how-to block ads
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
approval from:
Time4aNAP 
| Re: They shouldn't be able to call it "9-1-1" What "rigorous Federal standards" do you speak of?
If POTS 911 fails (and it does), the telco has no liability. The last time I need to call 911 from a POTS line (Verizon in New Jersey) in 2004, I got a busy signal... with several attempts. Since I still had the direct number for the police, fire, and rescule squads near the phone (from before 911 was there) I was able to call for help.
While I understand that calling 911 is quicker than calling the 7 (or 10) digit police station number, it wasn't too long ago that 911 wasn't there. And you had to dial the police department number. Heck, phones even had special speed dial buttons for police/fire/rescue squad on them. Were people dropping dead by the thousands in their homes before 911? | |
|   ColorBASIC8-bit FunPremium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA | Re: They shouldn't be able to call it "9-1-1" Rigorous Federal standards in that the provider must route the call directly to the call center, have battery backup so the service works during a power outage. Basically anyone calling their service 9-1-1 has to control all aspects of routing the call to insure stability. Virtually all 3rd party VOIP should not be able to qualify simply because they can't control reliability.
And 9-1-1 has been around since 1968 in 1999 9-1-1 became the 'official' emergency number nationwide. I'm simply saying that there should be Federal minimum standards a voice provider should have to meed in order to use the 'official' emergency number so that people aren't mislead into a false sense of security. No matter where in the fine print you put it, people's nature is to not read the fine print. And while it's not the fault of Vonage or Comcast that people don't read the fine print, the point of 9-1-1 is to save lives and in this case the duty is to protect people from themselves in the case of VOIP 9-1-1 services.
For these VOIP providers, having 9-1-1 service is a SELLING POINT that makes them money. Without 9-1-1 some wouldn't consider them. In exchange I find it reasonable that they should meet some minimum standards of reliability and accountability.
The problem with 7 digit numbers is as 9-1-1 service expanded, the 7 digit dispatcher numbers were often replaced with calling 9-1-1. Whereas before you called a police station and could get emergency service. Now those number get you administrative (desk) services only and you must call 9-1-1 for emergency dispatch. | |
| | radam
join:2004-02-13
Fairfax Station, VA | Re: They shouldn't be able to call it "9-1-1" .. one thing I learned, no matter how hard you try there are no guarantees in life. However, I agree, the VoIP E911 service standard should be regualted to some standard of performance as opposed to best effort. | |
| | Time4aNAPPremium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL | said by ColorBASIC:For these VOIP providers, having 9-1-1 service is a SELLING POINT that makes them money. Bzzzzt! Wrong. It's a federally-mandated requirement. You know, the very thing that you're pretending doesn't exist...
»www.voip911.gov | |
| | | ColorBASIC8-bit FunPremium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
3 edits | Re: They shouldn't be able to call it "9-1-1" Bzzzzt...WRONG!
Offering 9-1-1 makes the VOIP providers money as VOIP then becomes a candidate to REPLACE, not just suppliment POTS. People are more inclined to shell out $24.95/mo when they can REPLACE POTS. If people knew that VOIP 9-1-1 isn't reliable for crap, they would likely not bother with trying to replace POTS with it.
Think more, type less. | |
| | | | Time4aNAPPremium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL | Re: They shouldn't be able to call it "9-1-1" said by ColorBASIC:Offering 9-1-1 makes the VOIP providers money as VOIP then becomes a candidate to REPLACE, not just suppliment POTS. No, that's not true. The truth, as I said before, and backed up with indisputable evidence, is that the FCC requires VoIP services to provide for E911 service. This is done at the expense of the VoIP provider. So it costs them money. It doesn't make them a dime.
The fact that lots of people are dumping the ILECs that you shill for is a completely different matter. Your non sequitur reference only serves as a red herring, a falsehood.
VOIP 9-1-1 isn't reliable for crap So you claim. That's why you said earlier that you never tried VoIP. But today you're claiming to be a Vonage customer. One way or another, you're lying. So with only your reputation to go on, I can dismiss your latest claim as more of the same.
IME, VoIP is every bit as reliable as the network that carries it. Since it was made available for public use, the Internet had had 100% uptime. Nothing can beat that.
Think more, type less. Typing out loud again? Good advice, though. You should take it. | |
| | | | | ColorBASIC8-bit FunPremium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
4 edits | Re: They shouldn't be able to call it "9-1-1" What?
You claim I said I never tried VOIP? »Re: They shouldn't be able to call it "9-1-1" I WAS a Vonage customer (that's PAST TENSE for those who can't read), a Broadvoice customer and am NOW a POTS-less ViaTalk customer for quite some time. »/nsearch?o=r&p···=viatalk
Actually READ threads before replying.
Meanwhile I am still correct. Potential VOIP customers are more apt to accept VOIP as a REPLACEMENT for POTS because of VOIP's pseudo-9-1-1 availability. This SELLS VOIP even at the high rates Comcast charges for it. The fact that the FCC requires it is irrelevant. Many VOIP providers offered 9-1-1 BEFORE the FCC requirement because it did make their services more attractive thus getting more customers, thus MAKING THEM MORE MONEY. | |
| | | | | | Time4aNAPPremium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL | Re: They shouldn't be able to call it "9-1-1" No. Saying it does not make it magically come true. It might mislead others, but it will never make you correct.
You've been trying very hard to muddy the waters using "POTS" improperly, using made-up terms like "9-1-1..." and insinuating that the 911 operator that a VoIP caller reaches is a different, and less competent one than what an ILEC customer gets. None of that is true! All of that is false and misleading.
You should be ashamed of what you're doing! | |
| | | | | | | ColorBASIC8-bit FunPremium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
4 edits | Re: They shouldn't be able to call it "9-1-1"
I guess the Police made up 9-1-1 too | | 
ex-FCC Chair Powell missed your memo too | |
said by Time4aNAP:No. Saying it does not make it magically come true. It might mislead others, but it will never make you correct. You've been trying very hard to muddy the waters using "POTS" improperly, using made-up terms like "9-1-1..." and insinuating that the 911 operator that a VoIP caller reaches is a different, and less competent one than what an ILEC customer gets. None of that is true! All of that is false and misleading. You should be ashamed of what you're doing! Your non-sequiturs are going no where so this is my last post on the subject.
9-1-1 is a "made up term"? AYFKM? I guess that is why police, fire and city governments all across the country print it that way. It's a vast conspiracy to confuse people between 9-1-1 and the Sept 11th attacks.  Maybe you should look for the nine hundred and eleven button on the phone and let them know that it's not nine-one-one but nine hundred and eleven. I also suppose you should call the National Emergency Number Association since they didn't get your there is no such thing as 9-1-1 memo either. »www.nena.org/
Let me say it one more time since you are having trouble following the thread. After reading a similar news article about a VOIP 9-1-1 call routing failure, I decided to test mine when I got home from work. To my surprise and despite me having provided correct address information to Vonage, Vonage did not route my call to a PSAP. They routed it to a county Sheriff's office off hours number. In my case I didn't get a 9-1-1 operator AT ALL, thanks to Vonage and their incompetence. And if I had followed your advice, I wouldn't know about this mistake until it was too late. Thankfully I don't take the advice of VOIP apologists such as yourself.
POTS is plain old telephone service, 9-1-1 ain't nine hundred and eleven and as evidenced by the endless stream of news items VOIP 9-1-1 isn't as reliable as POTS 9-1-1. But all of this 911 vs 9-1-1 rant, much like your last Sesame Street, WMD, 9/11 rant just another red herring because you can't defend the indefensible.
If you still don't get it, you never will. So have a nice day. | |
| | | | | | | | Time4aNAPPremium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL | Re: They shouldn't be able to call it "9-1-1" Well, I see that you've had a long day finding a handful of examples of ITU ignorance. You must feel mighty proud. Now you can go and tell those people that they shouldn't be able to do that.
That is your original claim, remember?
BTW, repeating your accusation against Vonage still fails to justify it.
Oh, well, at least nobody here will need to take an irony supplement. | |
| | | | | | | | | ColorBASIC8-bit FunPremium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
1 edit | Re: They shouldn't be able to call it "9-1-1" Yep, and "9-1-1" is a made up term. Enjoy ignore. | |
|
| |
|
