priller
join:2000-10-20
Gainesville, VA | "Offer" or Require???? "...requires that VoIP providers offer enhanced 911 services.."
There is a difference between offer and require. For example, I do have E911 service availability ... However, I also have VoIP providers purely for call termination with no need for E911. I certainly hope that I would not have to pay additional for mandated E911 service on each one. That's not thinking the issue through. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T Midwest
 ·voip.ms
·MyPhoneCompany
| said by priller:I also have VoIP providers purely for call termination with no need for E911. ... That's not thinking the issue through. So you're saying some of your tubes are one way? That doesn't seem right. I thought stuff could go both ways through those tubes. 
And since when did legislation require thinking the issue through?
--
USNG:
16TDN2870
Find your Lat-Long:
Geocoder |
|
1 edit | reply to priller
said by priller:"...requires that VoIP providers offer enhanced 911 services.."There is a difference between offer and require. For example, I do have E911 service availability ... However, I also have VoIP providers purely for call termination with no need for E911. I certainly hope that I would not have to pay additional for mandated E911 service on each one. That's not thinking the issue through. The bill says impose and that sounds like being required to me:
»www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xp···=summary
Amends the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 to impose on IP-enabled voice service providers engaged in interstate or foreign communication a requirement to provide 9-1-1 service, including enhanced 9-1-1 service, to its subscribers. And there may be fees involved. See the actual bill's summary:
»www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xp···=summary
Requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to issue regulations granting IP-enabled voice service providers right of access to 9-1-1 components that are necessary to provide 9-1-1 service, on the same rates, terms, and conditions that are provided to commercial mobile service providers. » www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex···s110-428SEC. 5. FEE ACCOUNTABILITY. To ensure efficiency, transparency, and accountability in the collection and expenditure of 9-1-1 fees, the Federal Communications Commission shall submit a report within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce detailing the status in each State of the collection and distribution of 9-1-1 fees and include findings on the amount of revenues obligated or expended by each State or political subdivision thereof for any purpose other than the purpose for which any fee or charges are presented.
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
| Agree with non-techie people using VOIP they shouldn't have to worry if E911 works.
But, I think there should be an "opt-out" for those that sign a waiver that if they die due to no E911, no one is responsible but the dead or severely crippled user that didn't want E911. Now, if a VOIP company doesn't follow that requirement, they get fined $60,000 and can get sued. Fair compromise in my opinion.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl |
|
priller
join:2000-10-20
Gainesville, VA | reply to ArgMeMatey
said by ArgMeMatey:said by priller:I also have VoIP providers purely for call termination with no need for E911. ... That's not thinking the issue through. So you're saying some of your tubes are one way? That doesn't seem right. I thought stuff could go both ways through those tubes. Correct ... call termination only. No incoming calls. No number assigned. |
|
| reply to supergirl
Down that line of reasoning all 911 services should be opt-out and on a pay-per-use basis.
"Thank you for dialing 911, this call will be $3.99 per minute, please enter you credit card information and you will be transferred to the next available (outsourced to India) representative, or stay on the line and a billing representative will be with you shortly to discuss other payment options. Thank you for choosing Pay-Per-Use 911 services."
I think it is better all phone users share the cost of providing E911, even if some individuals are lucky enough never to have to use it.
--
DSLr Mafia Member. |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T Midwest
·voip.ms
·MyPhoneCompany
| said by Dezbend:Down that line of reasoning all 911 services should be opt-out and on a pay-per-use basis. ... I think it is better all phone users share the cost of providing E911 ... What if we think about this in terms of cheap technology being extended to the little guy? For example back in the day the big company would order a local T1 from the LEC or CLEC, and a long distance T1 from MCI, Sprint, AT&T, TCG. Maybe they still do. I don't know. Anyway, the company's PBX call routing would never direct a 911 call to the long distance T1, so why pay 911 charges on that long distance or special service trunk?
Why can't VoIP be thought of in the same way? I agree that the average end user shouldn't be expected to configure anything, but a small business or home business should be able to reap economic and technological benefits just like The Man has been doing for years, without options being restricted based on the perception of danger and liability.
An analogous compromise would be for the BYOD users to be considered "on their own", whereas a transport provider that also supplied ATAs and IP Phones would have to provide E911.
Translation: With my SPA-3000, I use VoIP for incoming calls and outgoing long distance calls, but I use POTS for local and 911. I pay $5 a month for VoIP, plus $1.50 a month for VoIP E911. That amounts to a 30% surcharge for a service I will never use, and which is available through other, generally more reliable means anyway.
--
USNG:
16TDN2870
Find your Lat-Long:
Geocoder |
|
