Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays E911 Implemen in VOIP Tech Chat http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r14914149 en Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:05:37 EDT Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:05:37 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays E911 Implemen http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14960176 Fisamo : Of course, there is no way to guarantee that a household has E911. How many families nowadays have cut the POTS cord and have cell phones exclusively? Unless they're in an area where the telco leaves the line 'warm' (able to dial customer service to establish active service and 911 only), that home would also be without E911. The difference, of course, is in the assumption that any analog telephone plugged into the wall is able to dial 911 and get the same response as, say, a neighbor's POTS line. Avoidance of that confusion (which is what caused the uproar after the home invasion incident in Texas) is the only practical purpose served by forcing VoIP providers to provision E911.

If the government were to truly force every home to have working E911, they'd have to force the ILECs to provision warm lines to every dwelling within its jurisdiction. That's a lot of copper... And that's even before the question of whether the CPE is capable of using that E911 connection (does the phone work, and is it plugged into the 'warm' line?)...
--
»www.voipboards.net]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14960176 Tue, 06 Dec 2005 13:59:56 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays E911 Implemen http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14960017 georgepan : Fisamo-

That certainly sounds like a feature that, once you get used to it, is almost irreplacable. We are creatures of habit and are willing to pay extra to keep features that are dear to us. SR has some features that at this point I would not want to live without and are only available with this particular provider.

I can't argue with ATT CallVantage reliability advantage, at least for now. SR had a big issue in Sept. and it takes more than just a couple of months of relative stability to completely erase that. Not bad in my book, keeps them in line as for prices and trying their best to keep in the upper region of "good to very good."

Camelot One-

I see your point of view and don't disagree with it. Why duplicate the effort if you already have it, possibly in triplicate? The only problem is how do you distinguish the setups? How would one assure that at least ONE E-911 service is present in a household? You could cancel your POTS service and whatever other VOIP you have and then you would have no 911 service at all if the provider you were left with does not have it. I guess what I am saying is that the apparatus necessary to make sure that a household has at least one E911 service at it's disposal would be larger than just requiring all phone services to provide E911 as standard.

I certainly agree that in your case it seems like overkill. It is the chance that it won't be there at all (in households with just one phone choice) that makes it an issue and a mandate for all VOIP. IMO the fact that someone could be adversely affected by the complete lack of it without knowledge (children, wife, visitors) makes it a "lesser of two evils." In that way it is, at least to me, closer to "lack of insurance" that may adversely affect people other than yourself than, say, lack of a motorcycle helmet, which usually only affects yourself.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14960017 Tue, 06 Dec 2005 13:36:36 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays E911 Implemen http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14959766 Camelot One :
said by georgepan See Profile :

But that's like saying you don't want to pay for seatbelts and air bags in a vehicle to save money.
I don't think that is similar at all, at least not without some qualifiers. If the vehicle was to be used only on private property, as a way to get around on say farmland, yes I would like the option to purchase the vehicle for less due to a lack of airbags. Now in my primary vehicle that I drive on the streets, sure I want airbags.

And that is exactly what we have here. 911 service is a good thing to have, and I am already paying for it on my land line. I don't need to pay again for it on my VoIP line, and CERTAINLY not on multiple VoIP lines.
--
AMD X2 4400+/ MSI K8N Neo 4 Platinum SLI/ 2x 512Mb Kingston HyperX PC4000/ WD 74Gb Raptor/ PNY 7800GTs SLI/ Antec 550 True Control/ Custom water cooler]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14959766 Tue, 06 Dec 2005 13:03:16 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays E911 Implemen http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14959546 Fisamo :
said by georgepan See Profile :

Fisamo-

Point is that due to the expanse with Level 3 it is probably a matter of days for Raleigh proper to come online as well. :D

George, in all fairness, if SR offers Apex numbers (Level 3 does have some, so it should be possible), I'd probably give them a closer look. However, AT&T's "control by phone" access to my VoIP line is one feature that is not offered by many (if any) of their competitors, and I do use that feature consistently. It's not just for VM access, but to remotely (via phone) activate/deactivate DND, "locate me" (call forwarding), and even remotely place calls via my VoIP line (instead of, say, making LD calls billed to a hospital or hotel room). Those features are, to me, worth the extra $/mo I pay AT&T. Also, my perception of AT&T's reliability is worth a lot, especially since I have a young family at home. Finally, the hassle of porting my number (and potentially losing it) is enough of an obstacle that I would definitely try any other provider for at least a few months before I even considered porting my number again.

...

Two more things: SR had an all-day outage on 9/11, but even throughout that service was available but spotty. My wife made 2 calls that day, the second after trying it a few times that evening. Next day service was restored for us. A few reverberations here and there with a couple of very small 10-minute outages as "aftershocks" but not noticed by me (and most, I would imagine.) The problem was overstated some here. According to a thread started by kdanieli recently it looks like sales throughout the month of September were not affected, or if, then very little.
It's actually the 'bad press' SR was getting here to which I was referring. Whether the problems were overstated or not, the frustration of not having your phone line available on demand is high. Without getting into a "My service has fewer outages than yours" discussion, I do perceive a value in the uptime experience I've had with AT&T. (Note that this is my perception based on my experience, so you can't prove me wrong on this point. :) ) If the downtime and resulting complaints here haven't negatively affected their sales, I'm happy for them.

Also, who knows how long VP, Lingo and Nuvio take to get this thing online? The claim is end of January, which remains to be seen.
Certainly true. I still think they're profitable enough that they won't require the new customer signups generated during this time of the year to remain viable. Will the stop on new sales hurt? Undoubtedly.
--
»www.voipboards.net]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14959546 Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:32:23 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays E911 Implemen http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14959164 georgepan : But that's like saying you don't want to pay for seatbelts and air bags in a vehicle to save money.

IMO it is very doubtful that VP adds any cost to their offerings as part of this. Market pressure is too high. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14959164 Tue, 06 Dec 2005 11:37:44 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays E911 Implemen http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14959062 Camelot One : I think you would be hard pressed to find a customer of ANY company who wouldn't like to receive MORE for free. It just rarely happens. When a companies costs on a service go up, the cost FOR the service must go up as well. I for one do not want to pay for E911. I don't want it, don't need it, and certainly don't want to waste money on it.

If I DID want it, I wouldn't be a VP customer. I would pay more to use a provider that had it. That is how a free market is supposed to work.....the customers pay for what they want, and not what they don't.
--
AMD X2 4400+/ MSI K8N Neo 4 Platinum SLI/ 2x 512Mb Kingston HyperX PC4000/ WD 74Gb Raptor/ PNY 7800GTs SLI/ Antec 550 True Control/ Custom water cooler]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14959062 Tue, 06 Dec 2005 11:21:14 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays E911 Implemen http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14958912 georgepan : Fisamo-

Point is that due to the expanse with Level 3 it is probably a matter of days for Raleigh proper to come online as well. :D

Anyway, I believe most VP customers would be happy to get E-911 added IF they were assured that they would not have to pay extra for it. If VP picks up the tab and just makes less profit the added feature is probably welcome by most outside of a certain group (small, IMO.)

Two more things: SR had an all-day outage on 9/11, but even throughout that service was available but spotty. My wife made 2 calls that day, the second after trying it a few times that evening. Next day service was restored for us. A few reverberations here and there with a couple of very small 10-minute outages as "aftershocks" but not noticed by me (and most, I would imagine.) The problem was overstated some here. According to a thread started by kdanieli recently it looks like sales throughout the month of September were not affected, or if, then very little.

Also, who knows how long VP, Lingo and Nuvio take to get this thing online? The claim is end of January, which remains to be seen. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14958912 Tue, 06 Dec 2005 10:57:12 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays E911 Implemen http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14958799 Fisamo :
said by georgepan See Profile :

While it is true that Sunrocket has not had market availability in all markets that has changed dramatically. They added Level 3, one of the largest CLECs in the land, at least in a good portion of the country, so they are probably close to blanketing the entire country at this point. For instance, your area, the 919 area, has several Sunrocket exchanges available, all Level 3 numbers.

For instance:

Chapel Hill 919-636-xxxx

Cary 919-439-xxxx

Goldsboro 919-648-xxxx

Benson 919-701-xxxx

I would imagine Cary is local to you, so that exchange would lend itself splendid for your purposes, no? :D

My bad. I had checked a Raleigh number on their website (and their map still doesn't include any 919 numbers). One would think they'd offer service in a state capital at the same time as the capital's suburbs (e.g. Cary)... :) And FWIW, Cary is local but I can't port my number to a Cary rate center. Still no SR for me! :D

It's good we can agree that the market will ultimately answer the questions. I've said many times that for me, VP service was a non-starter since they didn't offer any form of 911. However, I don't think that makes VP a "bad" company. I just don't have need of a 2nd phone line enough to justify the monthly expense. (I can handle the expense of Stanaphone. :D )

You've made it clear that you are comfortable with the government telling you "what to do" in the guise of safety (e.g. seatbelts, E911 on the phone, etc). While there are many who agree with that stance, there are also many who disagree with you, as evidenced by responses in this thread and others. I suspect most VP subscribers are in the latter category, since they continue to pay their monthly service fees, even though they don't have E911 dialing capability.

In any case, the regulatory environment is at the point now where VP is backed into a corner, and they will emerge with a working solution. It will be a hard month for them, as they won't be able to sign up new customers, but it probably won't be any worse than September was for SR, with their string of outages. (I do hope you're right, in that those outages are behind SR now. The more VoIP companies out there deemed reliable, the better for the market. :) ) Also, FWIW, I don't think VP ever had the plan to be the biggest and baddest VoIP provider in the land. (I don't know if that's SR's plan, but they seem to be working in that direction.) We could spend much of our time arguing about which business plan is better or which product is better. Since I'm a customer of neither, I don't have the experience to argue the products, but based on the features offered (assuming I could sign up for both SR and VP today), I'd probably choose VP as having features of more value to me. But since I can't sign for either right now, it's a moot point.
--
»www.voipboards.net]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14958799 Tue, 06 Dec 2005 10:41:11 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays E911 Implemen http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14957669 georgepan : Fisamo-

I certainly agree to much of what you have said. Let me just answer a few of the well-made points:

While it is true that Sunrocket has not had market availability in all markets that has changed dramatically. They added Level 3, one of the largest CLECs in the land, at least in a good portion of the country, so they are probably close to blanketing the entire country at this point. For instance, your area, the 919 area, has several Sunrocket exchanges available, all Level 3 numbers.

For instance:

Chapel Hill 919-636-xxxx

Cary 919-439-xxxx

Goldsboro 919-648-xxxx

Benson 919-701-xxxx

I would imagine Cary is local to you, so that exchange would lend itself splendid for your purposes, no? :D

Anyway, they may have had the strategy of going where E911 was readily available at first. The success proves them right, don't you think? If that was indeed their motivation right from the getgo they appear to have proven amazing foresight that maybe a year down the road the FCC comes down with a hammer on this E911 issue. Now they have moved into a leading VOIP provider position, have gone retail with Sears/Kmart and have just added Level 3 to blanket the entire country, while others are effectively shut down for new sales as of the moment. Nothing wrong with that strategy compared to betting on the wrong horse (going with a cheaper third-party 911 solution like Vonage) or having no horse at all like this particular provider.

It is true that VP never marketed itself with the intent to provide 911. But, the market has changed, exploded. The estimates have been updated to 30-some Million VOIP users by the end of 2009. I would imagine at least half of those intend to replace their POTS service completely with VOIP (in most cases with cell as backup.) That big of a market segment has to be made to conform to a uniform E911 standard for the technology to be viable, IMO.

As for the business decision aspect, yes, I agree that there may be issues here behind the scenes. It is the bottom line, of course, that some of these companies are effectively shut down from adding new customers during one of the hottest sales seasons of the year. The only thing that I am wondering about in regards to the hesitation is the question whether the agreement they are seeking with the 3rd-party provider (Intrado) is being hesitated and probed to the FCC upon because it may not pass the "smell" test that CLEC provided E-911 solutions pass without a problem. In other words, is the 3rd party agreement VP is going after too close to the third-party 911 solution Vonage has been mandated to switch to true E-911 deployment from?

Ultimately the market will sort everything out, no doubt. Those providers who choose to tack on fees for E911 will feel the Sunrocket and Viatalk impact, IMO. I hope these companies get it sorted out. Competetition is good for all of us. It just needs to be on a level playing field, especially with something as important as E911. Some yokel with a pregnant wife and baby sitting at home trying to cut phone cost should not be allowed to go completely without E911, not for himself but for his wife's and baby's sake. It should just be an expected feature like 3-way calling, so nobody would even think about whether it is "necessary" for them or not. People oftentimes feel invincible (so they don't get insurance, don't wear seat belts, etc.) but most of the time others not involved in the financial decision making process are effected. How do you check for whether children are present in a household and make it mandatory for just those households? Just get it done and let's get over it. It may even in a certain situtation save the person's life who right now is opposed to this implementation.

There was a hint last month that the FCC was just bluffing, that their ruling had no teeth. Well, they certainly made concessions in that they allowed existing customers to be "grandfathered-in," even without having E-911 availability, but for new customers going forward it is mandated and those not providing it can't sell, simple as that. Will VP survive? Short-term, sure. There is quite a margin in VOIP, especially if a provider chooses to engage in very little advertising. They may just have to eat the cost of the deployment to stay competetive, so the customer gains a service. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14957669 Tue, 06 Dec 2005 05:58:40 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14955726 Fisamo : George,

I think in some ways here, we agree. (shocking, I know. :) ) Of course, there are points of disagreement, too. First, you did not address my comment about SR's "national" footprint actually being quite limited. They certainly offer service in major markets across the nation (more than one in every time zone! :D ). However, there are many metro areas, including mine, in which they do not offer service. It appears to be due to the lack of Global Crossing or Focal points of presence here. I'd say SR chose to make their E911 deployment easier by working with only two CLECs. However, it's still not relevant to me.

I believe VP made a decision to deploy their service initially to internet enthusiasts. Add in all the bells and whistles (blocking options, distinctive ring, etc., many more features than any other provider) to hook the technophiles. Emergency dialing was not a huge priority in the initial rollout, probably because the initial business plan was not for POTS replacement. (No inside info, my speculation.) If VP was not marketing as a POTS replacement, why offer 911? Their decision was, IMO, understandable (but enough to make me steer clear for my primary home line).

SR started much later in the game with a different philosophy. That philosophy is more appropriate for some VoIP users, but not all.

Every VP customer signed up with full knowledge that they would not have 911 dialing. Granted, that knowledge doesn't automatically transfer to everyone in the family or to guests, which is the 'justification' the FCC gives for playing big brother.

As for VP's business decision to not deploy E911 to anyone prior to the FCC deadline, at first pass, I'd say we agree--it seems senseless that VP would 'stunt their own growth' by getting themselves in a situation where they cannot add new customers for at least a month. However, there are factors that VP management must deal with that are not public knowledge. VP's statement in their FCC filing (posted by mts See Profile) indicates a real concern--establishing a long-term, binding arrangement with a 3rd party that could, in a short term (relative to their contract term) be deemed non-compliant by the FCC.

Ultimately, although there is some government meddling in the case of the E911 requirements, the market will sort everything out. If VP's temporary inability to sign up new customers is a killer, they'll have some disappointed former customers. :( However, were I a VP customer, I wouldn't be concerned. I think in the long run, VP will weather this storm just fine.
--
»www.voipboards.net]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14955726 Mon, 05 Dec 2005 21:36:02 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14955516 scooby :
said by nycityny See Profile :

said by scooby See Profile :

I saw that VP was looking at Intrado a while back. I'm assuming this means a price increase or "911 fee" to cover the increase in cost. :(
BITE YOUR TONGUE!!! :)
Blame the FCC and the morons they listen to.:) I'm very content without 911 service.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14955516 Mon, 05 Dec 2005 20:46:40 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14955058 nycityny :
said by scooby See Profile :

I saw that VP was looking at Intrado a while back. I'm assuming this means a price increase or "911 fee" to cover the increase in cost. :(
BITE YOUR TONGUE!!! :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14955058 Mon, 05 Dec 2005 19:56:59 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14953435 scooby : I saw that VP was looking at Intrado a while back. I'm assuming this means a price increase or "911 fee" to cover the increase in cost. :(]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14953435 Mon, 05 Dec 2005 16:23:17 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14953190 mts : Here's a look at VP's filing with the FCC which explains what is going on. »gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retr···18183606

It looks like they are going to go with Intrado but haven't finalized a deal. And they also make a suggestion to the FCC:

"We respectfully suggest that the Commission create a process for certifying third-party 911 solutions so that prior to entering a binding Agreement with, and committing financial resources for a fixed duration to a 911 service provider, interconnected VoIP Service Providers such as VoicePulse may have some clarification regarding the compliance status of such services."

"By January 2006, VoicePulse plans to have completed integration and testing with Intrado’s service, and will be providing coverage according the Intrado’s deployment
schedule"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14953190 Mon, 05 Dec 2005 15:51:18 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14948573 Trill : I'll give the powers that be at VP the benefit of the doubt and assume that they looked at the situation and made what they felt was the best decision on how to approach this. I would think that VP analyzed the financial impact and weighed that into their decision. This doesn't seem to be the tactical maneuver you are trying to make it out to be, but rather a simple decision on how the company wanted to approach fulfilling a new requirement ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14948573 Sun, 04 Dec 2005 23:10:30 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays E911 Implemen http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14947661 georgepan : The personal nature of the response is what's annoying. You are entitled to your opinion, just like everybody else. Problem is that I still don't really know your own opinion because you choose instead to get into non-important tangents. Let's stay on topic and message. A smaller provider like Voicepulse can not afford to have its sales team shut down. Not being able to sell in December and possibly further is something that can damage the company badly. Isn't is a bit far-fetched to consider this a possibly genius move because Voicepulse may end up getting the better of the deal because others MAY have to revamp their 911 system again? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14947661 Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:58:17 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14947127 Trill : Once again we understood VP didn't offer 911 when signing up. We either have other provisions or just don't care. Many people dropped their landlines and went strictly cell long before 911 was available. Did that concern you as much as this does?

Its not that you post about VP, it's how you do it. Your facade is pretty transparent, just look at the way the the first paragraph in your response to me. Then you proceed, once again to lay out your opinions as some type of fact in the very next paragraph. Then you, once again, show some odd concern about an aspect of a company you don't even utilize. I'm sorry, but I just couldn't see myself going on and on about how SR didn't have 7-digit dialing or call fallover when I didn't even use the service. Your aim here is so translucent that it's humorous for you to try to play it off the way you do. Anyhow, my intent wasn't to get personal, but it just gets pretty annoying. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14947127 Sun, 04 Dec 2005 19:38:40 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays E911 Implemen http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14945594 georgepan : Not if the service is essential, life-saving, IMO.

I am mandated to take out insurance on my car. I may like the savings but, honestly, it is a mandate to benefit all. I may not like putting on my safety belt, but it is the law and in the end it is a good, potentially life-saving mandate. I look at this the same way. Of course, I have replaced my home phone with VOIP entirely, so I don't have any other 911 option. I am glad my provider has this service for the safety of my family, but if they did not as of yet I would be pushing for it to benefit my loved ones. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14945594 Sun, 04 Dec 2005 15:37:09 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays E911 Implemen http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14945537 Camelot One : So the government mandating that a company give up their competitive advantage, and advantage in this case by not wasting money - nor charging customers money, for service the customers do not want.....there is nothing sinister about that?
--
AMD X2 4400+/ MSI K8N Neo 4 Platinum SLI/ 2x 512Mb Kingston HyperX PC4000/ WD 74Gb Raptor/ PNY 7800GTs SLI/ Antec 550 True Control/ Custom water cooler]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14945537 Sun, 04 Dec 2005 15:26:08 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays E911 Implemen http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14945312 georgepan : Trill-

Upset? I guess you are missing the point of these discussions entirely. Why would I be upset about Voicepulse? I've seen the service in action locally, and it is decent, just nothing special, and with some glaring shortcoming, not the least the lack of any type of 911 solution. You are critiquing posts of mine about Voicepulse in the VOICEPULSE vs. SUNROCKET thread? I should not post about Voicepulse in such a thread because I don't currently HAVE Voicepulse? I have seen it locally, am very familiar with it.

To the subject of this thread:

Providers that decided to not provide E911 did so because of monetary concerns. They felt they did not need to provide that extra service (costing them extra) because they believed that they are not required to do so as an Internet-packet-provider. Well, other providers felt it was important and essential to provide it, eating the cost of providing it as part of basic service to insure that customers had access to this potentially life-saving service. SR did so, Vonage did the same, although they provided a third-party 911 provider solution. The FCC ruled that it was indeed an essential service and mandated implementation for all providers.

Voicepulse had a competetive advantage for a long time by not providing a service others already had. It is time to get in compliance (and lose the competetive advantage.) There is nothing sinister about this. It is too important a feature to continue a laissez-faire attitude about, and it is after all now the law.


If there are additional provisions down the road, so be it. I expect my provider to get going with it and not hem and haw, foot-dragging style. Asking Voicepulse to get in line with the others is not some sort of chicanery. Consumers benefit from it, obviously. Voicepulse, as well as Nuvio, will probably eat the cost and keep service cost at what it is today to stay competetive with the Vonage's, Packet 8s, Sunrocket's and ATT CallVantage's of the world.

BTW, sales can not flatline more than be at zero, can they? My previous point, obviously entirely misunderstood by you, was about low numbers of fresh reviews on this particularly site conceivably translating into fairly low adoption rate amongst the readership of this site. It is probably reasonable to make the assumption that if the total readership of this site appears to have a fairly low VP adoption rate that sales of consumer services outside of this place are not much better, given the lack of advertising and press for the service. But that is a tangent this thread should not be diverted to. Let's deal with E-911 issues here. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14945312 Sun, 04 Dec 2005 14:50:50 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14944212 Trill : Let me some it up for you.

Has VP ever had E911?

No.

Would it be nice if VP had E911 service now?

Yes. But seeing as how they never had it, and how we know that are working on implementing it, it's kind of hard to get upset because they didn't meet a FCC deadline. Prior to the summer of 2005 VP users had no expectation of E911.

The real question to ask is why you are so upset about it, especially since you aren't even a VP customer. I just find it strange that someone feels the need to constantly harp on services they don't even use, getting more upset about issues than the services customers do. You posted in the Viatalk outage thread about how you couldn't believe that only one review had been written since the or in response to the outage. Do you want us all to believe that you are really concerned with VP sales? Do you really care about how well VP service is marketed, or is this pseudo-concern for VP thinly veiled fanboyism as you look for all opputunities to see services others than yours criticized?

It's the accusations you make that really cause me to respond though because you never back it up with any evidence. You accuse companies with no E911 rolled out yet of cutting corners to maximize profits. You claim that VP has shrunk. You allude to VP flatlining its sells so that it doesn't have to deal with growing pains.

quote:
We intend in a
future order to adopt an advanced E911 solution for interconnected VoIP that must include a method for
determining a user’s location without assistance from the user as well as firm implementation deadlines
for that solution.....Furthermore, providers of interconnected VoIP services that can be
utilized from more than one physical location must provide their end users one or more methods of
updating information regarding the user’s physical location. Although we decline to specify any
particular method, we require that any method utilized allow an end user to update his or her Registered
Location at will and in a timely manner, including at least one option that requires use only of the CPE
necessary to access the interconnected VoIP service.


The looming requirement right there is enough to cause VoIP providers to give pause to the rollout of their current implementations of E911. Can you imagine the amount of money that may have to be invested in implementing this system across a entire service. It would probably mean replacing existing adapters. In other words, the FCC is saying spend money now on meeting our requirement, but be prepared to spend a lot more because what you are doing now most certainly won't meet our future requirement, and will probably cause you to have to junk the client side technology you currently use.
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14944212 Sun, 04 Dec 2005 11:51:47 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays E911 Implemen http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14944049 Camelot One : Well, none of the services I've seen can claim they meet your definition. Most "E911" calls the local dispatch center, and then there is the issue of how they handle 911 calls when you take your adapter to another location.
--
AMD X2 4400+/ MSI K8N Neo 4 Platinum SLI/ 2x 512Mb Kingston HyperX PC4000/ WD 74Gb Raptor/ PNY 7800GTs SLI/ Antec 550 True Control/ Custom water cooler]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14944049 Sun, 04 Dec 2005 11:27:18 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays E911 Implemen http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14943950 georgepan : CamelotOne-

You pick up the phone and you immediately reach your local 911 emergency center. The 911 operator can see right on the screen your name and your full address. They will say: "Please state the nature of your emergency" and, if no answer is given, will immediately dispatch a police vehicle to that location. If an answer is given they'll be able to immediately dispatch the appropriate emergency response vehicles (EMS - Ambulance, Police, Fire Truck, etc.)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14943950 Sun, 04 Dec 2005 11:12:27 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays E911 Implemen http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14943746 Camelot One :
said by georgepan See Profile :

Geez, why so touchy? This is a valid discussion. Not everything someone writes about Voicepulse should be an affront to sensibilities on a DISCUSSION SITE.

There IS no other "way" than TRUE E911. Sunrocket, Viatalk and Packet8 have it. This talk about "maybe Voicepulse was smart waiting it out because maybe the others were doing it all wrong" makes no sense at all. Voicepulse has been shut down for business during one of the busiest selling seasons of the year. I don't know how much clearer this can possibly be? They can't sell their product in DECEMBER. Zero sales means zero sales. The others can go full steam ahead. While SR, VT and P8 basically have E-911 covered ATT Callvantage and Vonage have in place partial coverage of their subscriber area (ATT at 67%, Vonage at around 30%) with Vonage and ATT providing the exact same E911 coverage in those areas the others already in full compliance do. Seems like fools gold to now claim that those who currently have E911 may have it all wrong and when the dust settles THEY'LL be stuck with a mess on their hands while Voicepulse comes out smelling like roses. We'll see about that one. While neither of us KNOW for sure 100% that claim, even pointing out its potential, seems illogical.

It is probably cool for fans to tell themselves that their phone company did everything right but that the big, bad FCC issued a confusing rule that they could not have possibly abided by. That does not make that viewpoint right. Did some of you even read the FCC stipulation? Please explain what is not straight-forward and open to interpretation, forcing the CEOs to scratch their heads in confusion and making them do nothing to comply in a timely manner?

Let's discuss this subject in a non-personal, non-emotional fashion. I did not tell you to send your resume to Voicepulse's PR department, I doubt anyone of us would want to work for any of those crazy outfits at this point. :)
Please define "True E911".
--
AMD X2 4400+/ MSI K8N Neo 4 Platinum SLI/ 2x 512Mb Kingston HyperX PC4000/ WD 74Gb Raptor/ PNY 7800GTs SLI/ Antec 550 True Control/ Custom water cooler]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14943746 Sun, 04 Dec 2005 10:36:06 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays E911 Implemen http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14943270 georgepan : Geez, why so touchy? This is a valid discussion. Not everything someone writes about Voicepulse should be an affront to sensibilities on a DISCUSSION SITE.

There IS no other "way" than TRUE E911. Sunrocket, Viatalk and Packet8 have it. This talk about "maybe Voicepulse was smart waiting it out because maybe the others were doing it all wrong" makes no sense at all. Voicepulse has been shut down for business during one of the busiest selling seasons of the year. I don't know how much clearer this can possibly be? They can't sell their product in DECEMBER. Zero sales means zero sales. The others can go full steam ahead. While SR, VT and P8 basically have E-911 covered ATT Callvantage and Vonage have in place partial coverage of their subscriber area (ATT at 67%, Vonage at around 30%) with Vonage and ATT providing the exact same E911 coverage in those areas the others already in full compliance do. Seems like fools gold to now claim that those who currently have E911 may have it all wrong and when the dust settles THEY'LL be stuck with a mess on their hands while Voicepulse comes out smelling like roses. We'll see about that one. While neither of us KNOW for sure 100% that claim, even pointing out its potential, seems illogical.

It is probably cool for fans to tell themselves that their phone company did everything right but that the big, bad FCC issued a confusing rule that they could not have possibly abided by. That does not make that viewpoint right. Did some of you even read the FCC stipulation? Please explain what is not straight-forward and open to interpretation, forcing the CEOs to scratch their heads in confusion and making them do nothing to comply in a timely manner?

Let's discuss this subject in a non-personal, non-emotional fashion. I did not tell you to send your resume to Voicepulse's PR department, I doubt anyone of us would want to work for any of those crazy outfits at this point. :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14943270 Sun, 04 Dec 2005 08:16:45 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14939332 Trill : The problem is, neither you nor they know if it was done right yet. As mentioned above and in the past, there are a few important issues with E911 and portability that have yet to be resolved. Now if the FCC comes down with very exact rules of what the E911 service must be capable of, what if the companies who have already rolled out the service find that their E911 can not meet these requirements and must be overhauled with a whole new system?

Also, you have no idea what VP or other companies have been doing behind the scenes. It's already been shown that VP has been working with Intrado. There could be E911 systems ready to be implemented quickly once the go ahead is given. It would be much easier to alter the system to meet requirements before the system is rolled out. You can not say that any of these companies have simply avoided the logistical or monetary issues of E911 because you have no idea what they have been doing in preparation. You also assume to have more knowledge than those running these companies on which course of action would be more costly. Maybe you would be better served by spending your time submitting your resume for an executive position. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14939332 Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:14:53 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays E911 Implemen http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14939033 georgepan : Fisamo-

I am sure logistical issues played into it as well. With "cutting corners" I was not just referring to monetary advantages but also making it easier on themselves not having to deal with logistical "headaches" like pesky 911. Surely Sunrocket as well as Viatalk and Packet8 had to approach their partners (in SRs case Global Crossings and Focal Communications) about providing local E-911 service for all their subscribers and work out a per-customer fee. I am sure to maximize spread throughout the country Sunrocket could have partnered with additional CLEC's like the further-reaching Level 3, but they did not. Perhaps because Level 3 does not have 911 at all? I am not sure, but whatever the reasons, only a handful of VOIP providers are now in compliance with the FCC and can continue to do business, the others see their business seriously restricted. That going into an extremely busy sales season.

To their credit Vonage with their massive user base is adding customers to the compliance list fervently. Others are effectively shut down for new sales because they are not in compliance for any part of their user base. I think they had plenty of time to get this done, and should at this time be at least partially in compliance, barring dealings with the more hard-headed CLEC's.

They can do what they want, it is a free marketplace. It just seems foolish to lose the ability to market their product altogether over confusion of what or what not the FCC really wants? Why did they not just use Sunrocket's or Viatalk's ways of doing this 911 thing? Seems easy to follow those who did this thing right. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14939033 Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:33:36 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14938333 Fisamo :
said by georgepan See Profile :

I am sorry, but the VOIP companies are not operating in unison and certainly not in a vacuum. VOIP is seen by most as home phone replacement and intends to brand itself that way going forward. When Sunrocket went national Dec. 2004 they decided to make E-911 a standard feature, to be included with every new customer. It is seen as an integrated feature just like 3-way calling, Caller ID, Call Waiting. Even when I first signed up for Sunrocket it was made clear that SR considers E-911 an essential, potentially life-saving feature they would not even think about not offering their customers as part of their basic phone service. There was no pressure from the FCC at all, they just decided to do that because it is "the right thing to do." The price of E-911 service was incorporated into the basic service price. I suppose I could have been bi#ching about having to pay for E-911 service as part of my basic service fee, when the other providers did not have to offer it at all. As a consumer I like that my provider gave me an extra essential feature that they did not, at the time, have to incorporate. Nothing has changed SRs price structure, quite to the contrary. They recently started offering their service for $199 for 15 months instead of 12 months, a price reduction of over $3 per month.

...

Viatalk decided to go the Sunrocket route when opening to residential business. Of course, they came onboard after the FCC had gotten into this, so they prudently decided to install E-911 right from the getgo.
George,

The emphasis in your quote was, of course, added by me. One of the reasons SR was able to deploy E911 so easily is that their 'national' offering is still quite limited. The only service they offer in NC, for example, is in the Charlotte area. I'd bet they chose their markets based on highest expected rate of new customer signups (duhh.. as any business with half a brain would) and in their estimation, easy access to the E911 infrastructure. I'll presume to read the minds over at VoicePulse for a moment and say that they probably didn't want to offer any 911 service unless they could guarantee the following:
    •Full name, address, and phone# would be transmitted when the customer dialed 911 for their entire service footprint.
    •All 911 calls would be properly routed with no (or minimal) customer action if the TA is moved.
    •The provisioning of the 911 capabilities mentioned in the above two bullets would not adversely affect the service.

There is no VoIP-provisioned E911 that meets all of the above conditions. AT&T, for example, has completely sacrificed the 3rd condition to best meet the first two (not to say that it's all that great on the 2nd one, either). To put it simply, I don't think it's only a matter of money, there is a significant logistical (and prior to the FCC involvement, liability-based) component to their decision, IMO. Prior to the FCC E911 deadline, VP had many more rate centers available than did SR.

Other companies decided to cut corners to maximize profits, simply "hope for the best" in regards to the FCC ruling. They not only gave themselves an early competetive advantage over providers like Sunrocket when 911 was not an issue, they even decided to take a "Wait and see" approach after the FCC got involved and made their ruling and issued a deadline. As of November 29 these companies are not allowed to add any new residential customers. One can't sign up for Lingo and Voicepulse at this time.

How is it possible that a startups like Sunrocket and Viatalk can just build in E-911 without problems? How come Packet8 had it right from the getgo (albeit as a pay-feature)? Sorry, if others can, so can Voicepulse, Lingo, Nuvio, etc. Are they essentially saying: "We can't provide this without going broke?"
As I said above, I don't think it wass strictly a cost-cutting move (although I agree that it is a significant component of the decision, no doubt) for VP to not deploy E911 from the start. In the case of Viatalk, they came on the consumer VoIP scene during or after VoIP 911 was getting bad press in Texas, and I'm certain it was easier to build in E911 support as they got off the ground, as opposed to VoicePulse or even Vonage, both of which had opened up shop without E911 (and in VP's case, no 911 at all) service.

As for VP's decision to not implement anything until they have a better idea of what's considered 'compliant' vs 'non-compliant', I understand where they're coming from. I don't think it's a wise idea, though, because it does put them in a bind, unable to "legally" take new customers, for an undetermined period of time.

It will be interesting to see how the whole E911 issue plays out over the next year or two.
--
»www.voipboards.net]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14938333 Sat, 03 Dec 2005 12:38:36 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays E911 Implemen http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14938227 Camelot One : No, they are saying we won't waste money providing something the FCC says they must, until the FCC tells them exactly what it is they want them to provide.

But I am still firm in my opinion, VoIP should not be forced to provide 911 service. If people want it, they can use a provider who has it, and they can pay for it.
--
AMD X2 4400+/ MSI K8N Neo 4 Platinum SLI/ 2x 512Mb Kingston HyperX PC4000/ WD 74Gb Raptor/ PNY 7800GTs SLI/ Antec 550 True Control/ Custom water cooler]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14938227 Sat, 03 Dec 2005 12:19:44 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays E911 Implemen http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14938189 georgepan : CamelotOne-

Quoting:
The entire situation flat out pisses me off.
Bitchy customer: "I don't want to pay all the fees to my telco. I want unlimited long distance, more features, and I want it for less than a local calling plan from my Telco."
VoIP Company "Ok here ya go, have a VoIP line."
Bitchy customer: "Wait, you mean your cheaper, better line doesn't do everything my telco line would? Hey....FCC....they are killing people because they don't support 911!"

Look, VoIP was never designed as a POTS replacement. It's a broadband phone line. A way to add more features while paying less for it. If you want it to do everything a POTS line does (for example 911) PAY FOR A POTS LINE! It is that simple.

VoicePulse is just stating, in rather kind terms, that the FCC Order is a crock of sh*t. They have told VoIP companies they MUST supply their customers with a service they never claimed they would, because their customers are too stupid to realize VoIP isn't POTS.....but they haven't told them HOW to do it, or what qualifies as compliant.

_____________________________________________________

I am sorry, but the VOIP companies are not operating in unison and certainly not in a vacuum. VOIP is seen by most as home phone replacement and intends to brand itself that way going forward. When Sunrocket went national Dec. 2004 they decided to make E-911 a standard feature, to be included with every new customer. It is seen as an integrated feature just like 3-way calling, Caller ID, Call Waiting. Even when I first signed up for Sunrocket it was made clear that SR considers E-911 an essential, potentially life-saving feature they would not even think about not offering their customers as part of their basic phone service. There was no pressure from the FCC at all, they just decided to do that because it is "the right thing to do." The price of E-911 service was incorporated into the basic service price. I suppose I could have been bi#ching about having to pay for E-911 service as part of my basic service fee, when the other providers did not have to offer it at all. As a consumer I like that my provider gave me an extra essential feature that they did not, at the time, have to incorporate. Nothing has changed SRs price structure, quite to the contrary. They recently started offering their service for $199 for 15 months instead of 12 months, a price reduction of over $3 per month.

Packet 8 negotiated deals and installed E-911 for all their customers. However, since it was not mandatory they offered E-911 as an optional feature. Whoever wanted it could get it by paying an extra $1.99. Now that it has become mandatory they simply opened it up to all and are charging all customers an extra $1.99.
Other companies wanted to cut corners and maximize their own profits. Fine, if they can get away with it, it WAS a free enterprise decision. The FCC agreed with providers like Sunrocket that E-911 is an essential feature VOIP phone service needs to come with.

Viatalk decided to go the Sunrocket route when opening to residential business. Of course, they came onboard after the FCC had gotten into this, so they prudently decided to install E-911 right from the getgo.

Other companies decided to cut corners to maximize profits, simply "hope for the best" in regards to the FCC ruling. They not only gave themselves an early competetive advantage over providers like Sunrocket when 911 was not an issue, they even decided to take a "Wait and see" approach after the FCC got involved and made their ruling and issued a deadline. As of November 29 these companies are not allowed to add any new residential customers. One can't sign up for Lingo and Voicepulse at this time. I believe Vonage is currently defying the FCC ruling, but those new signups (after November 28) are in violation of FCC rules and may have to be closed up again shortly. Why would a customer going with VOIP take the chance that his account is blocked at a moment's notice? I doubt Nuvio is signing up new residential accounts at this point in defiance of FCC rules.

How is it possible that a startups like Sunrocket and Viatalk can just build in E-911 without problems? How come Packet8 had it right from the getgo (albeit as a pay-feature)? Sorry, if others can, so can Voicepulse, Lingo, Nuvio, etc. Are they essentially saying: "We can't provide this without going broke?" ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14938189 Sat, 03 Dec 2005 12:14:14 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14936197 joako :
said by gunji01man See Profile :

Find me one press release that says "We have decided to stop taking new orders." In effect, all VoIP providers have been severly limited in taking new orders by NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. Even Vonage has had their footprint cut by 75% only because the PSAPs and Intrado do not support E911 in those areas. Vonage is spending money filing for waivers and probably has enough money to take this to court to remain selling service to people outside of the PSAP+Intrado footprint. Nevertheless, they didn't issue a statement that says "We're screwed and can't sign up customers in 75% of the US because of the FCC." In fact, they didn't issue any official statement at all. Instead of leaving us here to guess, VoicePulse told us that they are complying with the FCC (read the Order if you don't know what that mean) and will implement a solution that satisfies the FCC when their lawyers tell them to.
said by gunji01man See Profile :

Find me one press release that says "We have decided to stop taking new orders." In effect, all VoIP providers have been severly limited in taking new orders by NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. Even Vonage has had their footprint cut by 75% only because the PSAPs and Intrado do not support E911 in those areas. Vonage is spending money filing for waivers and probably has enough money to take this to court to remain selling service to people outside of the PSAP+Intrado footprint. Nevertheless, they didn't issue a statement that says "We're screwed and can't sign up customers in 75% of the US because of the FCC." In fact, they didn't issue any official statement at all. Instead of leaving us here to guess, VoicePulse told us that they are complying with the FCC (read the Order if you don't know what that mean) and will implement a solution that satisfies the FCC when their lawyers tell them to.
Vonage uses Intrado? Sunrocket use Intrado!!! Yet SunRocket says they CANNOT route calls to out of area 911 centers. Vonage can.
--
Am Heimcomputer sitz' ich hier, und programmier' die Zukunft mir]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14936197 Fri, 02 Dec 2005 22:36:36 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14934010 firefont : Thanks dcurrey, that was a good point. So I decided to call VoicePulse and they confirmed that they are NOT accepting new customers right now because of the mandate. The rep basically said they are waiting to hear back some clarification from the FCC and when they do they will be able to roll out their solution. He offered to put me on a notification list and also reserve the number I wanted. So I did that. Now I'm happy because I really wanted the number that I was going to choose. I'm not sure of the time frame for when they can start accepting new customers again, but it seemed to be from a couple weeks to sometime in January.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14934010 Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:03:10 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14933651 dcurrey :
said by firefont See Profile :

I just tried to sign up and got to the 2nd to last page where they ask for the FCC-compliant address info and then got a message that they cannot sign me up because I am not in an area supported by E911 yet. I live in Houston near downtown, so that makes me think they are being compliant by not accepting any new members for now, no matter where we live.
You are correct they shouldn't be signing up any customers per FCC rules.

However if they are flat out ignoring the rules like Vonage the problem may be as simple as the street name not matching correctly. You may need to type "Drive" instead of "DR". I think someone mentioned if you enter your address on Mapquest use the exact format that they give.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14933651 Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:16:42 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays E911 Implemen http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14933536 Camelot One : The entire situation flat out pisses me off.
Bitchy customer: "I don't want to pay all the fees to my telco. I want unlimited long distance, more features, and I want it for less than a local calling plan from my Telco."
VoIP Company "Ok here ya go, have a VoIP line."
Bitchy customer: "Wait, you mean your cheaper, better line doesn't do everything my telco line would? Hey....FCC....they are killing people because they don't support 911!"

Look, VoIP was never designed as a POTS replacement. It's a broadband phone line. A way to add more features while paying less for it. If you want it to do everything a POTS line does (for example 911) PAY FOR A POTS LINE! It is that simple.

VoicePulse is just stating, in rather kind terms, that the FCC Order is a crock of sh*t. They have told VoIP companies they MUST supply their customers with a service they never claimed they would, because their customers are too stupid to realize VoIP isn't POTS.....but they haven't told them HOW to do it, or what qualifies as compliant.
--
AMD X2 4400+/ MSI K8N Neo 4 Platinum SLI/ 2x 512Mb Kingston HyperX PC4000/ WD 74Gb Raptor/ PNY 7800GTs SLI/ Antec 550 True Control/ Custom water cooler]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14933536 Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:58:02 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14933264 firefont : I just tried to sign up and got to the 2nd to last page where they ask for the FCC-compliant address info and then got a message that they cannot sign me up because I am not in an area supported by E911 yet. I live in Houston near downtown, so that makes me think they are being compliant by not accepting any new members for now, no matter where we live.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14933264 Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:23:31 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14924802 Hooper : "But some Net telephony providers, such as VoicePulse, have not complied at all with the FCC mandate. VoicePulse said in its report to the FCC that it's still negotiating a deal with Intrado, a third-party provider of 911 services. VoicePulse expects to have the necessary testing completed and a deal finalized in January 2006."

from »news.com.com/With+E911+deadline+···=st.next
--
Area Code & Exchange Lookup ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14924802 Thu, 01 Dec 2005 14:10:58 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays E911 Implemen http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14921476 georgepan : Ridiculous. SR is in full compliance with the FCC regulation (for 96% of their calling area.) For you to claim otherwise requires some sort of proof to the contrary. Are you just going by feeling and dislike or do you have solid proof that Sunrocket is not in compliance with the FCC on E-911?

BTW, are you familiar with what Vonage chose to give their customers as 911 substitute vs. what Sunrocket decided to implement and negotiate right from the getgo?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14921476 Thu, 01 Dec 2005 00:53:08 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14918537 vey : Not to mention that E-911 means different things to different people depending on where they live in the country. There are different levels to the "E."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14918537 Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:41:51 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14918134 gunji01man : By the way, go read the articles on Vonage's compliance. They specifically state they are continuing to market their service "despite" the E911 Order -- meaning they are ignoring it, which implies they are not fully compliant. If they're not fully compliant with hundreds of millions of dollars in funding, interconnection with Intrado/TCS/Level3/Verizon/BellSouth , I seriously doubt that SunRocket is.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14918134 Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:55:34 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14918102 gunji01man : They are not in full compliance just because they say they are.

Can you pick up the phone with SunRocket or Packet8 or Vonage and ALWAYS make a change in your E911 service address via phone IN A TIMELY MANNER?

If not, then they are in violation of the order: "we require that any method utilized allow an end user to update his or her Registered Location at will and in a timely manner, including at least one option that requires use only of the CPE necessary to access the interconnected VoIP service." (pg 27)

What happens if you wanted to change your address when Viatalk decided to turn off their CS phones so they could "focus on emails" during yesterdays problems?

Have any users been directed to the wrong PSAP?

If so, then your provider is in violation of the order: "To be clear, this means that interconnected VoIP providers are always required to transmit all 911 calls to the appropriate PSAP" (emphasis added by FCC on "always", pg 26)

YOU may consider these minor points, but when Vonage or Viatalk or SunRocket goes to court over another baby's death, they better hope the jury sees it that way.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14918102 Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:51:22 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays E911 Implemen http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14917178 georgepan : The thing is that other VOIPs have managed to be in full compliance and have true E-911. I don't see why any E-911 solution VP would have to be hap-hazard. Why not just provide true E-911 like the others? Why is it impossible for them and easy for others? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14917178 Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:06:04 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14916400 PacketDump : Not surprised by the limited focus outline for compliance. VoicePulse actually gains more respect from me with this response.

FCC "Jump!"
VP "Jump where?"
FCC "Jump further!"
VP "I have no problem jumping, just tell me where to jump to."

More pleased to see this response rather than some hap-hazard reactionary deployment of a system that will need to be gutted in 3 months at a cost to its customers.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14916400 Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:25:55 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14915451 gunji01man : Find me one press release that says "We have decided to stop taking new orders." In effect, all VoIP providers have been severly limited in taking new orders by NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. Even Vonage has had their footprint cut by 75% only because the PSAPs and Intrado do not support E911 in those areas. Vonage is spending money filing for waivers and probably has enough money to take this to court to remain selling service to people outside of the PSAP+Intrado footprint. Nevertheless, they didn't issue a statement that says "We're screwed and can't sign up customers in 75% of the US because of the FCC." In fact, they didn't issue any official statement at all. Instead of leaving us here to guess, VoicePulse told us that they are complying with the FCC (read the Order if you don't know what that mean) and will implement a solution that satisfies the FCC when their lawyers tell them to. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14915451 Wed, 30 Nov 2005 12:19:34 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14914921 jbs : I signed up for VoicePulse's $14.99 plan two weeks ago - couldn't be happier with the service (highly recommended). When I signed up they asked for specific information to comply with that FCC order even though they clearly stated they didn't offer it.

I think they're doing the right thing here since the FCC has been making some crazy knee-jerk decisions the last few years. I bet they're ready to implement "something" when the FCC tells them what that is, but in the meantime they won't be passing on any costs to me. Hopefully whatever that something is they can offer it as an extra charge option so subscribers can decline if they want to. I got rid of my POTS but I still get a dialtone on it.

Also, if they do implement something in a hurry and it doesn't work right, then they expose themselves to sue-happy people... like that Vonage fiasco. Apparently some people can't read their terms of service.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14914921 Wed, 30 Nov 2005 11:04:14 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14914821 nycityny :
said by gunji01man See Profile :

What doesn't make sense about it? It's written in plain English -- they will comply with the FCC Order, which means they will stop taking orders until they find an acceptable solution.
How do you know that is what they meant? My take is that they were intentionally ambiguous. If they meant that they would stop taking orders I would think they would highlight that rather startling fact.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14914821 Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:48:32 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14914230 gunji01man : What doesn't make sense about it? It's written in plain English -- they will comply with the FCC Order, which means they will stop taking orders until they find an acceptable solution. Maybe they were just making a public statement so they could wait out until after Nov 29th to see if the FCC does an "oops, just kidding" again before signing a contract that would increase plan prices.

You forget that VoicePulse has a whole separate B2B product which is not covered by the 911 Order and Wholesale VoIP is VERY profitable right now. They are also the only provider of incoming SIP/IAX calls with phone numbers from across the country and they charge a premium for it. Seems to me like they have insulated themselves quite well against the uncertainty of residential VoIP.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14914230 Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:20:20 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays E911 Implemen http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14914149 georgepan : What makes no sense is that Voicepulse claims it will comply with the FCC mandate, yet has not even a partial solution for E911 at this point. The FCC mandate states that after Nov. 28 providers can't sell in areas they don't currently have E911 service established in. Unless VP comes up with a solution for E911 in a hurry they can't be selling new services to anyone to comply with the FCC mandate. Sunrocket has 96% compliance with E911 but stopped selling in those market areas they aren't in compliance with the FCC mandate for yet. Due to the lack of E911 Lingo has stopped marketing their service altogether. Banners have disappeared, promotions with telesales companies have been rescinded.

»abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireSt···eeds0312

"FCC officials clarified their position last week, saying companies that don't achieve reliable E911 service by Nov. 28 will not have to pull the plug on customers. But they will have to discontinue marketing Internet call service and accepting new customers in areas where the companies are not routing 911 calls to emergency response centers."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14914149 Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:03:33 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14911750 gunji01man : If you have read the FCC E911 Order, you will see that while they mandate all these restrictions and requirements, they give NO outline to what constitutes an acceptable solution. There is no "FCC Seal Of Approval" on any existing product. This means that companies may spend tens of thousands of dollars (if not more) implementing a solution which will not hold up in court tomorrow. Most providers have already passed their costs onto their customers (BroadVoice $2.50, Packet8 $1.99, Vonage $1.50, etc). VoicePulse has said from day 1 that they don't have 911. Now they are playing it safe, NOT raising our prices, and making sure they do E911 the right way. Would you be complaining more or less if that press release announced a $2 price hike instead?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14911750 Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:59:17 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays E911 Implemen http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14911719 burgerwars : This whole situation makes no sense. I have the Broadvoice BYOD Lite plan, and they increased their surcharge to $2.50 per month, to help pay to be 911 compliant. When I dial 911 on Broadvoice, I get a recording stating the number isn't in service. With VoicePulse, I'm on their $14.99 plan, which has no added 911 fees. When I dial 911 from VoicePulse, it gets me nothing.

So which is the better value? Paying $2.50 a month for nothing, or paying nothing for nothing? It's probably a business decision on VoicePulse's part. They see no clear mandate from the FCC, so why spend money with the possibility of passing those fees onto the customer.

If I need 911, I still have my SBC POTS line, or I can try my cell phone if in the extremely rare case my POTS line isn't working. And if everything isn't working, I could yell for a neighbor. So if I die, it won't be because I couldn't reach 911.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14911719 Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:55:25 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14911410 vey : --nonsensical double-speak--

I think they are being prudent. If you know, please define a "compliant system."

If someone moves the SIP to a different house, it is not unreasonable to say the whole system would be out of compliance.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14911410 Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:17:04 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14910336 nycityny :
said by mts See Profile :

JAMESBURG, NJ (November 28, 2005) - VoicePulse Inc., a top-rated broadband phone service provider, announced today that they will comply with the FCC E911 Order deadline of November 29, 2005, but have chosen to delay rolling out an E911 solution.
I love VoicePulse but this is just nonsensical double-speak. A position like that could put them out of business in this political climate.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14910336 Tue, 29 Nov 2005 19:02:05 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays E911 Implemen http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14910099 innoman : This statement makes so sense to me. Are they going to comply or aren't they? I love my voicepulse service, I really do, but when I signed up I expected their service to get better. It has really just stayed the same. I remember quiet a while back when they stated they were going to offer voice encryption.

I also remember when their site stated that they weren't going to provide a 911 service because they didn't want to provide a less then desirable service. It's pretty much the same as this message. They have the requirements in hand, they need to at least provide a service that will connect us to emergency services and pass necessary information (IE Name, number and address.) Something is better then nothing. And it would probably increase their customer base exponentially.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14910099 Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:34:18 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14910008 brianct1972 : What new voicemail?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14910008 Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:23:15 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14909810 dcurrey :
said by mts See Profile :

from Voicepulse's Website:

VoicePulse Delays E911 Implementation

Company awaits government consensus on E911 before proceeding

JAMESBURG, NJ (November 28, 2005) - VoicePulse Inc., a top-rated broadband phone service provider, announced today that they will comply with the FCC E911 Order deadline of November 29, 2005, but have chosen to delay rolling out an E911 solution.
Since Voicepulse intends to comply with the FCC E911 deadline and that the deadline requires companies to sell only in areas that they can provide e911 doesn't this prevent them from selling new service to anyone?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14909810 Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:57:54 EDT Re: [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14909745 scooby : Now give us the new voicemail for heaven sakes.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14909745 Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:49:03 EDT [VoicePulse] Press Release: VoicePulse Delays E911 Implementat http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14909712 mts : from Voicepulse's Website:

VoicePulse Delays E911 Implementation

Company awaits government consensus on E911 before proceeding

JAMESBURG, NJ (November 28, 2005) - VoicePulse Inc., a top-rated broadband phone service provider, announced today that they will comply with the FCC E911 Order deadline of November 29, 2005, but have chosen to delay rolling out an E911 solution.
"Based on the conflicting messages coming from Washington D.C., our legal counsel has advised us to refrain from investing time and money in a solution that may end up being non-compliant," says Ravi Sakaria, VoicePulse President and CEO. "We are eagerly awaiting unified and clear guidelines from the FCC on what constitutes a fully compliant solution so we can begin offering it to our customers."

VoicePulse has won awards from highly regarded technical journals and trade magazines such as PC Magazine, PC World, and DesignTechnica. VoicePulse also boasts having the top award from Broadband Reports, which is based solely on customer reviews.

VoicePulse allows consumers to use their existing cable or DSL Internet connection for phone service. The service includes traditional features such as Caller ID, Call Waiting, Call Forward and Voicemail as well as a host of advanced features such as Distinctive Ring, Call Filters, Telemarketer Block and Anonymous Call Block.

Consumers need only a high-speed Internet connection and an ordinary touch-tone telephone to use the service.

VoicePulse uses Voice-over-IP technology to deliver broadband phone service. VoicePulse's services include:

* Unlimited local, regional and US long distance calling for $24.99 per month
* Unlimited local, regional and 200 US long distance minutes for $14.99 per month
* Advanced features including Voicemail, Telemarketer Blocking, Do Not Disturb, Anonymous Call Rejection, Distinctive Ring
* Voicemail with optional e-mail delivery of messages as sound attachments
* Choose your own area code
* Low international calling rates
* »www.voicepulse.com/

About VoicePulse
VoicePulse is a New Jersey based communications company that uses its VoIP network to deliver advanced features and high-quality phone service to residential and small-business consumers. The company leads the industry in delivering innovative features and excellent customer service. For more information about VoicePulse, please visit www.voicepulse.com. VoicePulse is a trademark of VoicePulse Inc.

For more information about VoicePulse, please contact:
Rima Vaghasiya
732-339-5100
rima @ voicepulse.com
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14909712 Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:43:26 EDT