dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
3452
nonymous (banned)
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ

nonymous (banned) to StaticJitter

Member

to StaticJitter

Re: [Voip.ms] What happens if I dial 911 but I don't pay for E911 (1.50$)

I want one 911 charge. I have multiple lines but dial 911 on any house phone it will go to the provider having 911. A few lines are basically used as incoming only anyways. OP seems to want 911 but not pay for it. I just do not want multiple 911.
bw5745
join:2014-03-14

2 edits

bw5745

Member

I can't tell from my own current setup, but with Anveo, E911 is not charged until you set an address. Outgoing calls are disabled until you set an address. It should be possible to buy a DID and not set up E911 for incoming only service. Anveo's charge for E911 is $0.80/mth for each SIP device.

Edit: reworded for clarity.
compuguy
join:2003-05-26
Burke, VA

compuguy to StaticJitter

Member

to StaticJitter
In my situation, I have a landline (pots) and one voip line with e911.
OZO
Premium Member
join:2003-01-17

OZO to StaticJitter

Premium Member

to StaticJitter
said by StaticJitter:

This is just silly. Pay the damn $1.50 for e911 and be done with it.

This thread is full of haters, they want to ruin it for everyone, same as it was with Ontario 13% tax, now they want mandatory 911 charge.

Yep, that's hornets' nest in action...
DoctorStinky
join:2011-11-10
Brunswick, ME

DoctorStinky to Cloneman

Member

to Cloneman
I have a bit of a unique situation.

I have two residences; my primary in Brunswick ME and the other (a "vacation home," more or less) farther up the coast. I also have 2 DIDs through VoIP.ms, each for it's own purpose and they both need to ring at both residences. I've set up two ring groups, each with two SIP accounts, and a device connected to one account from each ring group at each location. I don't have e911 service, and here's why . . .

The issue is that I could be calling from either location, identified by either DID. Having the 911 data associated with a DID doesn't make sense in this scenario. However, associating the 911 data with the SIP account would.

I think Anveo offers something like this.

For now, we don't use the "house phones" for emergency calls. The family has had it drilled into them to use their personal cell phones in the event of an emergency. But I'd gladly pay for e911 service if it could be made to work in my current situation.
nonymous (banned)
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ

nonymous (banned) to OZO

Member

to OZO
I do not know about a mandatory 911 charge. But a person wanting 911 to work expects it to be paid for how?
OZO
Premium Member
join:2003-01-17

OZO

Premium Member

May be the second half of this post will help you to find the answer.

Trimline
Premium Member
join:2004-10-24
Windermere, FL

Trimline to DoctorStinky

Premium Member

to DoctorStinky
said by DoctorStinky:

The issue is that I could be calling from either location, identified by either DID. Having the 911 data associated with a DID doesn't make sense in this scenario.

What kind of ATA are you using, or PBX? I ask as there may actually be a solution.
PX Eliezer1
Premium Member
join:2013-03-10
Zubrowka USA

2 recommendations

PX Eliezer1 to StaticJitter

Premium Member

to StaticJitter
said by StaticJitter:

This is just silly. Pay the damn $1.50 for e911 and be done with it.

This thread is full of haters, they want to ruin it for everyone, same as it was with Ontario 13% tax, now they want mandatory 911 charge.

There already IS mandatory 911 in both Canada and USA, as I have posted the CRTC and FCC rules earlier in this thread.

And has nothing to do with "haters".

As far as why Skype has not yet had their comeuppance, that will come sooner or later. Thus far they have argued that they are not an interconnected provider.

The FCC is slow, they probably still think that Skype is an Estonian and Luxembourgian company. They missed the subsequent sale to eBay, then the Canadian pension board, then finally to Microsoft.
said by StaticJitter:

This thread is full of haters, they want to ruin it for everyone, same as it was with Ontario 13% tax, now they want mandatory 911 charge.

Really?

No one is making this stuff up.

Here is the CRTC coming down on Link2Voip, a Canadian company that tried to escape the 911 rules by being incorporated in Panama:
»www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archi ··· 0125.htm

Link2Voip closed down operations rather than comply. This was said in a letter from the company at the time, that the 911 dispute was the proximal reason.
OzarkEdge
join:2014-02-23
USA

1 recommendation

OzarkEdge to DoctorStinky

Member

to DoctorStinky
said by DoctorStinky:

I have a bit of a unique situation.

I have two residences; my primary in Brunswick ME and the other (a "vacation home," more or less) farther up the coast. I also have 2 DIDs through VoIP.ms, each for it's own purpose and they both need to ring at both residences. I've set up two ring groups, each with two SIP accounts, and a device connected to one account from each ring group at each location. I don't have e911 service, and here's why . . .

The issue is that I could be calling from either location, identified by either DID. Having the 911 data associated with a DID doesn't make sense in this scenario. However, associating the 911 data with the SIP account would.

I think Anveo offers something like this.

For now, we don't use the "house phones" for emergency calls. The family has had it drilled into them to use their personal cell phones in the event of an emergency. But I'd gladly pay for e911 service if it could be made to work in my current situation.

DID1 and DID2:
did1 (911-enabled for Home1 location) >> ringgroup1 >> x101, x102
did2 (911-enabled for Home2 location) >> ringgroup1

Home1:
x101 >> popserver/sub-account_1(CID did1)/extension1/mailbox/phone >> outbound trunk

Home2:
x102 >> popserver/sub-account_2(CID did2)/extension2/mailbox/phone >> outbound trunk

What am I missing?

OE

StaticJitter
join:2010-04-14
Toronto, ON

StaticJitter to PX Eliezer1

Member

to PX Eliezer1
said by PX Eliezer1:

No one is making this stuff up.

I'm not arguing that. The government always wants your money, there is nothing new there. Realistically speaking for 911 you should have either cell phone or landline or if you're that paranoid pay $1.50 and be done with it. I don't have ATA and use X-Lite sophtphone, I'm not going to boot my computer to call 911 in emergency, I will use my cell phone instead. I do not want any additional charges on my bill, I'm already broke.

The core issue here is not 911, but it's that some people here (won't point fingers) are CC fanboys and they just can't sleep at night with that mandatory 911 fee, so now they have to impose it on everyone. Thanks guys, what goes around comes around!

arpawocky
Premium Member
join:2014-04-13
Columbus, OH

arpawocky

Premium Member

said by StaticJitter:

The government always wants your money, there is nothing new there.

There seems to be some widespread mis-information about where that 911 fee that some providers charge, actually goes.. Hint: it does NOT go to the government.

And contrary to what some keep regurgitating, the FCC does not require the fee.

StaticJitter
join:2010-04-14
Toronto, ON

StaticJitter

Member

said by arpawocky:

Hint: it does NOT go to the government.

It's like Rogers saying to me "system access fee is not a government fee". Well, great, but it still comes out of my pocket whether it's a government fee or not. I know I'm not going to use that service due to my situations (software phone running on a sluggish computer) therefore I should not be forced to pay the fee. If people want it, no problem, there is an option for that. I'm not paying anymore "fees".

arpawocky
Premium Member
join:2014-04-13
Columbus, OH

1 edit

arpawocky

Premium Member

The solution may be to vote with your wallet and use a provider that does not charge any cost-recovery fees.

(providers are NOT required to charge end users any cost-recovery fees, system access fees, intellectual property fees, federal subscriber line charges, nor even USF*)

Not every provider charges anything extra for 911. Every interconnected provider is required to provide 911, but some choose to simply eat the cost of doing so without charging the end user anything extra for it.
said by StaticJitter:

It's like Rogers saying to me "system access fee is not a government fee".

Exactly! Because "system access fee" really isnt a govt fee of any sort - it is a Rogers fee.

----------------------
* Some providers are required to pay USF, but NONE of them are required to bill the customer for it. Any provider that says theyre required to collect USF from the customer is lying.

StaticJitter
join:2010-04-14
Toronto, ON

StaticJitter

Member

said by arpawocky:

use a provider that does not charge any cost-recovery fees.

Welcome to Canada. We still pay "touch tone fee", even if you have a rotary phone and other message relay / system access / you name it "fees". Sure you can complain and they may credit you for 1 month, big surprise next month it's same story all over again, at some point you just give up. In reality we only have 2 phone companies here - Rogers and Bell. They created 100 other "virtual" brands to make it look like there's real competition. The truth is that they have ties up high in the government and CRTC with ex-Bell and ex-Rogers execs now "regulating" the business. Now they want to regulate internet and impose another set of "fees".

arpawocky
Premium Member
join:2014-04-13
Columbus, OH

arpawocky

Premium Member

There are VoIP providers that don't collect a gazillion bogus fees from their users - even in Canada.

And for what it is worth, the two biggest ILECs in the U.S. are just as bad. And then there is Vonage, which really loves to pile on the fees.

Where I live, many of the pizza delivery chains charge a delivery fee (but a small few dont). This is not a tax. This is not the government being greedy. Nor is it a group of haters among the pizza eating community trying to impose delivery fees upon their peers. It is the pizza delivery chains trying to recoup some of their cost of delivering pizza, without advertising a higher price.

Trev
AcroVoice & DryVoIP Official Rep
Premium Member
join:2009-06-29
Victoria, BC

Trev to StaticJitter

Premium Member

to StaticJitter
said by StaticJitter:

Welcome to Canada. We still pay "touch tone fee", even if you have a rotary phone and other message relay / system access / you name it "fees".

Perhaps in Bell territory. That doesn't happen west, north, or east of there.

Shaw and Telus are fairly straight forward with their pricing (not saints, but compared to Bell and Rogers, perhaps they are).

StaticJitter
join:2010-04-14
Toronto, ON

1 edit

StaticJitter to arpawocky

Member

to arpawocky
said by arpawocky:

many of the pizza delivery chains charge a delivery fee

Yeah, but then you can just walk/drive to pizza place yourself and avoid paying the fee if you want. Fee is only paid for pizza delivery to your door step, it's completely optional. Same story here, 911 should not be imposed on VoIP lines if you know you never going to use it on your computer. It's available for people who want to have "peace of mind" whatever, on voip line, sure. Government will be happy to charge you another fee.

We now return to your regular program:
PX Eliezer1
Premium Member
join:2013-03-10
Zubrowka USA

1 recommendation

PX Eliezer1 to StaticJitter

Premium Member

to StaticJitter
said by StaticJitter:

The core issue here is not 911, but it's that some people here (won't point fingers) are CC fanboys and they just can't sleep at night with that mandatory 911 fee, so now they have to impose it on everyone. Thanks guys, what goes around comes around!

CallCentric has not even been mentioned here.

As for CallCentric 911 policies, they are simply following the dictates of the CRTC and FCC. Why hold that against them?

1) It was the Canadian government that went after Link2VoIP. Nothing to do with CallCentric and/or purported fanboys.

2) Regarding CallCentric, Anveo has similar policies, properly so. So do the other companies such as Vonage, Voipo, and even MagicJack.

3) For any customers signing up for an outbound calling plan of 500 minutes or more, CallCentric includes the 911 component in the plan. Just as Canadian companies as diverse as The Spout and AcroVoice routinely include 911 in their plans.

4) The swift fox stayed out in the sun too long, and exclaimed "Yuck! A Tan!".

StaticJitter
join:2010-04-14
Toronto, ON

StaticJitter

Member

So whats the big deal? Pay your 911 fee and nobody is saying anything. Any topic I see on here that involves V.MS is you posting PhD thesis on how 911 is mandatory. Calling them a fox you clearly hate them. Do they owe you money? If so, how much?
StaticJitter

StaticJitter to Cloneman

Member

to Cloneman
Does anybody know what happens if you choose 'this number is used outside US/Canada' and then call 911 on CC, MJ, or other providers? They still route you to US 911 even if you're in Cuba?
OZO
Premium Member
join:2003-01-17

OZO to StaticJitter

Premium Member

to StaticJitter
said by StaticJitter:

The core issue here is not 911, but it's that some people here (won't point fingers) are CC fanboys and they just can't sleep at night with that mandatory 911 fee, so now they have to impose it on everyone. Thanks guys, what goes around comes around!

I guess you're right. There is a big correlation between those, who rush to promote CC at any opportunity (as you call them - CC fanboys), and those, who require mandatory 911 fee to be imposed on everyone.

The flexible policy of the VoIP.ms regarding the 911 is one of the reasons why I prefer to use them rather than CC. VoIP.ms allows you to pay for 811 if you need that service or not to pay if you don't need it. And that's how it always should be...

cb14
join:2013-02-04
Miami Beach, FL

1 edit

cb14

Member

said by OZO:

The flexible policy of the VoIP.ms regarding the 911 is one of the reasons why I prefer to use them rather than CC. VoIP.ms allows you to pay for 811 if you need that service or not to pay if you don't need it. And that's how it always should be...

You can easily bypass the requirements of 911 with CC by giving an address outside of US/Canada. I would do that if I had to pay e911 fees twice but since my other providers do not want me to take 911 service that's not an issue. nothing to do with fan boys.
OZO
Premium Member
join:2003-01-17

OZO

Premium Member

Thank you, but I prefer not to lie...
DoctorStinky
join:2011-11-10
Brunswick, ME

DoctorStinky to Trimline

Member

to Trimline
said by Trimline:

said by DoctorStinky:

The issue is that I could be calling from either location, identified by either DID. Having the 911 data associated with a DID doesn't make sense in this scenario.

What kind of ATA are you using, or PBX? I ask as there may actually be a solution.

I'm using at PAP2T-NA with conventional "landline" phones at one residence and a Gigaset C610-IP at the other.
DoctorStinky

DoctorStinky to OzarkEdge

Member

to OzarkEdge
said by OzarkEdge:

said by DoctorStinky:

I have a bit of a unique situation.

I have two residences; my primary in Brunswick ME and the other (a "vacation home," more or less) farther up the coast. I also have 2 DIDs through VoIP.ms, each for it's own purpose and they both need to ring at both residences. I've set up two ring groups, each with two SIP accounts, and a device connected to one account from each ring group at each location. I don't have e911 service, and here's why . . .

The issue is that I could be calling from either location, identified by either DID. Having the 911 data associated with a DID doesn't make sense in this scenario. However, associating the 911 data with the SIP account would.

I think Anveo offers something like this.

For now, we don't use the "house phones" for emergency calls. The family has had it drilled into them to use their personal cell phones in the event of an emergency. But I'd gladly pay for e911 service if it could be made to work in my current situation.

DID1 and DID2:
did1 (911-enabled for Home1 location) >> ringgroup1 >> x101, x102
did2 (911-enabled for Home2 location) >> ringgroup1

Home1:
x101 >> popserver/sub-account_1(CID did1)/extension1/mailbox/phone >> outbound trunk

Home2:
x102 >> popserver/sub-account_2(CID did2)/extension2/mailbox/phone >> outbound trunk

What am I missing?

The ability to make me understand what you're talking about

cb14
join:2013-02-04
Miami Beach, FL

1 recommendation

cb14 to StaticJitter

Member

to StaticJitter
said by StaticJitter:

Does anybody know what happens if you choose 'this number is used outside US/Canada' and then call 911 on CC, MJ, or other providers? They still route you to US 911 even if you're in Cuba?

Off course not. There are Callcentric users in Germany and U.K. and where else . So why would somebody route such calls to the US or Canada?
nonymous (banned)
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ

1 recommendation

nonymous (banned) to StaticJitter

Member

to StaticJitter
said by StaticJitter:

Does anybody know what happens if you choose 'this number is used outside US/Canada' and then call 911 on CC, MJ, or other providers? They still route you to US 911 even if you're in Cuba?

You choose no 911 and check mark the legal disclaimer and expect 911. Why we can not have nice things.
nonymous

nonymous (banned) to Cloneman

Member

to Cloneman
said by Cloneman:

This applies to VoIP.ms but I'm asking the question in general as well.

Currently, I don't pay for 911 service, and I've never dialed 911, I'm curious to know what would happen. It would kind of suck if it doesn't get routed to an operator of some kind, even with incomplete information.

Question 2:
If I spoof my callerID to my cellphone # (which is what I do), would the 911 operator see that and assume I'm that cellphone customer in distress and have access to that Address?

No pay no real get.

WhyADuck
Premium Member
join:2003-03-05

WhyADuck to arpawocky

Premium Member

to arpawocky
said by arpawocky:

Ok, so the VoIP provider's cost of offering the service would be paid for by your local taxes instead of cost-recovery-fee on your phone bill..

(the govt already pay for the local 911 infrastructure.. with the VoIP provider's 911 fee, you're reimbursing the voip provider for its own costs of implementation.)

Somehow I have a feeling that this would not be an improvement, that the cost would increase ten fold, and that it would add a huge administrative burden on the VoIP providers that would now have to bill every end-user's city or in some cases county govt...

Here's a better idea... lobby your city council to pass a law making it illegal for any city resident to subscribe to any phone service that does not include 911 unless said resident purchases 911 service separately, with a fine of $150.00 for every month of non-compliance.

The risk of death doesnt seem to scare people, but the risk of a $150.00 fine sure would.

Pardon me, but as the cop says in the opening of the TV show "Battle Creek", "Have you met people?"

First of it would that would be a virtually unenforceable law. People would just take additional steps to mask their true location, which would actually make the problem worse than it already is. Already I suspect a lot of VoIP users forget to inform their providers of their new address when they move; a law like this would just make people a lot more forgetful!

Second, there are people who are contrarian enough that they would thumb their noses at such a law just because as a practical matter there is not a single thing the local municipality could do about it. Back in the 80's I knew a preacher who used to buy all her household items and even her groceries using the church's sales tax exemption, which is highly illegal, because she knew she could get away with it. Point is that when you pass a law and people can flaunt it with little chance of getting caught, sometimes they will. You may have a sense of morality that compels you to always obey the law, but if so, you are likely in the minority. At least you would be in the area where I live.

You may say that if there were a fire or medical emergency and someone asked why they didn't call 911 they would get caught and fined, but all they would need to do is lie and say their phone wasn't working at the time, or that they didn't have service because they couldn't pay the bill, or just didn't want phone service in their home.

I have argued since day one that 911 charges should be part of the local tax structure since 911 access benefits everyone, including those people who don't have a phone, and because local units of government are corrupt and will pad 911 charges if they get the chance (it's happened more than once in my state, and in a couple cases it was so out of line that the PUC ordered a reduction, but I suspect there were a lot more counties padding the bills than just those). Also, it encourages local municipalities to disregard the costs of whatever 911 solution they buy into. Rather than consider the cost/benefit ratio, or the reputation of the company that will install the equipment, they buy from whichever vendor buys the mayor the best steak dinner, or based on some other equally absurd reason.

In one county near me, they bought a shiny flashy 911 system from an unproven vendor, paying a ridiculous sum for it. As I recall, it was only about a year later that the company that sold this turkey system went out of business, leaving the software totally unsupported, which forced the county to go out and spend all that money a second time just so they could get support. Somehow, I think if they had been spending their own money, out of the same pool of funds used to fixed roads and pay salaries to the lazy sloths that work in government administrative offices, they would have been a lot more careful to choose a vendor with a proven track record. But they didn't care because they knew they could just pass on the additional charges to county phone users.

Some people live in this fantasy world where everyone complies with the law and does exactly what the law says they must do, and where the laws are enforced fairly and evenly, with no discrimination or bias, and where the local government doesn't go on a spending spree when they find a new way to fleece residents. If such a place exists in the United States, I'd love to know where it is! And that's what makes this whole argument rather pointless, because people will do what they will do. You can pass all the laws you want to try to force your neighbor to pay for 911 but if he is determined not to, he won't, threat of fine be damned.

In my state we used to have some pretty stringent laws and heavy fines against any type of exploding fireworks, but every year on the fourth of July (and for several days around the fourth) it sounded like a war zone around here. Once in a great while they would catch some guy that had a garage full of fireworks that he'd illegally imported from another state, but still the people that wanted the fireworks that made the big booms always seemed to get them somehow. They finally just gave up and repealed that law, but even if it had remained on the books I doubt it would have made a bit of difference.