| No Surprise... Point fingers at Vonage or SBC, the point is that Vonage is working towards an E-911 solution and SBC does not want to help.
Please, the E-911 network was paid for and is maintained by copper users, not SBC, not the Federal Gov't, but by us.
I *do* feel that Vonage users (and other VoIP customers) need to contribute to the E-911 fund in order to get E-911 service. Once they do, SBC should not try to block Vonage's action to interface with E-911. Sadly, SBC will think of another reason to block the VoIP carriers if they start to put money in the E-911 pool.
SBC has been a poor loser for many things, this is just another one of their temper-tantrums.
--
Playing the Tuba isn't an art, it's an adventure! http://www.lakesidepride.org |
|
ke4pymPremium
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC Reviews:
 ·VOIPo
 ·Verizon Broadban..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Northland Cable ..
| Too bad you can't opt out of the E911 service fund. Personally, I don't want, need or care about having "E911", and as such, don't want to pay for it.
I pay plenty in taxes to cover police/fire services. If something happens and I can't verbalize where I am, oh well. I'm that much of a cheapskate. |
|
 calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | The "opt out" proposal ignores the fact that a major part of E-9-1-1 is providing emergency response to locations when the person reporting isn't the service subscriber.
Maybe your Aunt and her 3 kids are visiting, and when the fire breaks out at 3 am, only one of your cousins can reach a phone.
It's not all about YOU.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
|
|
| said by calvoiper:The "opt out" proposal ignores the fact that a major part of E-9-1-1 is providing emergency response to locations when the person reporting isn't the service subscriber. Maybe your Aunt and her 3 kids are visiting, and when the fire breaks out at 3 am, only one of your cousins can reach a phone. It's not all about YOU. Not to mention if you are unable to speak in an emergency.
It would be hell to be having a fatal asthma attack or be choking with dispatch on the other end of the phone asking you where you live, but you can not tell them.
--
Playing the Tuba isn't an art, it's an adventure! http://www.lakesidepride.org |
|
| reply to achuchma
Need to back up and take a good look at who and why.
Vonage entered the market without this E911 because they knew the only way they could push VoIP and get a head-start would be to begin with what they had at the time. They knew any 911 provision would take years to implement with the ILECs so they knowingly "began" the VoIP market.
Now that VoIP is becoming a true alternative and posing a real threat to traditional voice services, the issue of 911 has to be addressed.
SBC knows this and expected that Vonage would eventually be forced to hurry 911 service into its network in order to present itself as a true, safe alternative to regular voice.
I dont think SBC is going to want to help Vonage become a better competitor, even if this makes them look like the greedy little pigs they are. This is the American way and anyone who really needs 911 services should just go back to SBC and pay for a regular voice line. Nobody is forcing you to get Vonage service and endager your life, now are they? With this arguement, SBC can easily reflect accusations that it is insensitive.
The ILECs will do all they can to delay the arrival of VoIP, for reasons that should be obvious. I think eventually they will implement it but no Vonage is going to hurry them into it. Big guys dont take sh*t from little guys and this attempt by Vonage to force the hand with SBC is admireable but very naive.
What really bugs me is that we've allowed all these telecom companies to re-merge so now when one of them says no, there really is no other competitors you can go to in order to force the issue.
I think Vonage did the right thing in coming out with their VoIP service, even if it was sorta incomplete.If they were to have waited for E911, we'd all still be waiting for VoIP.
Wake up, fools. |
|
