how-to block ads
|
|
view: topics flat text |
|
Comments on news posted 2005-05-18 16:03:28: Tomorrow the FCC will release an order that forces all independent VoIP providers to offer 911 service within 120 days. ..
|
 | | | Cheering or Jeering the e911 decision? Here's an interesting blog post from VoIP journalist Tom Keating:
»blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating···sion.asp
In this article he talks about how this decision will lead to the mark of the beast, the apocalypse, etc. etc. Tongue in cheek of course. Pretty funny actually. | |
| | | Comments on e911 and VoIP I listened to the FCC meeting today. It didn't really make Vonage look very good. The new rules become effective 120 days after they're published in the Federal Register, which may take a few weeks. As I understand them, they will require VoIP services THAT INTERCONNECT WITH THE PSTN to properly handle 911 calls. The inteconnect requirement makes the rules not applicable to "pure internet" telephone services. Some free services (such as »www.sipphone.com) MAY want to drop their interconnection to POTS (their "virtual minutes") to avoid the costs associated with compliance. Or, they could include the costs associated with compliance in their per minute charge for interconnection. Further, the new rules will require PSTN providers to make available an interface to 911 so the 911 dispatcher can see a call-back number and a location for anyone calling in.
Harold
----
FCC rules updated daily at »www.hallikainen.com | |
| | |  FCC mandates 911, what's next?
They start with the 911 requirement, which I STRONGLY agree is a way to kill the small companies. (MPAA anyone?)
What's next? If they are mandating E911 (in a REDICULOUS little amount of time, and probably not obtainable) then why aren't they also pushing throught hat VoIP service has to be up 99.9 % of the time without fail INCLUDING power outtages? When the power goes out, should you not also have the same access to the Telco network as with POTS?
This is all hype now, and it's the FCC trying to flex their muscles for their money hungry supporters (ie: Classic Bell) however, the law suits will come shortly and the FCC will be told that VoIP is outside their reach.
To this day, VoIP is still classified as an information service. The FCC can't make these rules. By making these rules, they have to classify this service as a telephone service to which ALL rules HAVE to apply. If this is allowed to continue, then the QoS rules will apply, down time and repair time will apply, etc. Since this service relies on a broadband conection, they would also have to guarantee that the BB connections be there, available, and always on line in case of emergency too! Their justification is that since these "calls" terminiate to a land line service that they must offer the 911 service. Problem is that it's not the termination that matters here, it's the origination. VoIP is still data packets over the internet which the FCC can't touch.
This WILL be a fight, but it's not going to go as smooth as the FCC would like it to.
By the way, anyone watch Penn & Tell BS on Showtime? This owuld be a GREAT topic for them, and right up their alley! | |
| | | Phone Companies are trying everything they can. Customers are changing to Voip by the boatloads and the bells don't know what to do. I have Voip through Comcast and it has been a money saver, and i have had absolutely no problems with it. | |
|  elveySpamassassin
join:2001-02-17
San Francisco, CA
 ·Virgin Mobile Br..
 ·Sipgate VOIP
| Solution? Is it feasible for the (non-ILEC) VoIP providers to get together and establish a competitor to the ILEC's 911 service? In CA, cell phones don't go to the ILEC's 911; they go to the CHP. And the CHP does a terrible job-I've waited on hold for around 45 minutes to get an operator. It seems that this might be a solution... It seems that there is no quality of service requirement. Or did the regulation require that the ILEC's service be used?
--
SBC is the world's second-largest SpamHaus and leads an Organized Crime Syndicate. | |
|
| |
|
