for the emergency workforce to move
from the centre of the location received from the automated caller location solution to the
actual location of the emergency. This time interval can be null if the location received is fully
accurate, or be very lengthy in certain cases (for instance in the case when a 5 km Cell-ID
location range is received).
By improving the precision, and consequently the accuracy of the caller location, significant
benefits will be generated by emergency caller location solutions in the “on-scene” arrival time.
Benefits in on-scene arrival time are considered for 0.4% of addressable calls, since they
correspond to:
 The share of calls for which the caller is not able to give a location at all
 The share of calls for which the caller provides a location that it is not useful
To compute this figure, we used information from the PSAPs of the UK and Lithuania. We then
validated the figures by interviewing PSAPs from the UK, Lithuania, Italy and Estonia. We
reviewed that the results of our model, in terms of number of cases, time saved and number of
lives saved, are representative of those that they receive in their regular operations.
In the UK for instance, it has been reported that 33,000 events over a year involved a search
time longer than 30 minutes. Those cases will most benefit from the increase in precision
enabled by an improved caller location solution.
 Emergency intervention
The emergency intervention time starts at the moment when the emergency workforce
reaches the actual location of the emergency. The intervention ends as soon as the rescue
work ends.
We have conservatively assumed that emergency caller location solutions would not bring a
meaningful reduction in the emergency intervention time.
6.3.2 Availability and precision of technology components

To estimate the impact of the HELP112 emergency caller location solution on the response time
(call processing time and “on-scene” arrival time), we first assessed the performance of the
location components involved in the 8 technology scenarios considered.
Based on inputs from the deliverables D1.2 & D3.1, we assessed each of the location technology
components in terms of availability and accuracy in the use cases detailed in D1.2.
49/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
Figure 20 – Estimated availability of location technology components

Use cases
Location type Rural Suburban Urban
Sky visibility Clear Partial No Clear Partial No Clear Partial No

Location technology components
Cell ID 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Enhanced NBL - Control plane 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Enhanced NBL - User plane 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
A-GPS 97% 70% 0% 97% 60% 0% 97% 65% 0%
A-GNSS 99% 75% 0% 99% 70% 0% 99% 73% 0%
E-GNSS 100% 80% 0% 100% 75% 0% 100% 78% 0%
Wi-Fi 0% 15% 60% 0% 45% 75% 0% 45% 80%
Source: PTOLEMUS estimates based on analysis of UK AML data and secondary research
These availability figures take into account the need for data connectivity to obtain assistance data
since they are based on an analysis of real life AML results in the UK.
Based on discussions with HELP112 consortium members as well as interviews with chipsets
manufacturers, we assumed that the use of Galileo could bring an increase in availability of up to
5% in challenging environments such as leafy forest in rural areas or deep urban canyons.
Additionally, it is expected to increase accuracy in clear and partial sky visibility in all location
types.
Figure 21 – Estimated accuracy of location technology components (meter)
Use cases
Location type Rural Suburban Urban
Sky visibility Clear Partial No Clear Partial No Clear Partial No

Location technology components
Cell ID 5000 5000 5000 1500 1500 1500 500 500 500
Enhanced NBL - Control plane 1304 1421 1703 329 406 476 121 138 161
Enhanced NBL - User plane 1304 1421 1703 329 406 476 121 138 161
A-GPS 3.1 6.4 6.4 14.5 6.4 14.5
A-GNSS 3.0 6.1 6.1 12.9 6.1 12.9
E-GNSS 2.9 6.0 6.0 12.0 6.0 12.0
Wi-Fi 43.9 66.3 43.9 46.9 35.2 25.0
50/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
6.3.3 Average time saved depending on the location precision

Thanks to interviews conducted with PSAPs in the UK, Lithuania, Estonia and Italy, we were able
to model the impact of the location accuracy on the call processing time and the “on-scene” arrival
time.
6.3.3.1 Call processing time
We have assumed that the relationship between location accuracy and the additional call
processing time follows a first-order linear equation.
According to the analysis of East of England ambulance service (NHS) of their data, it takes on
average 30 seconds more for call taker in order to get the main complaints and location for mobile
calls when compared to landline/fixed calls. This difference increases to 42 seconds on average for
total call length. Additionally, it takes more than 3.5 minutes of extra questions for
stressed/injured victims (about 10% of the calls).
Furthermore, we assumed that on average mobile calls made in rural areas were more likely to
involve a longer call processing time since it is harder for the caller to precisely identify his
position.
Consequently, we used the following assumptions to define the relationship between call
processing time and precision.
Precision radius
5,000 3,250 1,000 275 35 5
(m)
Additional call
processing time 52.8 30.0 12.8 5.3 3.1 2.9
(seconds)
6.3.3.2 “On-scene” arrival time
Regarding “on-scene” arrival time, data from East of England ambulance service (NHS) indicates
that more than 33,000 events per year involve a search time greater than 30 minutes. In addition,
several cases in Italy and Lithuania actually involve several hours of search.
Based on these inputs and conversation with PSAPs in Italy, Lithuania and the UK, PTOLEMUS
estimated the average additional search time required when the caller is not able to provide his
location.
We assumed that the relationship between location precision and time to find the actual location of
the event would follow an exponential equation. Indeed, the area that needs to be searched by
rescue services follows a second order relationship with the radius defined by the precision of the
location. We also assumed an average search speed per square meter of emergency operations
staff that increases proportionally to the precision radius. This takes into account both the number
and type of resources deployed to undertake the search (number of staff, types of vehicle, etc.).
Our model estimates benefits generated by avoiding personal injury (death, severe and mild
injuries), and by avoiding damage made to property and environment. In order to remain
conservative, we assumed that decreasing the additional time taken to search for the caller could
not bring benefits tied to the personal injury category greater than the value of the statistical cost
51/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
of a life. After this threshold, only benefits for avoided damage on property and environment are
taken into account.
As a result, the following inputs were considered:
Precision radius
5,000 3,250 1,000 275 35 5
(m)
Additional search
4.51 3.81 0.72 0.03 0.002 0.00
time (hours)
Although these figures could seem high, benefits in on-scene arrival time are considered for 0.4%
of addressable calls, since it corresponds to the share of calls for which the caller is not able to
give a location at all or provides a location that it is not useful. As mentioned before, this share has
been estimated based on an analysis of call data from PSAPs in the Estonia, Lithuania, Italy and
the UK. Through interviews with PSAPs in Italy and Lithuania, we validated the high level inputs
taken at this stage.
6.3.4 Average time saved for location technology components

By combining the availability and precision of each location technology with the average time
saved depending on the precision, we estimated for each location technology components the
average number of minutes saved per addressable call.
Figure 22 - Average time saved per call - Enhanced network-based location
(minutes)
On average, enhancing the network-based location could save from 5 seconds to almost 72
seconds depending on the use case.
52/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
Figure 23 - Average time saved per call – Cell-ID A-GPS

(minutes)
As seen in Figure 23, in environments without sky visibility, no improvements to Cell-ID will be
achieved, when only single-constellation A-GPS is available, without any Wi-Fi location.
Figure 24 - Average time saved per call – Cell-ID A-GNSS Wi-Fi
(minutes)
However, multi-constellation GNSS chipset can bring additional benefits in time in environments
with partial sky-visibility, and Wi-Fi location has a significant impact due to its availability in indoor
53/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
environments. Time saved with A-GNSS and Wi-Fi capability ranges from 6 seconds to more than
90 seconds.
Figure 25 - Average time saved per call – Cell-ID A-GNSS Wi-Fi Enhanced NBL (User plane)
(minutes)
Compared to the previous scenario, the addition of the user plane implementation of enhanced
network-based location mostly improve rural use cases where a GNSS or Wi-Fi location is not
available. Examples of such cases include deep forest environments.
Figure 26 - Average time saved per call – Cell-ID E-GNSS (including Galileo) Wi-Fi
(minutes)
54/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
As seen in Figure 26 above, compared to the scenario without Galileo, time saved per addressable
when Wi-Fi and multi-constellation chipsets including Galileo will enable a slight improvement in
use cases with partial sky visibility (corresponding to less than 10 seconds in rural locations).
When the emergency caller solution integrates the user plane implementation of
enhanced network-based location, the cell-ID location is improved for all calls. In consequence, if
the use of Galileo-enabled chipsets will further increase the benefits, the magnitude of increase
due to Galileo will be less significant.
Figure 27 - Average time saved per call – Cell-ID E-GNSS Wi-Fi Enhanced NBL (User plane)
(minutes)
Finally, comparing time saved for enhanced-network based location with and without the A-GNSS
control plane implementation enable us to estimate additional benefits of combining handset based
location with network-based location. As seen in Figure 28 below, combining enhanced network-
based location solutions with the A-GNSS control plane implementation could save from 5 seconds
to almost 92 seconds depending on the use case.
Finally, irrespective of the location technology considered, the share of time saved generated in
“on-scene” arrival time varies from around 60% in urban areas with clear sky visibility to almost
70% in rural areas with clear sky visibility.
55/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
Figure 28 - Average time saved per call – Enhanced network-based location A-GNSS
(control plane)
(minutes)
6.3.5 Evaluation of the impact of expected benefits

Using availability and precision inputs, as well as the relationship between location precision in
time saved in call processing time and “on-scene” arrival time, we computed for each scenario the
average time saved for an “addressable call” (i.e. a call for which benefits should be considered, as
described in section 6.2.3).
Then we estimated the time value of a minute in response time for emergency services, taking
into account personal injuries (death, severe & mild injuries) as well as damage to made property
and environment.
6.3.6 The time value of a minute in response time for emergency services
To estimate the time value of a minute in response time for emergency services, we extrapolated
the results of a research conducted in Sweden on the time value of a minute in fire & rescue
services12 to the European Union and other emergency response organizations.
Based on a detailed split of emergency events shared by the Lithuanian PSAPs, we estimated the
time-value of a minute for each type of emergency by extrapolating the available data for Fire and
Rescue services in Sweden featured in the following table.
12
The importance of the time factor in fire and rescue service operations in Sweden, Henrik Jaldell, 2004
56/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
Table 4 – Time value of a minute in response time for fire and rescue events in Sweden
Time value Time value Time value
Fire & Rescue events
5 minutes in SEK 1 minute in SEK 1 minute in EUR
Fire in Building 137,800 27,560 2,967
Fire not in building 5,000 1,000 108
Traffic accident 86,200 17,240 1,856
Discharge of hazardous 3,900 780 84
Water damage 1,100 220 24
Storm damage 250 50 5
Drowning 267,900 53,580 5,769
Animal rescue 800 160 17
Landslide/Avalanche 14,200 2,840 306
Other municipal rescue services 26,300 5,260 566
of which medically related 31,300 6,260 674
False alarm/supposed fire/rescue 0 0 0
Automatic alarm (not fire) 0 0 0
Other assignment 13,000 2,600 280
- of which medical alarms 51,100 10,220 1,100
- of which emergency medical alarms 19,900 3,980 429

Source: The importance of the time factor in fire and rescue service operations in Sweden, Henrik Jaldell, 2004
As a result, we obtained an average time-value of a minute in response time for all emergency
services of €462 for Sweden.
To extrapolate the time value of a minute at EU level, we weighted the Sweden value for all
emergency services by the GDP of EU countries and the number of mobile emergency calls in each
country.
As a result, the following inputs were used to quantify the benefits in monetary terms:
 Time value of a minute in response time for emergency services: €271
 Split of the time value of minute:
 Personal injury (death, severe injuries, mild injuries): 89%
 Damage to property and the environment: 11%
 Statistical cost of a life: € 1,344,04313
13
Weighted average of individual EU countries based on Bickel et al, 2006
57/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
It should be noted that our assumption for the time value of a minute is an average that does not
take into account the varying size of the workforce dispatched and varying cost of operating this
workforce.
6.3.7 Valuation of the benefits

Finally, by combining the time saved for each location technology component with the time value
of a minute, we were able to compute the total yearly cost savings.
The benefits take into account the time saved in call processing time and “on-scene” arrival time,
and are estimating cost savings related to both personal injuries and damage to property and
environment avoided.
As recommended by the European Commission Impact assessment guidelines, we used the
standard 4% discount rate for impacts that occur in the future.
At this stage, the impact of the transmission method is not considered, nor are the costs related to
each technology scenario.
Figure 29 summarises the net present value of the total benefits generated for the society over a
10-year period, in million Euros.
Figure 29 – NPV of benefits for the location technology components
(€ million, 2015-2025)
Source: PTOLEMUS
Several insights can be extracted from these results:

 Improving the emergency caller location solution can bring potential benefits valued
between €64 billion and €90 billion over the next 10 years,
 Around 90% of the value of the benefits is linked to lives saved and personal injuries
avoided
 Handset-based caller location solutions leveraging technologies commonly available in
smartphones today can significantly improve network-based locations, providing higher
benefits overall,
58/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
 Solution relying on multi-constellation GNSS chipsets and Wi-Fi enable a 32% increase in
benefits generated compared to single constellation chipsets without Wi-Fi,
 The user plane implementation of enhanced network-based location techniques can bring
between 5% and 6% increase in the total benefits NPV,
 Using Galileo-enabled chipsets in combination with Wi-Fi brings a significant improvement
over A-GPS (34%), but a more marginal improvement over other scenarios with multi-
constellation GNSS chipsets (slightly above 1% increase in benefits generated),
 Implementing a control plane enhanced network-based location solution also brings
significant benefits since it enables the improvement of more calls, especially non-
smartphone calls, and also improves cases where a GNSS or Wi-Fi location cannot be
acquired.
Comparing the technology scenarios selected, we can see that the highest level of benefits, almost
€90 billion distributed over 10 years (an average of almost €9 billion per year), can be achieved in
scenario 7, by including multi constellation Galileo-enabled GNSS chipsets together with Wi-Fi
capability and the enhanced network-based location with user plane implementation as a safety
net. This does not come as a surprise as it essentially enables the improvement of locations in
open-air environments thanks to GNSS, indoor environments thanks to Wi-Fi, and still provide an
enhanced network-based location when other methods are not available.
As seen in Figure 30 below, on average 33% of the benefits generated will come from time saved
on the call processing time for all mobile calls, by shortening the time required for the PSAP call
operators to get the main complaint and location of the emergency.
However, on average 66% of the benefits generated will come from time saved on “On-scene”
arrival time, by providing a location for calls that would otherwise have limited location information
(estimated at 0.4% of addressable calls) thus eliminating additional search time on site.
Figure 30 - Breakdown of NPV of benefits by nature of time saved
(€ million, 2015-2025)
Source: PTOLEMUS
Using the statistical value of a life mentioned in section 6.3.6 we estimated the number of lives
saved thanks to the HELP112 solution over the next 10 years. This estimate is directly linked to the
share of the time value of a minute corresponding to personal injuries (death, severe and mild
59/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
injuries) to which we combined the share of life-critical events in emergency services. Indeed, the
time value of a minute in response time is directly driven by the statistical probability of death
occurring in each type of emergency event.
Leveraging inputs from the eCall impact assessment, we estimated the ratio lives saved to injuries
mitigated at about 10%.
As a result, we estimate that up to 7,978 lives could be saved at EU level over the next 10
years. In other words, this represents 28 lives saved in each European Union country every year.
Figure 31 - Number of lives saved at EU level (2015-2025)
Source: PTOLEMUS
60/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
7. BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSMISSION TECHNOLOGIES
As mentioned in section 4, the ability of the PSAPs to receive the positioning dataset will depend
on the technology evolution and their investment in the systems needed to receive the caller
location. This situation will affect the share of calls that can actually be improved over the next 10
years. This section will describe the additional delay involved with the implementation of each
transmission method considered. It is important to note that several transmission methods could
be used in parallel.
7.1 NETWORK TRANSMISSION

Network transmission is the current transmission method used by MNOs to deliver Cell-ID locations
in the EU. Thus, our base case assumes that all PSAPs in the EU can receive Cell-ID locations
relying on network transmission.
Since scenarios 2 and 8 are also relying on network transmission, the improved locations are
delivered to the PSAPs in the same manner than Cell-ID today, without needing further
investments at PSAP level.
Therefore, in these cases, the transmission method will not impact the benefits and we assume
100% of the locations can be received by the PSAPs without the need for modifications.
However, in order to enable enhanced-network based solutions as in scenarios 2 and 8, MNOs in
EUs would need to provision an integrated node or nodes in the mobile network (called GMLC,
SMLC/SAS/E-SMLC for 2G, 3G and 4G respectively) to support the specific range of messages and
functions in-line with the 3GPP standardised network infrastructure for location services. To model
those scenarios, we assumed that under the assumption that MNOs would be actively engaged in
the upgrade of their systems, 5 years would be needed, following the adoption curve presented:
Figure 32 - Share of users on networks equipped with enhanced location solutions
Source: PTOLEMUS and Creativity Software estimates
61/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
7.2 SMS
There are several advantages for the SMS transmission:
 Can be sent from any mobile phone,
 Can be sent even if the data channel is disabled,
 Can be easily 0-rated (given away) by MNOs,
 The level of investment for PSAPs to receive SMSs is relatively low.
However, several drawbacks have also been identified:

 Complex infrastructure required to handle roaming situations,
 Reliability cannot be guaranteed (SMSs can be delayed or lost),
 The amount of information shared is constrained by the SMS size.
The main impact of SMS transmission on benefits is the delay required for PSAPs to be able to
receive SMSs and integrate the locations to their existing systems.
Based on current AML implementations and trials, as well as interest shown by Member States, we
have assumed that the share of PSAPs able to receive HELP112 SMSs would follow the adoption
curve depicted in Figure 33 below under voluntary adoption assumptions.
Figure 33 - Share of PSAPs able to receive HELP112 SMSs
Source: PTOLEMUS estimates

In other words, we assume that PSAPs could all be ready to receive HELP112 SMSs in the next 5
years.
Additionally, we have considered that all mobile phones will retain the capability to send SMS
messages over the next 10 years.
62/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
7.3 DATA CHANNEL (HTTPS)

As a reminder, here are the main advantages and drawbacks of HTTPS transmission:
Advantages:
 HTTPS enables increased security and privacy thanks to data encryption,
 Additional data such as photo/video can be sent,
 The level of investment for PSAPs to receive data is low (similar to SMS).
Drawbacks:
 Requires data to be activated in mobile phones,
 0-rating data packets can prove more challenging than for SMSs,
 This may result in charges for the end users.
The main impact of HTTPS transmission on benefits is the time required for PSAPs to set up
HTTPS servers to receive the HELP112 data (HTTPS POST requests) and integrate the locations to
their existing systems.
Also we took into account the share of phones with data enabled at the time of the call. We expect
that this share will significantly increase in the coming years thanks to EU initiatives for the Digital
Single Market (e.g. the abolition of extra roaming charges mandate starting from 15 June 2017),
the growing penetration of smartphones and the continually decreasing cost of the Mbyte
transmitted on mobile networks enabled by more spectrum efficient technologies (3G, 4G and in
the future, 5G).
Figure 34 highlights PTOLEMUS assumption for the time taken for PSAPs to implement the
capability to receive and integrate HELP112 HTTPS messages.
Figure 34 - Share of PSAPs able to receive HELP112 HTTPS messages
63/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
7.4 DATA CHANNEL (IMS/SIP)

As mentioned in 5.5, some countries have started transitioning to all-IP networks, and are
progressively adopting VoLTE. PSAPs will also have to become “IMS/SIP-ready” in order to be able
to handle Voice on IP calls. In this process, they should plan for the ability to receive the
standardised “network” location in 3GPP release 11.
Although the HELP112 location data can be sent to the PSAPs in the SIP invite message, PSAPs
would need an additional effort in order to handle the HELP112 format and integrate the location
with their existing systems.
Advantages
 Follows standardized IMS/SIP communication protocols,
 No additional infrastructure for the location of roaming callers,
 Additional data can be sent,
 No need for 0-rating since the location is sent during the standard call establishment
process,
 Privacy & security.
Drawbacks
 The penetration of IMS networks is still low today,
 VoLTE-enabled (IMS-enabled) phones are mostly high-end smartphones today,
 PSAPs need to become IMS-ready, and an additional effort is required to handle HELP112
location data transmitted via IMS/SIP.
Figure 35 highlights PTOLEMUS assumption for the time taken for PSAPs to implement the IMS/SIP
capability and integrate HELP112 location data sent through IMS/SIP messages.
Figure 35 - Share of PSAPs able to receive HELP112 IMS/SIP messages
64/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
7.5 VOICE CHANNEL (PERSONAL ECALL)

The use of the voice channel to transmit the 112 location requires phones to be equipped with an
in-band modem capability.
If this method is selected, handset manufacturers will have to integrate this software component
to their new mobile phones sold. That would directly impact the benefits since only new phones
sold in the EU would benefit from the 112 caller location solution.
We described below the main advantages and drawbacks:
Advantages
 Can leverage the existing eCall-infrastructure deployed in PSAPs by 2018 (only on those
countries where PSAPs will take both: eCalls and 112 calls).
Drawbacks
 Call interruption to transmit location and additional call time required (From 4 to 20
seconds),
 Need for standard modification in order to define a new eCall flag for E112 calls,
 Requires further upgrades of PSAP systems to receive and identify E112 eCalls vs. normal
eCalls,
 Handset manufacturers will have to integrate the in-band modem capability to their new
mobile phones sold
 More CPU-intensive, thus battery consuming than other alternatives like SMS or data
channel.
Figure 36 highlights PTOLEMUS assumption for the time taken for PSAPs to modify their eCall
systems to identify and integrate HELP112 location data sent through the voice channel.
Figure 36 - Share of PSAPs able to receive HELP112 location with Personal eCall

In addition, we estimated that using the voice channel as a transmission method would add on
average 10 seconds to the call processing time, to account for the time taken by the modem to
65/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
connect and transfer the data. Thus, this generates a negative impact on potential benefits
generated.
7.6 IMPACT OF TRANSMISSION METHODS ON BENEFITS

As stated in section 3, the impact of the transmission method on the benefits is independent from
the actual location technology component considered.
When considering the transmission components, the total benefits are reduced mostly due to the
fact that PSAPs will take time to implement the necessary infrastructure to receive the HELP112
locations, thereby delaying the magnitude of these benefits at European Union level.
As reported in D1.3 ”20 EU Member States provide SMS access to emergency services, while 10
countries provide SMS access to 112”, thus we can assume that for most PSAPs, little will be
required to develop the capability to receive HELP112 SMSs. We believe that the SMS transmission
can have the fastest adoption rate in PSAPs and consequently the least reduction in total benefits.
As described in 6.3 and reported in D1.2, fewer PSAPs are able to receive HTTPS messages today
and data needs to be enabled at the phone level in order to send the location.
Although transmission over IMS-SIP appears the most future-proof solution, the current maturity
of IMS networks and IMS-enabled phone penetration forces us to believe that focusing on other
alternatives would bring more benefits in the short term.
Regarding transmission using the voice, the negative impact on the benefit is significant. Besides,
other factors such as the impact on the user experience or battery consumption further
disadvantage that alternative.
Consequently, to illustrate the impact of transmission methods, we calculated in Figure 37 below
the variation of the location benefits for scenario 7, in the following situations:
 First, without taking the transmission method into consideration
 Then, with each possible transmission method
Figure 37 – Impact of each transmission component on location benefits
(€ million, 2015-2025)
Source: PTOLEMUS
66/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
In conclusion, without considering the costs at this stage, relying on SMS as a transmission
method would allow the generation of the most benefits.
Finally, Figure 38 below details the total benefits for each technology scenario considered over a
10-year period.
Figure 38 – NPV of total benefits of technology scenarios

(€ billion, 2015-2025)
Source: PTOLEMUS
67/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
8. COST ANALYSIS OF THE LOCATION TECHNOLOGIES
In the cost analysis, we follow the same approach as in the benefit analysis. The location and
transmission technologies have been first analysed separately and then combined to estimate the
costs for each technology scenario.
This section will describe the methodology used to conduct the cost analysis and to estimate the
costs for the location and transmission technologies, the main components impacting the costs as
well as the results of the cost analysis for each location technology specified in section 4.1.1.
The result of the cost analysis for the transmission technologies will be described in section 9.
8.1 COST ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

The cost analysis for both location and transmission technologies, has been conducted according
to the following methodology:
For each scenario:
1. Based on HELP112 deliverable D3.2, we have identified the architectural components for
the location and transmission technologies supporting the technology scenarios identified in
section 4.2,
2. We have distributed the costs of the location and transmission technologies to the
stakeholders in the emergency process chain,
3. We have identified the main worldwide suppliers of the architectural components,
4. We have conducted intense primary research to compare the costs of the architectural
components (benchmark cost analysis),
5. We have interviewed the main suppliers to confirm/adjust the estimated costs,
6. We have calculated the additional CAPEX and OPEX needed to enable the use of the
solution,
7. The identified costs are given with a “Preliminary estimate”, with a margin of error of about
+35% to -15%,
8. We have integrated the estimated costs and benefits for CBA analysis,
9. Finally, we have calculated the Net Present Value (NPV) for the different scenarios for a
time frame of 10 years.
In this section, we describe the cost analysis of the location technologies.
68/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
8.2 COST ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS

As previously stated, the main stakeholders of the emergency call value chain are: the handset
manufacturers, the OS providers, the Mobile Network Operators, the PSAPs and Public Authorities.
 Number of MNOs
For the purpose of the analysis we have considered 112 MNOs, using GSMA’ MNOs per country
figures.
 Number of PSAPs
The configuration of the PSAPs in the EU 28 countries is very fragmented; however, for the
purpose of the cost analysis at this stage, we have assumed that each country could install the
infrastructure needed to receive the HELP112 data in a single location/PSAP and provide the
information to the rest of the PSAPs. More details can be found in section 5.6.2. We believe it is
not only the most cost-efficient method, but also achievable from an organisational and technical
perspective.
 Number of handset manufacturers

According to StatCounter GlobalStats14 mobile phone vendor statistics, we have considered 30
handset manufacturers in our analysis.
 Number of mobile phone OS providers

According to StatCounter GlobalStats, the 4 leading mobile operating systems (Android, iOS,
Windows Mobile and Blackberry) represented 97.9% of all phones in Europe in June 2015,
therefore we have considered 4 OS providers for our analysis.
 Costs related to network, SMS, data and voice transmission

For the initial assessment of the costs, we have not considered the additional cost to transmit the
HELP112 location through data or voice channels for MNOs, nevertheless the cost of transmitting
the location through SMS will be included. As observed in Appendix A: cost to transmit the
HELP112 location through SMS, data or voice channels, the cost of sending the location through
data or voice channels is almost inexistent and completely offset by the time saved in the call
length.
Furthermore, as detailed in Appendix B: Roaming costs analysis , roaming costs for SMS, Voice
and Data transmission are assumed to be the same as the domestic cost.
 Costs related to data management
We adopted an analogous estimate using “analogy”, in other words we have compared the costs
of similar architectural components from other similar projects to the network architectural
components necessary to deploy HELP112 service. Finally, we have confirmed our costs
14
http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_vendor-eu-yearly-2010-2015
69/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
assessment by interviewing software architects and project managers with the knowledge and
experience to design analogous solutions15.
The costs related to the identified technological platforms strongly vary according to the following
factors:
▪ Chosen database (Big Data-NoSQL or SQL)
▪ Supplying type (Cloud, Dedicated, On Premise)
▪ Storage size
▪ Users numbers or API calls.
For the purpose of our cost analysis we assume a database SQL with the database in a
Datacentre. We include software, hardware and storage. Because of emergency service, we also
include monitor, control, back-up with long retention data and maintenance 24x7 services.
A solution in cloud is less expensive, but presents the following disadvantages: less data security,
vendor lock-in and limited control for the platform.
 Discount rate
We have followed the EU recommendations for impact assessment and used a 4% discount rate
for the NPV.
 Inflation rate
We have assumed that inflation will continue to remain insignificant at European level therefore
the assumed inflation rate is 0%.
15
A tool to estimate costs for software platforms is provided by IBM Bluemix: https://console.ng.bluemix.net/. Other
companies provide similar tools for digital platforms solution.
70/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
8.3 SUMMARY OF COSTS PER LOCATION METHOD

As result of the selection process for the location methods in section 4.1, we have identified the
location architectural components listed in Table 5.
From our analysis, the two location methods that include: Cell-ID, GNSS (assisted, and with or
without Galileo chipset), Wi-Fi and Enhanced NBL (User plane) require the involvement of almost
all stakeholders in the emergency call value chain. The additional cost due to the project
management and communication among the different stakeholders are excluded by the present
cost analysis.
Table 5 – Summary of costs per location method
Public
Location method Handset/OS Provider MNOs PSAPs
Authorities
 Network
infrastructure for
Enhanced NBL - Control plane
enhanced network-
based location
 HELP112 software
Cell-ID A-GPS
Cell-ID A-GNSS (without
Galileo) Wi-Fi
 HELP112 software  Provide and  Location solution

maintain a database to support user
Cell-ID A-GNSS Wi-Fi Enhanced
of base station plane
NBL (User plane)
locations implementation
of E-NBL
Cell-ID A-GNSS Wi-Fi Enhanced
NBL (User plane)
 HELP112 software  Provide and  Location solution

Cell-ID E-GNSS (incl Galileo) maintain a database to support user
Wi-Fi Enhanced NBL of base station plane
(User plane) locations implementation
of E-NBL
 Network
Enhanced network-based
infrastructure for
location - A-GNSS
enhanced network-
(Control plane)
based location
Details for each location method can be found in the following sections.
71/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
8.4 ENHANCED NETWORK-BASED LOCATION - CONTROL PLANE

The following table shows the additional efforts for the stakeholders in the chain required to
implement this scenario:
Table 6 – Upgrades required for Enhanced NBL – Control plane
Handset/OS Provider MNOs PSAPs Public Authorities
 Network infrastructure for

enhanced network-based
location
This scenario involves major investments at network level, and together with scenario 8 is the
scenario with the highest cost. As previously mentioned, mobile network operators will need to
provision an integrated node or nodes in the mobile network (called GMLC, SMLC/SAS/E-SMLC for
2G, 3G and 4G respectively) to support the specific range of messages and functions in-line with
the 3GPP standardised network infrastructure for location services. More information on the
network infrastructure required is available in HELP112 deliverable D1.2, section 7.
 MNOs: Based on inputs from Creativity Software, we estimate the cost of the MNOs’
location platform to support Control Plane at approximately €700,000 in CAPEX and
€150,000 in annual OPEX for each MNO, including support. The total cost for this
component takes into account the total number of MNOs in the EU.
8.5 CELL-ID – A-GPS

The most important component for this scenario in the location technology is the E112 software
that should be native on the smartphone. This application should be able to send the emergency
call with the required accuracy level for the location using the best location available technology.
Table 7 – Upgrades required for CELL-ID / A-GPS
Handset/OS provider MNOs PSAPs Public authorities
This component may be developed either by the handset manufacturer or by the phone Operating
System providers such as Google, Apple and Windows as native application.
The global leading OS providers are only few compared with the handset manufacturers. We
therefore suggest distributing the cost of HELP112 software to the phone OS providers thus
reducing the overall cost for this component.
 Phone OS providers: We assume that the HELP112 software should be able to use all
location technologies available on the smartphone. In this specific scenario, the location
method is the assisted GPS. However, the cost for this component is the same for all
identified location methods.
Based on secondary research and an interview of the Beta80 Group, who developed the
72/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
112 app in Italy, we estimate the cost of the HELP112 software to approximately €150,000
as CAPEX and €10,000 as annual OPEX, including testing, for each OS provider.
This estimate has been confirmed by Google, who developed Thunderbird, Google’s
implementation of AML in Android, with two software engineers in 2/3 month working part-
time. According to Google, one engineer could implement it in one-month full time. Some
on-going support is necessary to support the configuration of the software:
– Definition of the emergency numbers
– Configure end-points addresses: The Entity that will receive the location and
make it available to the PSAPs. Usually IP-addresses of central HELP112 location
data server (BT stage 1 PSAP in the UK)
8.6 CELL-ID – A-GNSS (WITHOUT GALILEO) – WI-FI

As for the previous location technology, the Cell-ID combined with the A-GNSS requires the
implementation of the HELP112 software on the smartphone.
Table 8 – Upgrades required for CELL-ID / A-GNSS (without Galileo) / WI-FI

Handset/OS MNOs PSAPs Public authorities
provider
 Phone OS providers: As for the previous scenario, we estimate the cost of the HELP112
software to approximately €150,000 as CAPEX and €10,000 as annual OPEX, including
testing, for each OS provider.
Notes: Using A-GNSS and Wi-Fi instead of A-GPS does not impact the HELP112 software
development, since a request is made to the phone’s location API, which delivers the best
location available.
As described in section 4.1, A-GNSS and Wi-Fi capabilities are already integrated in 85% of the
phones in the market today. Therefore, no additional chipset costs were taken into
consideration to implement the Cell-ID/A-GNSS/Wi-Fi location technology.
8.7 CELL-ID – A-GNSS (WITHOUT GALILEO) – WI-FI – ENHANCED NBL (USER

PLANE)
Due to the Enhanced NBL User Plane technology, this location technology presents impact across
most of the emergency chain.
73/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
Table 9 – Upgrades required for CELL-ID / A-GNSS (WITHOUT GALILEO) / WI-FI /

ENHANCED NBL (User plane)
 HELP112 software  Provide and maintain a  Location solution to
database of base support user plane
station locations implementation of E-
NBL
 Phone OS providers: In this case, a modification should be made to the HELP112

software and data format in order to send back a copy of Radio Network Measurement
Report to the location calculator in the PSAP to compute the enhanced NBL location. We
estimate the cost of the HELP112 software to approximately €180,000 as CAPEX and
€12,000 as annual OPEX, including testing, for each OS provider. 20% higher than for the
previous scenarios.
 MNOs: To support the user plane implementation of Enhanced NBL, a database of cell
tower’s locations should be provided and maintained by MNOs. This is estimated
approximately at €60,000 CAPEX and €12,000 annual OPEX per MNO. This cost would
cover the potential audit campaign to be conducted by MNOs to ensure that their database
of base stations is accurate. These estimates are based on our secondary research and
have been confirmed by interviews with subject-matter experts supplying technological
platforms to MNOs.
 PSAPs: In the user plane implementation of the enhanced network based location
described in HELP112 deliverable D3.1 (section 4.1.1.3), the location calculator is installed
where the central HELP112 location server is located, most likely at stage 1 PSAPs and is
not part of the network. The location is computed directly in the PSAPs. The associated
cost for the PSAP is estimated to be approximately €250,000 CAPEX and €60,000 annual
OPEX for PSAPs hosting the location server in the EU28.
8.8 CELL-ID – E-GNSS (INCLUDING GALILEO) – WI-FI

This location method integrates Galileo-enabled multi-constellation assisted-GNSS chipsets (E-
GNSS), together Wi-Fi and Cell-ID.
Table 10 – Upgrades required for CELL-ID / E-GNSS (INCLUDING GALILEO) /
WI-FI
provider
 Handset manufacturers: Based on interviews with leading smartphone chipset

manufacturers, including Broadcom and Qualcomm, we estimate that the cost to include
the Galileo chipset should not be considered as an additional cost pertaining to the
HELP112 project, mainly because all chipset manufacturers reported a strong willingness to
integrate Galileo chipsets in their rollout plan. Moreover, according to the GSA, GNSS-
74/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
enabled handsets will account for 74% of total mobile phones in use by the end of 2016,
60% of which will include Galileo by 2020.
 Phone OS providers: As for the previous scenarios, we estimate the cost of the HELP112
software to approximately €150,000 as CAPEX and €10,000 as annual OPEX, including
testing, for each OS provider. Once Galileo is available in the phone, it should be
automatically leveraged by the phone’s location API, and hence the HELP112 software.
8.9 CELL-ID – E-GNSS (INCLUDING GALILEO) – WI-FI – ENHANCED NBL

(USER PLANE)
As for the location method described in the paragraph 8.7, the E-GNSS / Wi-Fi location method
described in this section is combined with the user plane implementation of the enhanced
network-based location. This location technology scenario presents impacts across most of the
chain.
Table 11 – Upgrades required for CELL-ID / E-GNSS (including Galileo) /
WI-FI / ENHANCED NBL UP
 HELP112 software  Provide and maintain a  Location solution to
database of base station support user plane
locations implementation of E-NBL
 Handset manufacturers: as stated in section, we would not consider the Galileo chipset
cost.
 Phone OS providers: Also in this case, a modification should be made to the HELP112
software and data format in order to send back a copy of Radio Network Measurement
Report to the location calculator in the PSAP to compute the enhanced NBL location. We
estimate the cost of the HELP112 software to approximately €180,000 as CAPEX and
€12,000 as annual OPEX, including testing, for each OS provider, 20% higher than for the
previous scenarios.
 MNOs: To support the user plane implementation of Enhanced NBL, a database of cell
tower’s locations should be provided and maintained by MNOs. This is estimated
approximately at €60,000 CAPEX and €12,000 annual OPEX per MNO. This cost would
cover the potential audit campaign to be conducted by MNOs to ensure their database of
base stations is accurate. These estimates are based on our secondary research and have
been confirmed by interviews with subject-matter experts supplying technological platforms
to MNOs.
 PSAPs: In the user plane implementation of the enhanced network based location
described in HELP112 deliverable D3.1 (section 4.1.1.3), the location calculator is installed
where the central HELP112 location server is located, most likely at stage 1 PSAPs and is
not part of the network. The location is computed directly in the PSAPs. The associated
cost for the PSAP is estimated to be approximately €250,000 CAPEX and €60,000 annual
OPEX for PSAPs hosting the location server in the EU28.
75/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
8.10 ENHANCED NBL – A-GNSS (CONTROL PLANE)

For the control plane A-GNSS solution, the assistance data is actually provided to the handset by
the network components, either SMLC, SAS, E-SMLC respectively for 2G/3G/4G networks. This
implements the 3GPP standards.
Table 12 – Upgrades required for Enhanced NBL - A-GNSS Control plane
Handset/OS provider MNOs PSAPs Public
Authorities
 Network infrastructure
for enhanced network
based location
 MNOs: Based on inputs from Creativity Software, we estimate the cost of the MNOs’
location platform to support Control Plane at approximately €700,000 in CAPEX and
€150,000 in annual OPEX for each MNO, including support. The total cost for this
component takes into account the total number of MNOs in the EU.
76/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
9. COST ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSMISSION TECHNOLOGIES
We have analysed all possible transmission methods currently available to enable HELP112 service
in the EU28. Excluding network transmission method, which is the base case scenario, all methods
have impact on almost all stakeholders involved in the emergency call value chain as summarized
in Table 13 below.
9.1 SUMMARY OF COSTS PER TRANSMISSION METHOD

Overall, the costs identified for each transmission technology alternative by stakeholder can be
seen in the following table. More details can be found in the following sections.
Table 13 – Summary of costs per transmission method
Transmission Handset/OS
MNOs PSAPs Public Authorities
method Provider
 Network
Network infrastructure for
transmission enhanced network-
based location
 SMSC programming
 HELP112 data
 Handset local to support HELP112
integration in the
SMS database of
 SMS gateway CAD system
transmission endpoints
 SMS message  HELP112 location
server
 National location
 Handset local server for HTTPS
 HELP112 data routing
Data channel database of transmission
(HTTPS)
(HTTPS) endpoints
 HELP112 data
integration in the
CAD system
 Integration of
 Emergency-Call
Data channel HELP112 data
 VoIP support Session Control
(IMS-SIP) from SIP invite
Function (E-CSCF)
message
 PSAP in-band
 Personal eCall flag modem
Voice channel  Personal eCall flag
 In-band modem integration and  Integration of the
(Personal eCall) standardisation
rerouting MSD in the CAD
system
Details for each transmission method can be found in the following sections.
77/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
9.2 NETWORK TRANSMISSION

As mention in section 7, network transmission is the current transmission method used by MNOs
to deliver Cell-ID locations in the EU. Thus, our base case assumes that all PSAPs in the EU can
receive Cell-ID locations relying on network transmission.
Since scenarios 2 (Enhanced NBL (Control plane) and 8 (Enhanced NBL - Control plane - A-GNSS)
are also relying on network transmission, the improved locations are delivered to the PSAPs in the
same manner than Cell-ID today, without needing further investments at PSAP level. Therefore, in
these cases, we are not considering additional costs to receive the location trough the network.
9.3 SMS
If technologies available at the handset side are a key factor to take into account for the design of
the HELP112 solution, so is the ability for PSAPs to receive the locations and interpret them
correctly.
For this transmission technology, assumptions for costs related to roaming situations were based
on architecture 2-A defined in HELP112 deliverable D3.1.
Additionally, according to European Legislation on Roaming Regulation updated on 31/05/2016,
starting from 15 June 2017, no extra roaming fee must be allocated to the citizens and the
maximum tariffs for calls, texts and going online (data download) will be the same as domestic
price16,17. The cost to roam the SMS should be covered by the MNOs already having the
infrastructure for that. Therefore, no additional costs are allocated to roam the HELP112 SMS.
Table 14 – Upgrades required for SMS transmission technology

provider
 Handset local  SMSC programming to support  HELP112 data

database HELP112 integration in the CAD
system
 SMS gateway
 HELP112 location server
 SMS message
 Handset manufacturers/phone OS providers: In order to handle the transmission of

the HELP112 SMS in roaming situations, a database containing the MSISDNs of all the
relevant EU PSAPs (as seen in deliverable D3.1) is required. This database in itself should
be relatively easy to implement, but would require regular maintenance. We estimated
operating costs at approx. € 2,000/year per stakeholder to maintain the database.
 MNOs: We estimate the cost of the SMSC configuration required at MNO level to support
HELP112 SMS to be approximately €2,000 for each MNO in the EU.
16
http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/money-charges/mobile-roaming-costs/index_en.htm
17
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/roaming
78/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
The upgrade required for the SMS gateway is estimated at approximately €89 per month
(OPEX only from secondary research18). Finally, as mentioned in Appendix A, we are
considering an additional cost per SMS of €1.76 cents.
 PSAPs: Integrating HELP112 data in the PSAPs CAD system is estimated at around
€50,000 as CAPEX and €2,500 as OPEX. For the purpose of this study, we assume that only
one HELP112 location server is implemented at national level (for instance in stage 1
PSAPs). Based on interviews with IBM executives, we estimated cost of this component
approximately at €300,000 CAPEX and €120,000 yearly OPEX by PSAP. The estimated cost
takes in account an architectural solution with the server in a datacenter. Estimated OPEX
cost also takes in account the monitoring and maintenance service, the back-up service
and, due to the emergency service to be guaranteed, the 24x7 support with 3 shifts a day.
We have also analyzed the solution with the server in cloud, but despite the minor costs, it
shows some limitations such as less data security and less control of the platform that we
consider not acceptable for the quality requirements of the HELP112 service. Other
alternatives could be considered for the implementation of the location server (see section
5.6.2).
9.4 DATA CHANNEL (HTTPS)

As described in section 7.3, few PSAPs are able to receive HTTPS messages today and data needs
to be enabled at the phone level in order to send the location.
For this transmission technology, assumptions for costs related to roaming situations were based
on architecture 4-A defined in HELP112 deliverable D3.1.
Table 15 – Upgrades required for Data Channel (HTTPS) transmission technology
 Handset local  HELP112 data routing (HTTPS)  National location
database server for HTTPS
 HELP112 roaming data
transmission
 HELP112 data
integration in the CAD
system
 Handset manufacturers/phone OS providers: In order to handle the transmission of

the E112 HTTPS messages in roaming situations, a database containing the IP addresses of
all the relevant EU PSAPs (as seen in deliverable D3.1 is required. This database in itself
should be relatively easy to implement, but would require regular maintenance. We
estimated operating costs of about € 2,000/year per stakeholder to maintain the database.
 MNOs: As mentioned in the costs assumptions, the cost of data is not taken into account
at national/international level at this stage.
 PSAPs: Integrating HELP112 data in the PSAPs CAD system is estimated at around
€50,000 as CAPEX and €2,500 as OPEX. For the purpose of this study, we assume that only
one HELP112 location server is implemented at national level (for instance in stage 1
18
http://www.smsgateway.ca/pricing.aspx
79/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
PSAPs). Based on interviews with IBM executives, we estimated cost of this component
approximately at €300,000 CAPEX and €120,000 yearly OPEX by PSAP considering the
solution with the location server in a datacentre and including the monitoring & controlling,
the back-up server and the 24x7 support required by the HELP112 emergency service.
Other alternatives could be considered for the implementation of the location server (see
section 5.6.2).
9.5 DATA CHANNEL (IMS SIP)

As mentioned in D1.2 Analysis of the state of the art document “Standardisation groups as part of
ETSI are working to create standards to support emergency call handling and location information
transmitted by IP based communications, in LTE networks. The IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) is
a core network framework for delivering IP multimedia services”, However, as stated in D1.2
Analysis of the state of the art document “there are many difficulties encountered in rolling out
IMS due to the need to shift the industry from CS services to a truly IP-based environment, i.e.
service migration, policies, interoperability and deployment plan”, the availability of these networks
and standards will take time.
Table 16 – Upgrades required for DATA CHANNEL (IMS SIP) transmission technology
 VoIP support  Emergency-Call Session  Integration of HELP112
Control Function (E-CSCF) data from SIP invite
message
 Handset manufacturers/phone OS providers: Many phones on the market are still

not compatible with VoLTE (VoIP). This cost should not be considered here since it does
not directly pertain to the HELP112 implementation. We anticipate that handset vendors
will progressively migrate to VoLTE-enabled phones to follow the MNO transition to IMS
networks;
 MNOs: This transmission technology requires the implementation of the Emergency-Call
Session Control Function (E-CSCF). Our understanding is that MNOs will integrate this
component in their IMS networks. As a result, no direct cost should be considered here;
 PSAPS: Although the HELP112 location data can be sent to the PSAPs in the SIP invite
message, PSAPs would need an additional effort in order to handle the HELP112 format
and integrate the location with their existing systems. The cost associated to the
integration of HELP112 data from SIP invite message is estimated approximately at
€30,000 CAPEX and €1,500 as annual OPEX by PSAP.
9.6 VOICE CHANNEL (PERSONAL ECALL)

Of course, all mobile phones have a voice channel. However, they are not able to transmit an
emergency data message through this channel.
To transmit the MSD (Minimum Set of Data) on the voice channel, mobile phones must be
equipped with in-band modem software, implying additional costs for handset manufacturers
80/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
(which could include intellectual property rights). On the other hand, MNOs and PSAPs must equip
their infrastructure accordingly. Furthermore, during the MSD transmission (at least 4 seconds),
the voice is cut down.
Table 17 – Upgrades required for VOICE CHANNEL (PERSONAL ECALL) transmission
Handset manufacturers MNOs PSAPs Public authorities
 In-band modem  Personal eCall flag  PSAP in-band modem  Personal eCall flag
integration and rerouting standardisation
 Integration of the MSD in
the CAD system
The personal eCall transmission method generates some costs to almost all stakeholders in the
value chain. However, since it is possible to leverage the existing voice infrastructure to transmit
the MSD data, this is a compelling cost model for handset manufacturers and MNOs.
 Handset manufacturers: They should guarantee the sending of MSDs on the voice
channel. The need to integrate Qualcomm’s in-band modem software in all new phones
sold. We valued this cost at a €150,000 CAPEX per handset manufacturer, with a yearly
€7,500 in OPEX.
 MNOs: They should guarantee the 112 eCall flag integration and rerouting. The cost is
estimated at 10k€ as CAPEX, while annual OPEX is estimated at 5% of CAPEX. No other
costs are required to modify the MNO’s network or infrastructure.
 PSAPs: On the other hand, the cost associated to the personal eCall may have an impact
on the PSAP side since they have to equip their infrastructure with an in-band modem
server to receive the HELP112 data. However, since they already require this infrastructure
to handle eCall, no additional costs must be taken into account. We only considered a cost
corresponding to the upgrade of their infrastructure to detect the personal eCall flag and
integrate the HELP112 data for to their GIS/CAD systems. The cost of this component is
estimated approximately €50,000 as CAPEX and €2,500 as annual OPEX.
 Public authorities: They will need to have the personal eCall flag standardised by CEN or
ETSI. We expect the associated cost to follow the typical costs related to the definition and
approval of a telecommunications standard
81/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
9.7 TOTAL COSTS FOR THE TECHNOLOGY SCENARIOS

As a summary, Figure 39 below highlights the present value of the total costs (in million Euros) for
each technology scenario analysed, considering both capital and operational expenditures.
Figure 39 – NPV of total costs of technology scenarios
(€ million, 2015-2025)
Source: PTOLEMUS
 Network-based location solution will require the highest level of investment to be

implemented,
 Opting for the SMS channel provides a higher level of cost compared to the data channel,
 At the PSAP level, relying on Personal eCall would be cost-effective alternative for PSAPs
since it allows mutualising the investments required as part of the eCall mandate,
 Once PSAPs become IMS-SIP ready, relying on the data channel will be the most cost-
effective solution.
82/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
10. PRESENT VALUE OF NET BENEFITS FOR TECHNOLOGY

SCENARIOS
10.1 OPTIMAL SCENARIO

Based on the cost-benefit analysis, the solution with the highest NPV is Scenario 7: Cell-ID, E-
GNSS (including Galileo) Wi-Fi, Enhanced-NBL, using SMS as a transmission method.
Its net benefits present value adds up to €86 billion, thus confirming the need for better
emergency caller location. On average, this would represent yearly benefits of about €6 billion,
accounting for 0.04% of the total EU’s GDP for 2015.
The 4 scenarios with the highest NPV are all hybrid solutions, using a combination of
satellite, network and Wi-Fi location methods, together with SMS as the transmission method. The
table below presents the NPV of each location technology scenario using the different transmission
technologies.
Figure 40 – NPV of net benefits for technology scenarios
(€ billion, 2015-2025)
Source: PTOLEMUS
After analysing the consolidated cost and benefits, we summarise our main insights below:
 The magnitude of the benefits is much greater than that of the costs. Therefore, the more
location technology components a scenario will include, the higher the NPV will be (if the
transmission method remains constant),
 Depending on the implementation, adding Galileo in the HELP112 solution will bring net
benefits estimated between €240 million (scenario 7 vs scenario 6) and €1 billion (scenario
6 vs. scenario 4) over the next 10 years.
 Technology availability in the handsets, networks or PSAP infrastructures plays a critical
role since it directly impacts the number of addressable calls. Consequently, the
transmission method is the second most important component to the NPV, given its impact
on the deployment timetable,
 Handset-based hybrid location solutions are bringing the highest benefits. Scenarios
including Wi-Fi and multi-constellation GNSS chipsets will maximize benefits, with and
without Enhanced Network-Based Location,
83/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
 Although less accurate than handset-based location methods, the control plane
implementation of enhanced-NBL significantly improves the base case scenario since it
brings benefits to all mobile phones in use,
 More sophisticated technologies for transmission that have less direct costs such as IMS
rely on the availability of more sophisticated networks and devices, thus reducing the
amount of benefits that can be generated over the next decade.
In the following sections, we review the main components of the NPV for each technology
scenario.
10.2 SCENARIOS USING THE NETWORK TRANSMISSION METHOD

As previously mentioned, the solutions using a network transmission method have a significant
advantage because this transmission method is already available and applies for all addressable
calls. Therefore, the cost of transmission is 0 euro in both cases. Moreover, the implementation
follows the standards already defined by the 3GPP.
On the other hand, the network-based technology, used to improve the location, has the highest
cost among all the solutions analysed because it needs to be installed in the cellular networks of all
MNOs in Europe.
10.2.1 Enhanced Network-Based Location

This scenario generates significant net benefits with an NPV reaching €64 billion. However, the
method does not leverage the benefits of handset capabilities and thus the benefits are not further
maximized.
As mentioned above, together with Scenario 8, the location cost is the highest among all solutions.
Figure 41 – NPV for Scenario 2: Enhanced NBL (Control plane) – (€ million)
84/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
10.2.2 Enhanced Network-Based Location – A-GNSS (Control plane)

This technology scenario includes A-GNSS location in addition to improvements to the NBL. It still
uses the network to transmit the location and therefore the impact on the transmission method
and costs is nil.
Nevertheless, as in most of the cases, the costs are limited compared to the benefits generated.
Therefore, the NPV is improved compared to that of Scenario 2 and reaches €77 billion. In fact,
this scenario brings the 5th highest NPV just after the hybrid solutions including all location
elements (Wi-Fi, GNSS, and network location) and using SMS as the transmission method.
Figure 42 – NPV for Scenario 8: Enhanced NBL – A-GNSS (Control plane) – (€ million)
85/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
10.3 HANDSET-BASED HYBRID LOCATION SCENARIOS
10.3.1 Cell-ID – A-GPS (single constellation)

From the hybrid scenarios, Cell-ID A-GPS is the one with the lowest benefits. The main reasons
are that it does not include Wi-Fi to improve indoor location, it uses a single constellation chipset
(reducing precision and availability), and network location is estimated with plain Cell-ID.
In the following figure, we can observe that transmission via Voice includes the highest impact of
transmission method and that SMS has higher transmission costs.
Figure 43 – NPV for Scenario 3: Cell-ID – A-GPS
SMS (€ million) HTTPS (€ million)
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000
Location benefits 63,816 Location benefits 63,816
Impact of transmission Impact of transmission

2,529 14,633
method method
Location costs 1 Location costs 1
Transmission costs 145 Transmission costs 22
NPV 61,141 NPV 49,159
IMS (€ million) Voice (€ million)

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000

31,333 36,026
method method
Transmission costs 1
NPV 32,481
NPV 27,780
86/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
10.3.2 Cell-ID – A-GNSS (multiple constellations without Galileo) – Wi-Fi

Including one additional constellation and Wi-Fi has a significant impact on the benefits, it
increases the benefits by 35%, growing from an average of €43 billion to €58 billion. We can
observe the small impact that the costs have for all cases, and again the significant impact of IMS
availability on the benefits.
Figure 44 – NPV for Scenario 4: Cell-ID – A-GNSS – Wi-Fi
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000
Impact of transmission
Impact of transmission 19,369
3,348 method
method
Location costs 1
Location costs 1
NPV 65,078
NPV 81,052
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000

41,474 40,498
method method
NPV 42,995
NPV 43,962
87/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
10.3.3 Cell-ID – A-GNSS – Wi-Fi – Enhanced NBL (user plane)

Scenario 5 with Cell-ID A-GNSS Wi-Fi enhanced NBL has the second highest benefits.
In Figure 45, we can clearly observe the impact of the transmission method in the following order
(from higher to lower) IMS, Voice, HTTPS, and finally for SMS. Location costs do not vary
significantly among the different scenarios. Regarding transmission costs, SMS is higher than Voice
and IMS as it represents a more significant OPEX for MNOs
Figure 45 - NPV for Scenario 5: Cell-ID – A-GNSS – Wi-Fi – Enhanced NBL (user plane)
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000
Impact of transmission 3,552 Impact of transmission

20,551
method method
NPV 85,965 NPV 69,015
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000

44,004 41,614
method method
NPV 45,583 NPV 47,965
88/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
10.3.4 Cell-ID – E-GNSS – Wi-Fi

Including Galileo in scenario 6 brings additional benefits of €1 billion compared to scenario 4 for
the different transmission methods and does not represent any additional cost for the HELP112
stakeholders.
This increases the NPV for all cases, regardless of the transmission method. This scenario together
with 3 and 4 has the lowest costs, and is the one bringing the highest benefits among the three.
For a low level of investment, this technology scenario enables the generation of a
high level of benefits.
Figure 46 – NPV for Scenario 6: Cell-ID – E-GNSS – Wi-Fi
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000
3,358 method
method
Location costs 1
Location costs 1
NPV 65,884
NPV 81,993
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000

41,874 40,614
method method
NPV 43,548 NPV 44,799
89/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
10.3.5 Cell-ID – E-GNSS – Wi-Fi – Enhanced NBL (user plane)

As mentioned before, this scenario has the highest benefits among all.
We can observe from Figure 47 the impact on the benefits in the following order, first transmission
method (in all cases but SMS), then location costs and finally transmission costs. In the case of
SMS, the impact of transmission is lower than the location costs. Using SMS is the method
generating the highest NPV, €86 billion.
Figure 47 – NPV for Scenario 7: Cell-ID – E-GNSS – Wi-Fi – Enhanced NBL (user plane)
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000

20,588
method method
NPV 86,204 NPV 69,220
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000

44,106 41,643
method method
Location costs 36
Location costs 36
NPV 48,178
NPV 45,724
10.4 PUTTING THE RESULTS IN PERSPECTIVE

As commented before, the benefits generated are much more significant than the investments
required. Those results can be put in perspective.
The NPV figures provided might seem overly large at first glance. However, one should bear in
mind that it considers all EU 28 countries over a 10-year period and that the technological
infrastructure needed does not need to be built; only integrations must be made.
In section 10.4, we compare our results to those of other similar cost-benefit analysis.
90/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
 European Commission eCall Impact Assessment

The eCall Impact Assessment19 estimates the following costs and benefits for 3 different
scenarios:
Table 18 - Impact assessment of the costs & benefits of eCall (€ million)

Costs discounted Benefits discounted Net Value
No EU action -14,151 4,067 -10,083
Voluntary
-12,487 8,680 -4,166
approach
Regulatory
-22,214 38,601 16,387
measures
It is clear that the NPV of HELP112 is much higher than that of eCall, for all 3 scenarios.
On the benefits side, the main reason explaining the difference lies in the much larger
number of addressable calls, since all mobile-generated emergency calls are considered
for HELP112. On the cost side, the key reason is that the cost of enabling the technology
per user to transmit the emergency for HELP112 is significantly lower.
The estimated number of addressable calls for eCall is 0.2, 0.5 and 2.3 million on average
per year for the no EU action, voluntary approach and regulatory measures scenarios
respectively. On the other hand, we estimate that the total number of addressable
emergency calls for HELP112 solution will range from 114 million in 2016 to 135 million in
2025, which is significantly higher. The main reasons are first, that the addressable market
for HELP112 is anyone who has a smartphone or mobile phone (or for scenarios 2 and 8)
and second, that the adoption rate can grow extremely fast since the cost per device to
install the software is almost inexistent. Additionally, HELP112 will apply to all type of
emergency calls while eCall will only apply to harsh accidents involving cars and light
commercial vehicles.
On the other hand, the estimated time saved per addressable call is much higher for eCall.
While we estimate that on average 0.6 minutes will be saved for each HELP112 call, for
each eCall 9.5 minutes saved have been estimated. Even if the estimated time saved for
eCall is much higher and thus the individual benefits per call, the impact of the number of
addressable calls remains more substantial and consequently the benefits are still much
superior for HELP112.
Finally, the main cost discrepancy is the per user cost to install eCall technology. The
scenario of regulatory measures assumes that scale effects will play a role and reduce the
individual cost per unit, estimated at between €125 and €180. In the case of HELP112, it is
almost inexistent.
19
eCall Impact Assessment, European Commission, published on 11/06/2013
91/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
 Next Generation 911

The US Federal Communication Commission estimates that NG91120 can bring annual
social benefits up to $92 billion (USD).
While this figure is clearly much higher than our estimates, the initiative contemplates not only
a much more aggressive adoption, but also several enhancements in addition to location
accuracy improvements.
NG911 establishes location accuracy improvements that will apply for all handsets starting in
2019, such as GNSS to become a standard in all US phones. The FCC also considers the
possibility to transmit images, video and text during an emergency call.
Moreover, it includes the use of handset-based technologies improvements such as location of
text-to-911 and emergency calls over VoIP technology. These improvements can generate
enormous benefits for people with disabilities, but also for all emergency calls.
While we believe the estimates to be optimistic, the combination of regulatory pressure
together with state-of-the-art sophisticated technology provides a rationale for the differences.
Figure 48 – Comparison of estimated annual net benefits (€ billion)
20
US Federal Communication Commission, 21/02/2014
92/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
11. RISK ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

TECHNOLOGY SCENARIOS
As previously mentioned, the cost-benefit analysis is based on assumptions regarding the adoption
of several technologies and infrastructure upgrades (as seen in Section 5), in which all
stakeholders follow a coordinated “voluntary adoption” for each respective scenario.
This cost benefit analysis method is very useful to identify the technology scenario that offers the
highest NPV; nevertheless, it does not fully reflect what will happen in reality. Each country has
different interests and assuming that all players along the emergency services value chain, across
all EU member states, will voluntary follow one of the technology scenarios is not very likely.
Of course, there are multiple risks linked to the implementation of these technologies in each
Member State. In order to understand how they could affect the costs and the benefits, we have
pursued the following actions:
 Identified the main technological, political, economic, regulatory and social risks associated
with the technology adoption (section 11.1),
 Linked them to each technology scenario (matrix in section 11.2),
 Qualitatively assessed their importance based on their severity and the probability of their
occurrence (sections 11.3 to 11.9),
 Estimated their impact on the NPV (section 11.11).
11.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE MAIN RISKS IDENTIFIED

The main risks identified for the implementation of all the technology scenarios are summarised in
Table 19 below.
Table 19 - Risk identification for the implementation
Name Type Description
Even though Broadcom and Qualcomm have started

Chipset commercialising Galileo-enabled chipsets, there is no guarantee
manufacturers not Technological that all Chipset manufacturers will do the same; as a consequence,
integrating Galileo not all mobile phones and other applications will use the
constellation.
One of the biggest challenges to implement the new technological
solutions across Europe is the homogeneity. Not all countries have
Lack of homogeneity the same level of maturity and are following the same path.
in the location Technological This situation generates a significant risk that solutions in the future
transmission method might not be compatible, mainly if transmission methods are
different from a country to another. This would make handling
roaming situations more complex.
Galileo disabled at Although multi-constellations-enabled chipsets are included in the
chipset firmware Technological handsets, phone manufacturers could disable them, and especially
level Galileo, preventing the full benefits from being reached.
Although trials are conducted within the scope of the HELP112
Selected solution not
Technological project, a risk of the solution not functioning as expected in specific
working as planned
environments.
PSAPs unwillingness Economic Depending on the PSAP model and current capabilities (received
to update SMS, GIS/CAD solutions, etc.), several countries might be unwilling
93/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
infrastructure to to make the necessary incremental investments in their servers to

receive HELP112 receive HELP112 data and integrate it to their GIS/CAD solutions.
data
For countries without a central hub/server to store HELP112
Delayed
location data (countries with the first 112 model, without a stage 1
implementation of
Economic PSAP), handling HELP112 data will require additional
HELP112 location
infrastructure/costs to receive and store the data, potentially
data server
resulting in delays or lack of implementation.
Risk related to the implementation of enhanced network-based
No E-NBL control location capabilities by European MNOs. No business need has
Economic
plane implementation been identified for them. Thus they are unlikely to do so without a
mandate.
The user-plane implementation of NBL solution requires additional
actions from MNOs, OS manufacturers, as well as an update of
Delay/lack of E-NBL PSAP systems (at least adding a location calculator where the
user plane Economic central location data server is set up) for the solution to function.
implementation
One of the stakeholders not willing to contribute could jeopardize
the entire implementation.
The costs to support roaming callers have been based on
architectures from deliverables D3.2 & D3.3. If Member States
implement different technical solutions, especially for the data
Roaming transmission, this could prevent the proposed infrastructure to be
Economic
implementation operational or require additional costs to integrate heterogeneous
systems together.
This risk applies to roaming calls only.
The stakeholders responsible for the E112 location data processing
Non-compliance with
and storage should ensure privacy and confidentiality. The data
location data privacy Social
could otherwise be used for commercial purposes or exposed to
regulations
other threats.
Public outcry due to Several scenarios only improve the emergency caller location for
discrepancies on smartphone users. This can be seen as increasing the inequalities
Social
response time of amongst EU citizens and could generate bad press endangering the
emergency services project
For scenarios involving handset-based location, relying on the

Solution unavailable goodwill of companies like Google, Qualcomm or, in particular,
due to lack of control Political Apple to provide assistance data, creates a dependency of EU
on assistance data emergency services on large non-EU-based multinationals. Thus
going against Europe’s independence brought by Galileo.
Without Galileo, the HELP112 solution would rely on GNSS
Solution unavailable constellations respectively managed by the US, Russia, or China.
due to lack of control Political Although unlikely, political events might put at risk the availability of
on GNSS data foreign GNSS constellations and hence, the availability of the future
HELP112 solution.
Today, Thunderbird, Google's own implementation on the AML
standard fits the requirement of the HELP112 software and is
warmly welcomed by the HELP112 consortium members. However,
relying only on goodwill of large OS providers, which are all US
corporations, to implement the HELP112 software represents a risk.
No HELP112 software
As Google is under tight scrutiny from the EU regarding possible
availability - OS Political
anti-trust actions and tax evasions issues, it is difficult to predict how
implementation
today's goodwill could evolve in the future.
In addition, besides many attempts from HELP112 consortium to
include Apple in this project, or at least establish communication,
their willingness to implement HELP112 software on their own
remains to be seen. Therefore, not mandating the integration of
94/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
HELP112 software in smartphone operating systems in EU

jeopardizes the availability of the service in the future.
Similar to the previous risk: No HELP112 software availability - OS
No HELP112 software implementation but for handset manufacturers.
availability - Handset Political If HELP112 software is deployed at handset level, some handset
implementation manufacturers might not collaborate in its deployment, thus
preventing their users from benefiting from the solution.
As currently witnessed with Cell-ID, several Member States have
Some Member States been reluctant to improve the emergency caller location solutions.
choosing not to Although the solutions recommended aim at providing the optimal
implement the EC Political trade-off between costs and benefits and ultimately raise the
recommended awareness about the critical nature of these solutions, several
solution Member States might still consider E112 as a low priority item and
hence not support the HELP112 initiative.
95/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
11.2 LINKING MAIN RISKS AND TECHNOLOGY SCENARIOS-

Here is a synthesis of all risks and the scenarios to which we believe they apply to.
Table 20 – Matrix linking main risks and technology scenarios
Technology scenarios impacted
Name Type 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Chipset manufacturers not

Technological X X
integrating Galileo
Lack of homogeneity in the

location transmission Technological X X X X X X X
method
Galileo disabled at chipset

Technological X X
firmware level
Selected solution not

Technological X X X X X X X
working as planned
PSAPs unwillingness to
update infrastructure to Economic X X X X X
receive HELP112 data
Delayed implementation of
Economic X X X X X
HELP112 location data server
No E-NBL control plane

Economic X X
implementation
Delay/lack of E-NBL user

Economic X X
plane implementation
Roaming implementation Economic X X X X X X X
Non-compliance with location

Social X X X X X X X
data privacy regulations
Public outcry due to

discrepancies on response Social X X X X X
time of emergency services
Solution unavailable due to
lack of control on assistance Political X X X X X X
data
Solution unavailable due to

Political X X X X
lack of control on GNSS data
No HELP112 software
availability - OS Political X X X X X
implementation
No HELP112 software
availability - handset Political X X X X X
implementation
Some Member States
choosing not to implement Political X X X X X X X
the recommended solution
96/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
The following sub-sections contain a qualitative evaluation of the importance of the risks for each
scenario, starting with scenarios leveraging network-based location.
Each risk has been assessed alongside two dimensions on a scale from 0 to 10.
The risks severity highlights to what degree this risk could prevent the solution from properly
function (hence generating benefits) or harm the society in a way (e.g. not respecting the law)
The risks probability translates the likelihood of that risk to materialise over the next 10 years. We
assessed it based on PTOLEMUS expertise and information collected during interviews.
11.3 ENHANCED NETWORK-BASED LOCATION

As mentioned before, we assessed the risks based on their probability of occurrence and severity.
As shown in Figure 49 below, the main threat is the lack of willingness from European MNOs to
implement enhanced network-based location solutions, which would directly prevent the solution
from functioning.
Figure 49 – Risk assessment for the implementation of Scenario 2
Source: PTOLEMUS
97/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
11.4 ENHANCED NETWORK-BASED LOCATION – A-GNSS (CONTROL PLANE)
Compared to Scenario 2, additional risks include two risks related to the availability of
GNSS/assistance data and the adoption of multi-constellation GNSS chipsets by all phone
manufacturers. Although not critical, both risks have a significant importance for the emergency-
caller solution’s performance.
Source: PTOLEMUS
98/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
11.5 CELL-ID – A-GPS (SINGLE CONSTELLATION)
In comparison with scenarios 2 and 8, several additional risks have been identified when
considering scenarios leveraging handset-based location without significant involvement from the
MNOs. However, the importance of the critical risks is lower than for network-based scenarios.
Figure 51 – Risk assessment for the implementation of scenario 3
Source: PTOLEMUS
99/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
11.6 CELL-ID – A-GNSS (MULTIPLE CONSTELLATIONS WITHOUT GALILEO) WI-

FI
There is little difference between the risks associated to the implementation of this scenario and
the risks of Scenario 3.
Source: PTOLEMUS
100/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
11.7 CELL-ID – A-GNSS – WI-FI – ENHANCED NBL (USER PLANE)
The additional risk compared to Scenario 4 comes from the user plane implementation of
enhanced network-based location.
Figure 53 – Risk assessment for the implementation of scenario 5
Source: PTOLEMUS
101/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
11.8 CELL-ID – E-GNSS – WI-FI
Two additional risks pertaining to the implementation of Galileo-enabled scenarios have been
identified, but they do not have a critical importance for the implementation of the HELP112
solution.
Source: PTOLEMUS
102/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
11.9 CELL-ID – E-GNSS– WI-FI – ENHANCED NBL (USER PLANE)
As expected, this scenario presents the highest number of associated risks since it includes all
potential location technologies.
Source: PTOLEMUS
11.10 INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSIONS

Several conclusions can be drawn from the risk analysis:
 Two groups with similar risk profiles emerge; on one side, scenarios 2 & 8 with relatively
few risks but one with very high importance, on the other side, scenarios 3,4,5,6 and 7
with more risks identified but with a lower importance overall,
 Among all, the most critical risk is linked to the implementation of control plane E-NBL
solutions in scenarios 2 & 8,
 The most critical risks related to scenarios with handset-based location (3,4,5,6 and 7) are
tied to PSAPs and handset manufacturers/OS providers,
 Risks pertaining to the inclusion of Galileo in the HELP112 solution have a relatively lower
probability of occurring and lower severity than the above-mentioned risks.
103/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
11.11 IMPACT OF RISKS: CONSERVATIVE SCENARIO
In order to model a conservative scenario, we considered the potential impact of the quantifiable
risks identified on the main variables of our model, the impact was estimated based on their
probability and severity. Additionally, we have identified possible risk mitigation strategies for each
of analysed risk.
Table 21 - Potential impact of identified risks

Name Impact Possible risk mitigation strategies
• Mandate on mobile phone vendors to include

Chipset
Galileo penetration Galileo-enabled multi-constellation chipsets in their
manufacturers not
reduced by 24% complete range of GNSS-enabled phones,
integrating Galileo
including lower-end models
• Support voluntary approach: awareness campaigns

Lack of homogeneity
pushing for standardised implementations
in the location More integration required
transmission method and transmission cost • EC support to local implementations
increase by 21% for the • Build a EU location hub
PSAPs
• Mandate the adoption of the selected scenario(s)
including transmission
Galileo disabled at Galileo penetration • Provide official recommendations to handset
chipset firmware level reduced by 30% manufacturers
• Identify the reasons why the solutions did not meet
Selected solution not Not considered at this the requirements, provide mitigation actions and, if
working as planned stage21 necessary, modify the cost-benefits results
accordingly
• EC support to local implementations (similar to
PSAPs unwillingness I_HeERO projects for eCall)
Share of PSAPs able to
to update
receive location decreased • Mandate on Member States to enable the reception
infrastructure to
by 64% of handset-based location for emergency calls
receive HELP112 data
• Build a EU location hub
• EC support for implementations options:
– Updating all Stage 2 PSAPs to receive
and integrate HELP112 location data to
their workflows
Delayed
Share of PSAPs able to – Creating a central location data hub at
implementation of
receive location decreased network level
HELP112 location
by 54%
data server – Creating a central location data hub in a
Stage 2 PSAP (or in another public
infrastructure) that will act as the national
data repository
– Creating a central location data hub at EU
21
The impact of the risk on the NPV has not been considered because it cannot be quantified at this stage as it
would require a specific project to evaluate it
104/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
level; minimal effort would be required at

local level, mainly changing the address of
the server from which the location is
requested
90% reduction in
No E-NBL control
addressable calls for • Mandate implementation by MNOs
plane implementation
scenario 2 & 8
Delay/lack of E-NBL E-NBL user plane • Ensure willingness from all actors before investing
user plane availability decreased by in the solution
implementation 28% • Mandate adoption for stakeholders involved
Share of addressable • Push for a common/standardised implementation at

Roaming EU level through awareness campaigns
roaming calls decreased
implementation
by 24% • Mandate adoption of the selected scenario(s)
• Include privacy and confidentiality policies for

Non-compliance with HELP112
Not considered at this
location data privacy •
stage22 The solutions should be secure enough not to allow
regulations tempering on the data conveyed; ensure not
braking points
• Support awareness campaigns to communicate at

Public outcry due to European level the benefits of having a smartphone
discrepancies on Not considered at this for emergency calls
response time of stage18
emergency services • Mandate E-GNSS and Wi-Fi in all mobile phones in
EU
Solution unavailable
Not considered at this • Consider mandating the use of solutions with
due to lack of control
stage18 assistance servers physically hosted in the EU
on assistance data
• Ensure compatibility and usage of European GNSS

No HELP112 software solution through either awareness campaigns
Not considered at this
availability - Handset
stage18 • Alternatively mandate the use of Galileo by mobile
implementation
phone vendors
• Ask handset manufacturers to provision the

No HELP112 software Decrease in HELP112 HELP112 software (as done in the UK with
availability - OS software availability by Samsung/HTC/Sony)
implementation 48% • Mandate HELP112 software to phone vendors
(which would then force OS vendors to move)
• Mandate HELP112 software for handset

manufacturers
No HELP112 software Decrease in HELP112
availability - handset software availability by • In addition, formally ask OS providers to provision
implementation 48% the HELP112 software (as done by Google)
indicating that handsets without that software will
not be approved in the future)
22
The impact of the risk on the NPV has not been considered because it cannot be quantified at this stage as it
would require a specific project to evaluate it
105/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
Some Member States

choosing not to Share of PSAPs able to • Support voluntary approach: awareness campaigns
implement the receive location decreased pushing for recommended solution
recommended by 40% • EC support to local implementations
solution
We modelled the combined impact of these risks on each of the technology scenarios. We describe
in the table below the impact on the NPV of benefits of this “conservative version” for each of the
possible scenarios.
Figure 56- NPV of benefits - Conservative adoption
(€ billion, 2015-2025)
 Under conservative assumptions, the magnitude of benefits generated is 5 times lower on

average compared to the voluntary adoption scenario
 Scenarios 2 & 8 with control plane implementations now generate the most benefits
 The largest changes for scenarios 2 and 8 are due to the fact that most MNOs will not
adopt the technologies drastically reduces their related benefits. he figures not only for
benefits, but also for the costs in these two technology scenarios.
 The main reason behind the significant decrease for scenarios 3 to 7 is that several
smartphone OS providers might not implement the Help112 software and that many PSAPs
would not upgrade their systems to benefit from the smartphones equipped.
106/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
Figure 57 - NPV of costs - Conservative adoption

(€ billion, 2015-2025)
The magnitude of the costs is also drastically reduced compared to the voluntary adoption; on
average, it is 2.8 times lower. The costs for scenarios 5 and 7 using SMS as a transmission method
become the highest, compared to scenarios 2 and 8 under the “voluntary adoption”. This cost
changes also happen because the number of MNOs adopting the technologies is drastically
reduced, thus the investments made at EU level are lower.
Figure 58 - NPV of net benefits - Conservative adoption

(€ billion, 2015-2025)
Even though the expected NPV is greatly reduced, all scenarios maintain a positive NPV over 10
years and but part of the conclusions drawn in the voluntary adoption scenario presented in
section 10.1 change:
 The magnitude of the benefits is much greater than that of the costs, validating the need
for an improvement of E112 caller location,
 Scenarios 2 and 8 become the most value creating scenarios overall,
 The benefits generated by scenarios 3 to 7 are greatly hindered by the risks linked to the
implementation at both ends of value chain, the handset manufacturers / OS providers on
one side, and the PSAPs on the other hand
 Therefore, we believe it is worthwhile to analyse the possible impact of a mandate on the
different scenarios
107/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
12. IMPACT OF EUROPEAN COMMISSION INTERVENTION
The first outputs of the cost-benefit analysis presented in sections 6 to 10 are based on the
assumptions that the European Commission (EC) does not intervene. However, they assume a
willingness from all stakeholders to implement each scenario.
Nevertheless, as detailed in Section 11, several risks which could prevent the voluntary adoption of
the scenarios have been identified. Hence a regulatory intervention by the Commission
could support the implementation of the HELP112 solution by mitigating several
critical risks and thus significantly increase the total benefits.
In this section, we first highlighted the critical technical requirements needed for the adoption of
each scenario. Based on this analysis, we proposed for each scenario a mandate, impacting one or
several stakeholders, that could best mitigate the risks.
Finally, we updated the results of the CBA by modelling the impact of a “mandate” for each
scenario to underline the potential impact of EU intervention.
12.1 REGULATORY IMPACTS CONSIDERED

We considered the following critical technical requirements impacting the key stakeholders of the
emergency caller location value chain.
Although we did not specifically highlight them, location aggregators also play a key role in the
emergency caller location value chain and can often act as outsourcing parties to implement the
above-mentioned requirements, specifically by providing assistance solutions as well as integrating
the HELP112 location data for MNOs and/or PSAPs.
We did not include them in our analysis as we believe that they would have no other option than
to implement a regulation applied to handset vendors and OS providers.
Based on the outputs of the risk analysis, we first considered for each scenario the items that
would mitigate the important risks, as detailed in the following paragraphs.
108/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
12.1.1 Enhanced Network-Based location

For Scenario 2, we considered a mandate impacting MNOs, with application from January
2021, to account for the time needed for both the administrative process to issue the mandate
and the systems upgrade at network level. It should be noted that an application date in 2021 is
quite optimistic and the probably of it being delayed would be quite high. We believe it provides
however a better basis to compare with other scenarios.
12.1.2 Enhanced Network-Based location – A-GNSS (control plane)

For Scenario 8, in addition to the assumptions considered for Scenario 2, the inclusion of multi-
constellation A-GNSS chipsets to all mobile or all GNSS-enabled phones is considered.
The application date is also considered to be January 2021. Again, an application date in 2021 is
quite optimistic and the probably of it being delayed would be quite high.
109/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
12.1.3 Cell-ID – A-GPS (single constellation)

For Scenario 3, we considered a mandate impacting handset manufacturers and PSAPs,
starting in January 2019. It appears to us as easier to implement, as only dependent on an
action by the European Commission. In addition, we considered a mandate impacting all new
phones sold in the EU (i.e. not only GNSS-enabled phones).
12.1.4 Cell-ID – A-GNSS – Wi-Fi

Likewise, for Scenario 4, we considered a mandate impacting handset manufacturers and PSAPs,
starting in January 2019. However, multi-constellation GNSS and Wi-Fi chipsets are considered
instead of A-GPS. In addition, we considered a mandate impacting all new phones sold in the EU
(i.e. not only GNSS-enabled phones).
110/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
12.1.5 Cell-ID – A-GNSS – Wi-Fi – Enhanced NBL (user plane)

For Scenario 5, we propose a mandate impacting handset manufacturers, MNOs and PSAPs,
starting in January 2019. Compared to Scenario 4, the necessary requirements to enable the E-
NBL user plane implementation have been considered. In addition, we considered a mandate
impacting all new phones sold in the EU (i.e. not only GNSS-enabled phones).
12.1.6 Cell-ID – E-GNSS – Wi-Fi

starting in January 2019 similar to Scenario 4 but with E-GNSS. In addition, we considered a
mandate impacting all new phones sold in the EU (i.e. not only GNSS-enabled phones).
111/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
12.1.7 Cell-ID – E-GNSS – Wi-Fi – Enhanced NBL (user plane)

starting in January 2019 similar to Scenario 5 but with E-GNSS. In addition, we considered a
mandate impacting all new phones sold in the EU (i.e. not only GNSS-enabled phones).
112/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
12.2 IMPACT OF MANDATE SCENARIOS ON NPV

In this section, we detail the revised results of the cost benefit analysis for each scenario
considering the respective mandates previously described. In addition, we also consider a mandate
only impacting the handset manufacturers to better assess the impact of an action by the
European Commission.
Therefore, 3 different revisions have been made:
1. Mandate applying to all GNSS-enabled phones sold in the EU
2. Mandate applying to all GNSS-enabled phones sold in the EU and only impacting handset
manufacturers
3. Mandate applying to all phones sold in the EU
12.2.1 Mandate applying to all GNSS-enabled phones sold in the EU

Figure 59 - NPV of benefits - Mandate scenario - GNSS-enabled phones
(€ billion, 2015-2025)
An ideal regulatory situation where mandates would mitigate the most critical risks in each
scenario would enable an increase in benefits of 18% compared to the “voluntary adoption” over
the next 10 years.
However, the “voluntary adoption” assumes that there is a coordinated adoption among all players
across Europe in each technology scenario. As mentioned before, the probability of this happening
is very low and the voluntary approach figures should rather be seen as an indicator of the
potential of each technology scenario.
If there are no actions to enable the technology adoption, we believe the “conservative adoption”
to be more likely. Indeed, cost bearers and beneficiaries are not the same stakeholders, which
makes a possible voluntary adoption less likely. A mandate can not only offset the main risks
mentioned in Section 11.1, but also push for a coordinated action and accelerate the process of
adoption.
In this case, multiplying the benefits by a factor of 5.8 on average compared to the
conservative adoption.
113/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
Figure 60 - NPV of costs - Mandate scenario - GNSS-enabled phones

(€ billion, 2015-2025)
In this mandate scenario, additional costs have been considered for the inclusion of Galileo-
enabled chipsets in all GNSS-enabled phones that would not otherwise be Galileo-enabled. Based
on our discussions with Broadcom and ST-Microelectronics, we estimate the additional cost per
chipset to €0.3 with a yearly cost decrease of 5%, generating an overall cost of adding up to € 100
million over the next 10 years (present value), for scenarios 6 and 7. This is confirmed by
Qualcomm, which indicated that the cost related to the inclusion of Galileo would be negligible
because it does not require a specific hardware component.
Figure 61 - NPV of net benefits - Mandate scenario - GNSS-enabled phones

(€ billion, 2015-2025)
Overall, the ranking for the NPV of net benefits under this mandate scenario is similar to the one in
the “voluntary adoption” scenario. The main difference being the presence of the mandate would
highly mitigate the main risks identified in Section 11 and increase the NPV for all scenarios by
more than 10%.
114/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
12.2.2 Mandate applying to all GNSS-enabled phones sold in the EU only

impacting handset manufacturers
Figure 62 - NPV of benefits - Mandate scenario - GNSS-enabled phones - only handset

manufacturers impacted
(€ billion, 2015-2025)
By considering a mandate only impact handset manufacturers, benefits generated could reach
€77 billion, increasing by 460% versus the conservative scenario and only 6% below the
voluntary approach (but significantly limiting the level of risk).
Indeed, several member states are already in the process of upgrading the PSAPs systems to be
able to leverage Google’s thunderbird (AML implementation). The mandate could then ensure that
all GNSS-enabled phones can be leverage by the solutions set-up by the PSAPs.
It is important to note that under such a mandate assumption, conservative assumptions have
been considered for scenarios 2 and 8 as the main stakeholders involved in these scenarios are
MNOs.
Figure 63 - NPV of costs - Mandate scenario - GNSS-enabled phones - only handset
manufacturers impacted
(€ billion, 2015-2025)
Here, the additional costs are similar to the mandate scenario highlighted in 12.2.1
115/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
Figure 64 - NPV of net benefits - Mandate scenario - GNSS-enabled phones- only

handset manufacturers impacted
(€ billion, 2015-2025)
Overall, only mandating GNSS-enabled handsets the use Galileo-enabled chipsets and an activation
method (HELP112 software/AML) would enable to generate significant net benefits over the next
decade. The net present value of net benefits for scenarios 6 & 7 would reach €73.5 billion and
€77.3 billion respectively depending on the implementation of the “user plane” network location.
12.2.3 Mandate applying to all phones sold in the EU

Figure 65 - NPV of benefits - Mandate scenario - All phones
(€ billion, 2015-2025)
In this section the respective mandates have been applied to all mobile phones sold in the EU. As
a result, we can see an additional increase in the benefits compared to the mandate scenario
applying only to GNSS-enabled phones. Not surprisingly, the impact is only observed in scenarios
using handset-based location. Even though the increase is lower in multiples, it can represent
more than an additional €4.2 billion for the best case scenario compared to the mandate on GNSS-
enabled phones.
116/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
Figure 66 - NPV of costs - Mandate scenario - All phones

(€ billion, 2015-2025)
In this case, additional chipset costs have been considered for all phones sold in the EU that would
have otherwise been feature phones (non-GNSS/non-Wi-Fi). As observed, the NPV of the costs
significantly increases compared to all the other cases. Compared to mandate applying only to
GNSS-enabled phones, the costs increase by an average of 7.2 times.
Figure 67 - NPV of net benefits - Mandate scenario - All phones

(€ billion, 2015-2025)
As mentioned before, applying the mandate to all phones will increase the number of addressable
calls and thus the benefits, but at the same time represents an important investment for chipset
manufacturers.
Nonetheless, the overall result is positive as net benefits increase on average by 600%, 21%
and 3% compared to the “conservative adoption”, “voluntary adoption” and “mandate on GNSS-
enabled phones” scenarios respectively. While it can generate up to an additional €3.5 billion in
net benefits for the best-case scenario, the additional investments can add complexity to the
adoption of the technologies.
117/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
13. MAIN TECHNOLOGICAL, FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONAL

RECOMMENDATIONS
13.1 TECHNOLOGY SCENARIO RECOMMENDATION

We synthesised the results from the cost-benefit analysis, risk analysis, and impact of a mandate
in the following table.
Table 22 - Synthesis of the results of our cost-benefit analysis
Net Present Value of the net benefits (2015-2025, € billion)
Legend: Very high High Medium Low
Mandate Mandate
Voluntary
Conservative GNSS- GNSS- Mandate all
adoption
Location technology assumptions enabled enabled phones Attractiveness
(NPV, billion
(NPV, billion €) phones phones (NPV, billion €)
€)
(NPV, billion €) (NPV, billion €)
Stakeholders impacted Handset

n.a. n.a. All relevant All relevant /
with mandate assumptions manufacturers
1: Cell ID (Base case) €0 €0 €0 €0 €0 n.a.
2: Enhanced NBL (Control

€16.19 €63.78 €78.19 €16.01 €78.19
plane)
3: Cell-ID A-GPS
€11.42 €61.21 €70.74 €54.94 €73.32
(single constellation)
4: Cell-ID A-GNSS Wi-Fi

(multiple constellations €15.14 €81.05 €93.66 €72.75 €96.98
without Galileo)
5: Cell-ID A-GNSS Wi-Fi

€15.22 €85.96 €99.34 €77.16 €102.90
Enhanced NBL (User plane)
6: Cell-ID E-GNSS Wi-Fi

(multiple constellations incl. €15.27 €81.99 €94.71 €73.54 €98.06
Galileo)
7: Cell-ID E-GNSS Wi-Fi

Enhanced NBL
€15.35 €86.20 €99.54 €77.29 €103.10
(User plane, multiple
constellations incl. Galileo)
8: Enhanced NBL - A-
GNSS €19.57 €77.08 €94.25 €19.40 €94.39
(Control plane)
118/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
Figure 68 - Synthesis of cost-benefit analysis results (SMS transmission)

(2015-2025, € billion)
Based on our analysis, Scenario 7 should be selected as the technology scenario for the
implementation of the HELP112 solution, since it allows:
 The maximisation of the net benefits generated
 To keep a relatively lower level of risks than scenarios 2 & 8
 To leverage current effort made in EU to improve emergency caller location solutions
 To benefit from future improvements brought to mobile location solution since it relies on
the phones locations API (such indoor location using Bluetooth beacons for instance)
Given the high complexity of implementing network-based location, Scenario 6 should

be seen as a first step, which also generates a very significant value for the EU and
actually carries a 15% higher benefits to costs ratio.
Furthermore, under the different assumptions for the adoption, the SMS method appears as
the transmission method generating the most benefits. Although a certain level of freedom
should be given for the implementation of the transmission method depending on the local
technical conditions, we would recommend SMS in all countries until networks and PSAPs become
IMS/SIP ready.
119/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
For the implementation, the following iterative approach composed of 3 main steps can lead to the
successful deployment of the recommended technology scenario(s) while keeping the level of risk
and investment required at a minimum.
Figure 69 – Recommended high level implementation plan
Section 13.2 thereafter details our operational and financial recommendations to support the
implementation plan for the main stakeholders.
120/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
13.2 OPERATIONAL & FINANCIAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION
13.2.1 Synthesis of key actions required for step 1

Table 23 below presents the main actions required from the stakeholders to achieve Scenario 6.
Table 23 - Main actions required to support HELP112 implementation of Scenario 6
STAKEHOLDER KEY ACTIONS REQUIRED
Chipset
manufacturers  Include Galileo capability, focusing on all GNSS chipsets (low-end to high-
end) to ensure that the best caller location capabilities are indiscriminately
and promptly offered to the owners of high and low-end devices
Handset vendors  Implement their own version of the HELP112 software following the ETSI TR
103 393 specification (so called Advanced Mobile Location)
 Provide support for the activation and configuration of the HELP112
software
 Enable GNSS/Wi-Fi/HTTPS use during emergency calls
Phone OS  Include Galileo-enabled multi-constellation chipsets in their complete range

providers of GNSS-enabled phones, including lower-end phones
 Ensure implementation of HELP112 software by collaborating with OS
providers
 Enable the use of Galileo at chipset firmware level
Mobile Network  Ensure that the network configuration allows SMSs to be sent during
Operators emergency calls
 Update Terms and Conditions of their customers’ agreements in order to
specify which data will be collected during emergency calls, how it will be
transmitted and to whom
 Reprogram SMS-C to zero-rate SMSs sent to emergency numbers
PSAPs
 If necessary, create a central HELP112 location data server at national level
 Upgrade PSAP systems to develop capability to receive and store HELP112
location data in the location server
 Modify PSAP processes and train call takers to work with HELP112 location
Public authorities  Provide support to Member States and PSAPs to facilitate the integration of
HELP112 location data and the potential creation of the HELP112 location
data server
 Assess the feasibility of mandating the HELP112 software and Galileo-
enabled GNSS chipsets on all new GNSS-enabled phones sold in the EU
More details for each stakeholder can be found below
121/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
13.2.2 Key actions required by type of stakeholders

13.2.2.1 Chipset manufacturers
We advise GNSS-chipset manufacturers to include the Galileo capability, even in the lower-end
range of their portfolio.
The two leading smartphone GNSS-chipset manufacturers, Qualcomm and Broadcom, have
confirmed that they now offer Galileo-enabled chipsets. In addition, MediaTek also offers Galileo-
enabled chipsets. Therefore, no critical risks have been identified for chipset manufacturers.
13.2.2.2 Handset manufacturers & OS providers
1. Implementation of HELP112 scenario 6

As previously stated, we recommend the integration of the HELP112 software to be done at OS
level. It requires fewer efforts given that there are only 5 major OS providers against more than 30
handset manufacturers.
13.2.2.2.1 Handset manufacturers
In order to maximise the benefits for the implementation of Scenario 6, handset manufacturers
should in our view:
 Include Galileo-enabled multi-constellation chipsets across their range of GNSS-enabled
phones, including lower-end smartphones
 Ensure implementation of HELP112 software by collaborating with OS providers
 Enable the use of Galileo at chipset firmware level
 Ensure that HELP112 location SMS is a silent SMS (Class-Zero SMS), i.e. it cannot be seen
by the caller and it is not stored on the handset.
13.2.2.2.2 OS providers
In 2016, Google released its own implementation of AML, Thunderbird, to all Android
phones in the world back to Gingerbread (above 90% of Android devices on the market23).
This implementation can support SMS and HTTPS transmission and fulfils the main requirements of
the HELP112 software described in this project. Google currently provides support for the
activation and configuration of Thunderbird at Country/MNO level.
Other major OS providers, namely Apple, Microsoft, Blackberry and Firefox should also:
 Implement their own version of the HELP112 software leveraging the work conducted by
the HELP112 consortium members on the AML standard (see ETSI TR 103 39324).
 Provide support for the activation and configuration of the HELP112 software
23
Vision Mobile, Global Trends in Android Use 2015, https://www.visionmobile.com/reports/global-trends-Android,
December 2015
24
ETSI TR 103 393, Advanced Mobile Location for emergency calls, latest version
122/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
 Enable GNSS/Wi-Fi/HTTPS use during emergency calls

 Ensure that the location data is not stored by the HELP112 software
 Ensure that HELP112 location SMS is a silent SMS (Class-Zero SMS), i.e. it cannot be seen
by the caller and it is not stored on the handset
 Ensure that HELP112 location SMS generated by the HELP112 application is recognized as
a priority SMS by the MNOs (i.e.: emergency flag included in the data stream)
2. Implementation of HELP112 Scenario 7 & roaming support

 In order to enable the E-NBL user plane implementation, OS manufacturers will have to
update the AML data format and HELP112 software to send Radio Measurement Reports
(RMR) in addition to GNSS/Wi-Fi location data (as detailed in HELP112 deliverable D3.2).
 As detailed in D3.2, to support roaming situations (following architecture A):
o Handset manufacturers/OS providers shall provide a database of European PSAPs
MSISDN that HELP112 software can access using MCC and MNC as a key. This
database shall be regularly updated in accordance with public authorities/PSAPs.
13.2.2.3 Mobile Network Operators (MNOs)
1. Implementation of HELP112 Scenario 6

As confirmed by an interview of Everything Everywhere in the UK, MNOs have a relatively minimal
role to play to support the implementation, and should:
 Ensure that their network configuration allows SMSs to be sent during emergency calls
 Update Terms and Conditions of their customer’s agreements in order to specify which
data will be collected during emergency calls; how it will be transmitted and to whom
 Reprogram SMS-C to zero-rate SMSs sent to emergency numbers
 Prioritize the delivery of the HELP112 SMS
 Perform some basic testing of the HELP112 software (e.g. Thunderbird for Android)
Provided the network owner has already performed the above-mentioned tasks, MVNOs leveraging
their network will only need to update their terms and conditions in order to enable their
customers’ phones to send HELP112 location data.
2. Implementation of HELP112 Scenario 7 and roaming support
 To support the user plane implementation of E-NBL, MNOs will need to provide and
maintain a database of the exact locations of their base stations (as detailed in HELP112
deliverable D3.2)
 As detailed in D3.2, to support roaming situations (following architecture A):
o In case the full MSISDN to which the location SMS is sent to is not located in the
same country than the SMSC that receives the location SMS, MNOs shall ensure that
this home SMSC will forward the location SMS to the visited SMSC that corresponds
to the MSISDN
123/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
o In case the full MSISDN is related to the same country than the SMSC that receives
the location SMS, MNOs shall ensure that the location SMS is routed to the SMS
Gateway
13.2.2.4 Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs)

In countries already equipped with a central location data server for emergency services, PSAPs
should upgrade their systems to receive the HELP112 SMSs and integrate the location data to their
central server in order to make it available to stage 2 PSAPs.
In countries where no central location server is available, one of the following implementation
options should be followed:
 Creating a central HELP112 location data server at stage 1 PSAP level. Stage 2 PSAPs
would request location data directly from this server.
 Creating a central HELP112 location data server at stage 2 PSAP level (or mutualise it with
a central TPSP eCall centre). Other PSAPs would request location data directly from this
server.
 Creating a central HELP112 location data server at mobile network level. PSAPs would
request location data directly from this server.
 Upgrade PSAPs systems to integrate the capability to receive and store HELP112 location
data in the location server
 PSAPs processes should be adapted and call takers should be trained to work with
HELP112 location data
o In particular, guidelines should be defined for the decision on the most reliable
location to consider when Cell-ID and HELP112 handset based data differ
Alternatively, the central location data server could be created at EU level. Although the
feasibility of this option remains to be confirmed through regulatory analysis, it would be optimal
in terms of cost and resource allocation and facilitate the handling of roaming calls. PSAPs at
national level would all request the data from a central EU server (which would need to be
duplicated to ensure security).
 Include a location calculator where the central location server is stored in order to compute
the E-NBL location
 In addition, we encourage PSAPs to develop data analytics capabilities for emergency
location data in order to better understand the performance of the various location
technologies depending on the environment and emergency situations and thus refine their
understanding of the emergency caller location solutions and streamline their operations
13.2.2.5 Public authorities - European Commission
In this section, we highlight a number of steps that the European Union could take to support the
implementation of the HELP112 at European level.
As a reminder, we briefly describe the main EU legislative framework pertaining to 112 caller
location.
124/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
The Universal Service Directive of March 2002 stated specific requirements regarding 112
including:
“Member States must also ensure that emergency services are able to establish the location of the
person calling 112. The ability to locate the caller in case of an emergency may be of great significance
in a situation where the person is unable to state his or her location, which can happen particularly
when calling from mobile phones or while travelling abroad.”
In December 2009, a newer Universal Service Directive was published, and included:
“Member States shall ensure that undertakings concerned make caller location information available
free of charge to the authority handling emergency calls as soon as the call reaches that authority. This
shall apply to all calls to the single European emergency call number "112". Member States may extend
this obligation to cover calls to national emergency numbers. Competent regulatory authorities shall lay
down criteria for the accuracy and reliability of the location information provided.”
Furthermore, under the Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment Directive of 1999, the
Commission can directly impact the capabilities of the phones sold within the EU.
The main aspects of this latter Directive are:
 Conformity of a product with the requirements of the Directive
 Obligation for network operators to publish their interfaces
 Obligation for Member States to publish the rules to access the radio frequency spectrum
 Obligation for manufacturers to inform the end user of intended use and limitations of use.
It has been revised in 2014 as the Radio Equipment Directive, applicable since June 2016 to all
products using the radio frequency spectrum. This Directive sets essential requirements for safety
and health, electromagnetic compatibility and the efficient use of the radio spectrum.
We believe a mix of regulatory and non-regulatory measures could best ensure the proper
implementation of the HELP112 project.
 Policy option 1 - No policy change
If no policy change is made, the voluntary implementation of Scenario 6 is expected to happen but
only to a certain extent, given the important risks identified in Section 11.8.
 Policy option 2: Communication/Recommendations/Economic incentives
Another option for the Commission to enable the implementation of the HELP112 project is to
support the voluntary approach by:
 Generating awareness about the current industry efforts to improve E112 emergency caller
location through public campaigns
 Formulating recommendations to mobile eco-system stakeholders on the key actions to
undertake in terms of technology, standardisation and interoperability to make HELP112
project a reality
As detailed in section 5.6.2, due to the specificities of the PSAP models in the various EU countries,
one of the key challenges related to the implementation of Scenario 6 will be the update of PSAPs
systems to receive HELP112 location data.
In order to mitigate the risk of PSAPs not upgrading their systems to receive the HELP112 location
data, the Commission can facilitate the implementation by starting more support actions:
125/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
 Finance the creation of EU projects to facilitate the implementation and coordination

among stakeholders, generate awareness about the project and favour knowledge sharing
(similar to the I_HeERO projects for eCall)
Also Member States should financially support the transition:
 In countries already equipped with a central location data server for emergency services,
Member states should provide budget to support the upgrade of the systems to receive
the HELP112 SMS and integrate the location data to the central server.
 In countries where no central location server is available, Member states should provide
budgets to support the possible implementations of the HELP112 location data central
servers.
 Policy option 3: Regulatory intervention
As detailed in Section 12, a EU regulatory intervention could play a critical role in accelerating the
improvement of emergency caller location solutions in Europe because it will move all players
along the emergency value chain and EU members towards a coordinated action.
Through the Radio Equipment Directive, the Commission may be able to ensure that every phone
sold within the EU is equipped with E-GNSS and Wi-Fi.
Even though the NPV for a mandate on all mobile phones offers the highest NPV, we believe that
the difference in the investment required would not justify it. While it is clear that some additional
benefits can be generated, substituting all feature phones with GNSS-enabled phones increases in
our view the difficulty of the regulatory and political implementation path of HELP112. In addition,
such a mandate would mostly impact the poorest citizens of the EU who are not able to buy a
smartphone today. They would suffer from a direct in the price of basic feature phones.
Finally, if GNSS-enabled phones adoption rate continue to increase at the same pace after 2025,
almost no feature phones will remain in the market.
If Apple, Microsoft, Blackberry and Firefox do not voluntarily follow Google’s lead in implementing
the HELP112 software, the Radio Equipment Directive could also be considered as a regulatory
instrument to put pressure on handset vendors, and indirectly on OS providers as well. The
existence of a mandate provides an effective mitigation strategy for the risk of unavailability of the
solution in the future.
Through the Universal Service Directive, the Commission could also mandate PSAPs to upgrade
their systems to receive HELP112 location data, as done in the scope of the eCall mandate.
Combined with financial support, this could prove the most effective actions to tackle barriers to
the implementation.

Finally, to support the user plane implementation of E-NBL, the EC should Encourage the
standardisation of the format for the cell tower database to be shared between MNOs and PSAPs
(or PSAP location solutions providers)
126/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
APPENDICES
127/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
1. APPENDIX A: COST TO TRANSMIT THE HELP112 LOCATION

THROUGH SMS, DATA OR VOICE CHANNELS
In order to estimate the cost that a HELP112 message represents for MNOs, sent either by SMS or
voice channel, we have used the weighted average termination rates in Europe25 and discounted
the average operating margin of the industry in Europe (11%26). To estimate the same cost, but
using the data channel we have used the EU Roaming Regulation document from the European
Commission.27
Size (bytes) Rates (EUR cents)

SMS 140 1.98
Voice (60 seconds) n.a. 0.83
Data 1,000,000 < 0.90
If we assume that the message sent through the voice and data channels has the same size as
that of an SMS, we obtain the following costs per message:

SMS 140 1.98
28
Data 140 < 0.001
Finally, the average time saved per call is 12 seconds and represents the following savings for
MNOs:

29
25
BEREC, Termination rates at European level January 2016
26
Financial Times, markets data – average operating margin for the largest telecommunication operators in Europe
27
European Commission, Peter Stuckmann, EU Roaming Regulation – Towards structural solutions, presentation,
Geneva, March 2012, EC/DG Information Society and Media
28
From the estimated additional time an eCall will generate on a call
29
Average time saved per call
128/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
We can therefore conclude that only the SMS will represent an additional cost for MNOs and this
additional cost will be the cost of the SMS minus the time saved. Therefore, we will include a rate
of €1.76 cents per emergency call.
129/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
2. APPENDIX B: ROAMING COSTS ANALYSIS
2.1 HOW ROAMING WORKS

Roaming is a complex activity between 2 or even more different MNOs in the same or different
countries. It requires agreements between MNOs under the Standard Terms for International
Roaming Agreements (STIRA) framework from the GSM Association (GSMA) and, depending on
the use case, a single deal may include agreements through roaming exchanges with many MNOs.
Figure 70 shows commercial and technical details for international mobile roaming30.
Figure 70 - Commercial link required for international mobile roaming
Source: GSMA
1. The mobile user (Mobile User A) has an international roaming service with their home
operator (Home Operator) and is automatically connected to a visited network (Visited
Operator A) while roaming.
2. Mobile User A is automatically granted access to Visited Operator A’s network when arriving
in the visited country by an exchange of a data between Home Operator and Visited
Operator A, where Visited Operator A confirms Mobile User A is a roaming customer with
Home Operator. As such, the wholesale roaming agreement between Visited Operator A
and Home Operator specifies how this data is to be provided to the visited operator.
3. Home Operator usually has wholesale roaming agreements with more than one operator in
the same visited country, which in this case is Visited Operator A and a second network,
Visited Operator B. As a result, Mobile User A can call home using either visited operator
networks, both of which use international transit services to carry the call back to Mobile
User A’s home country.
4. Mobile User A pays a retail price to Home Operator for the roaming service and does not
pay Visited Operator A.
5. Provided Mobile User B is not also roaming, they will not incur any extra charges to receive
a call from, or to make calls to Mobile User A.
30
http://www.gsma.com/latinamerica/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/GSMA-Mobile-roaming-web-English.pdf
130/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
6. Visited Operator A sends transferred account procedure (TAP) files to a clearing house
which forwards them to the Home Operator. TAP files are used for billing of calls while
roaming.
7. Home Operator can then pay Visited Operator A the wholesale charges as per call volumes
in the TAP file and rates in the wholesale roaming agreement.
8. Visited Operator A pays an international carrier (International Carrier) for carrying the call
and handing over the call to Home Operator. International Carrier pays Home Operator a
termination rate for terminating the call in the home country.
2.2 THE COSTS INVOLVED IN A ROAMING COMMUNICATION (SMS, VOICE, DATA)

As for the cost analysis conducted by ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T)31, the
international roaming cost involves the following cost centres:
Figure 71 - Cost centres and underlying cost elements
International roaming involves the following cost centres which are
extensions of the existing domestic network’s operational systems:-
IOTs
Operational - Wholesale
Major
business processes roaming call agreements
cost
for roaming and their between each MNO & FNO
centres
support systems for origination, carriage
& termination
Cost
elements
Business Support
Network Network Business Support
Services Opex
Equipment Capex Equipment & NOC Services Capex
(Processes operation,
(Gateways, VLR, Opex (Billing &
S/w licences,
mediation, cabling, (Salaries, customer care
Salaries, Maintenance,
NOC etc, Maintenance, Software & h/w,
Data centre
procure/extend) Site rents, etc) Data centre)
overheads, etc)
SCF
MNO= Mobile Network Operator, FNO= Fixed Network Operator

VLR= Visiting Location Register, NOC =Network Operating Centre, & systems
Source: ITU
The wholesale charges are a separate addition, as illustrated figuratively above and although in
theory dependent on actual costs, too often have been seen as arbitrary in magnitude.
Despite the fact the underlying infrastructure is quite complex, according to the cited paper at
footnote 32, “the roaming cost should be only an additional fraction of domestic costs”.
Furthermore, it must also be noted that the data to answer operational and technical questions
about costs is usually not publicly available, often considered commercially confidential by the
MNOs.
In summary, international roaming involves the following activities for equipment, systems and
operations:
31
GUIDE FOR NRAS ON INTERNATIONAL MOBILE ROAMING COST ANALYSIS – TECHNICAL PAPER (T-TUT-ROAMING-
2015-03-MSW-E.docx)
131/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
 Identification and verification

 Collection/ transport of call data records (CDRs) with costs of retail billing for roaming
subscribers; may include specific real-time systems (e.g. for pre-paid customers) such as
CAMEL (see Figure 71);
 Interconnection & transit infrastructure costs for international calls & payments to transit
carriers (see Figure 71);
 Payments for call termination for visited MNO, at wholesale prices, with discrepancy
resolution (see Figure 71);
 Associated additional home network and business systems costs;
 Costs of negotiation/upkeep of roaming agreements (see Figure 71);
 For prepaid may also use a local recharge hub, or some agreement to use local recharge
cards for roaming top-up;
 Plus a slice of SG&A costs – proportional shared costs of company operations.
Various MNOs have tried to include special marketing and sales costs in their roaming charges.
However, this seems questionable in terms of a service that thrives without promotion, through its
dependence on its (tied) domestic subscribers who are already signed up.
The costs for MNOs are characterized by being of two main categories:
• CAPEX – Payments either one-time or periodically repeated for significant capital sums, e.g.
for amortized equipment, or for spectrum rights at auction.
• OPEX – Continual recurring payments – e.g. for power supplies and other utilities, staff
salaries, maintenance, rents, interconnect charges for use of other carriers, way-leaves, rights
of access, rights of way, consumables, annual additional spectrum licence fees, software
licences and maintenance, leases for data processing facilities, service level agreements
(SLAs), etc.
The overall cost structure for the roaming business model is illustrated below with the
infrastructure's (incremental) costs over domestic operations plus the wholesale agreement
charges as shown below.
132/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
Figure 72 - Overview of the cost structure with wholesale IOT agreement and margins
The financial structure for MNO roaming tariffs
Profit Margin Mark-up

on costs
(7BN Euro/
year*
Negotiated surcharges (IOTs) for wholesale termination for EU
of call between MNOs (under STIRA) MNOs)
and also with fixed line carriers
Cost- factors
Cost base for use of the Visited country’s that may be
infrastructure, mobile and/or fixed cited as the
drivers of extra
marginal costs
Cost base for use of the Home country’s for international
traffic, by
infrastructure, mobile and/or fixed volume
SCF
*MNO estimates from Orange, Vodafone, O2, 12 Sep 2013
STIRA – Standard Terms for International Roaming Agreements IOT- Inter-Operator Tariff MTR -Mobile Termination Rate
To find out the different elements and their associated costs, a “use cases” approach has been
used in the cited technical paper. The approach covers all different scenarios (hence costs)
involved when the subscriber requests roaming (SMS, voice, data).
Furthermore, the EU regulatory group, the Body of European Regulators of Electronic
Communications (BEREC), found that in the EU in 2012 (after five years of price caps) retail
roaming prices were on average 118% higher than the estimated underlying costs and that
the real costs assessed by BEREC for EU MNOs from its NRA members 32 should be far lower than
retail costs:
Wholesale costs, EUR cents Wholesale + retail costs

Calls made (outgoing) < EUR 5 c/min < EUR 8 c/min
SMS < EUR 1 c < EUR 1.6 c
Data < EUR 5 c/MB < EUR 9 c/MB
From ITU roaming cost analysis: “As roaming volume increases with reduced roaming retail tariffs,
the processes become less costly and the marginal prices of further calls sink towards the
domestic price floor level. This effect is due to the additional roaming cost elements being
amortized over more calls or data sessions so that incremental costs sink with volume,
while the additional elements become a lower portion of the cost price.”
According to the technical paper in footnote 32, the overall conclusion is that pricing regulation in
the EU will progressively converge roaming prices with domestic prices - and thus more likely to
align with real costs in a competitive market. The EU's glide path for reduction is shown below33:
32
European Commission, Peter Stuckmann, EU Roaming Regulation – Towards structural solutions, presentation,
Geneva, March 2012, EC/DG Information Society and Media.
33
EC, DG CONNECT, Commissioner Neelie Kroes, Presentation speech, 12 September 2013.
133/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
Table 24 - Impact of regulatory price caps in the EU

EC retail caps in 1 July 2012 1 July 2013 1 July 2014 15 June 2017
(Euro cents) (EUR cents) (EUR cents) (EUR cents) (EUR cents)
Voice call made/minute 32 28 24 Domestic rate, target

0 (Domestic rate
Voice call received/minute 11 11 10
target)
Data (per Megabyte) 90 70 50 Domestic rate, target
Such convergence of roaming and domestic retail tariffs has only been achieved in the EU by
constant regulatory pressure on MNOs over the last decade. The glide path caps are still to be
maintained over the years to 2017 and beyond.
2.3 CONCLUSIONS
The cost model for SMS, voice and data roaming is complex, but remains a source of profit for
MNOs. Furthermore, MNOs don’t follow a unique and shared method to allocate roaming costs.
The EU and ITU efforts to analyse the underlined roaming cost started in 2007 has demonstrated
the additional roaming cost elements rapidly decrease over more calls, SMS and data sessions so
that incremental costs sink with volume, while the additional elements become a lower portion of
the cost price.
In 2013 data roaming was already up to 91% cheaper compared to 2007. During this period the
volume of the data roaming market has grown 630%. These two trends mean mobile operators
are already able to cover the roaming costs. Based on that, the EU has achieved retail price
reductions across calls, SMS and data of over 80% since 2007 and, starting from June 15
2017, voice and data price will be at the same price as for the domestic rate.
In conclusion, according to the EU regulatory price caps and ITU roaming cost analysis in
technical paper 32, the cost to roam the SMS, voice and data should be covered by the MNOs
already having the infrastructure for that.
Therefore, in our analysis, no additional costs are allocated to roam the HELP112 location data
(SMS, voice, data).
134/135
HELP112-D2.1-D2.2-
Reference:
D2.3-PTO
Date: 27/03/2017
Version: 2.3
END OF DOCUMENT
135/135

Help112-D2 1-2 2-2 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Help112-D2 1-2 2-2 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ref.

Pilot project on the design,

Philippe Brousse, Alberto Lodieu, Maria Grazia Verardi

Deliverable D2.1-D2.2-D2.3 – Cost Benefit Analysis

Responsibility-Office-Company Date Signature

Philippe Brousse / Alberto Lodieu /

Verified by Alberto Lodieu 27 March 2017

Approved by Alberto Lodieu 27 March 2017

ISSUE DATE § : CHANGE RECORD AUTHOR

1.0 29/03/2016 Deliverable outline P. Brousse

1.4 20/09/16 Integration of feedback from consortium members P. Brousse

1.5 05/12/16 Review post checkpoint 4 P. Brousse

2.0 08/12/16 Revision: P. Brousse

2.1 06/01/17 Review post checkpoint 5 P. Brousse

2.2 27/01/17 Minor revisions following final meeting P. Brousse

2.3 27/03/17 Minor revisions following final deliverables submission P. Brousse

3. METHODOLOGY OF THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS .................................................. 21

4. DEFINITION OF TECHNOLOGY SCENARIOS FOR THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS .... 24

5. EVOLUTION OF KEY TECHNOLOGIES FOR LOCATION AND TRANSMISSION ........... 32

6. BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF THE LOCATION TECHNOLOGIES .......................................... 44

6.2 EMERGENCY CALLS BENEFITING FROM THE HELP112 SOLUTION ............................................... 45

7. BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSMISSION TECHNOLOGIES ................................. 61

8. COST ANALYSIS OF THE LOCATION TECHNOLOGIES ............................................... 68

9. COST ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSMISSION TECHNOLOGIES ...................................... 77

9.4 DATA CHANNEL (HTTPS) .............................................................................................. 79

10. PRESENT VALUE OF NET BENEFITS FOR TECHNOLOGY SCENARIOS ....................... 83

11. RISK ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TECHNOLOGY SCENARIOS 93

12. IMPACT OF EUROPEAN COMMISSION INTERVENTION .......................................... 108

13. MAIN TECHNOLOGICAL, FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS... 118

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 127

1. APPENDIX A: COST TO TRANSMIT THE HELP112 LOCATION THROUGH SMS, DATA

2. APPENDIX B: ROAMING COSTS ANALYSIS ............................................................. 130

Figure 1 - HELP112 project flow chart ...................................................................................... 17

Figure 31 - Number of lives saved at EU level (2015-2025)........................................................ 60

1.1 PLACE OF THIS DOCUMENT AND OBJECTIVES

Figure 1 - HELP112 project flow chart

As a reminder, here are the goals of each Work Package’s deliverable:

1.2 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

AD2 Help112 Consortium Agreement

1.3 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

3. METHODOLOGY OF THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

3.1 THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS COMPARES DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGY SCENARIOS

3.2 THE LOCATION AND TRANSMISSION TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS CAN BE

3.3 BASE CASE DEFINITION

3.4 OUTPUTS OF THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

To evaluate the costs, we have estimated for each scenario:

4. DEFINITION OF TECHNOLOGY SCENARIOS FOR THE COST-

4.1 LOCATION AND TRANSMISSION TECHNOLOGIES

Figure 2 - Selected location and transmission technology components

Figure 3 – Selection process of technology components

Not selected based on user requirements and market trends

Not relevant at the technical level

Handset-based Enhanced network-based location - User plane X X X X

GNSS (multi-constellation without Galileo)

E-GNSS non assisted (multi-constellation incl. Galileo)

A-GNSS (multi-constellation without Galileo) X X X X

E-GNSS (assisted multi-constellation incl. Galileo) X X X X

2 Cell-ID A-GPS Wi-Fi

3 Cell-ID A-GPS Enhanced NBL (User plane)

4.1.1 Location technologies

5 Cell-ID A-GNSS (wihtout Galileo)

7 Cell-ID A-GNSS Enhanced NBL (User plane)