FCC's 911 Move a Trojan Horse? Critics charge they're engineering the death of indie VoIP Tomorrow the FCC will release an order that forces all independent VoIP providers to offer 911 service within 120 days. On the surface the move seems like a simple way of ensuring public safety, but critics believe it's really an incumbent engineered attempt to crush upstart VoIP competitors. There's been a scattered number of deaths blamed on VoIP - whether or not the VoIP provider was actually culpable hasn't mattered to some news outlets. Vonage has also been sued for "failing to inform users they need to activate their 911 service" before it will work; apparently this welcome screen every customer sees was simply too mystical. Such concerns, valid or not, have resulted in a growing cry for action on the federal level. So the FCC issues a ruling that requires upstart VoIP providers to provide 911 service. An honest move to ensure public safety, right? Not according to the TechKnow Times: "They (indie VoIP providers) were in the market space first, they have far better offerings, and much better pricing as well. So how to kill them? Simple. Force them to have to buy a service where the traditional telephone companies can set the price. And what is one thing that the traditional phone companies still pretty much have a monopoly on? The provision of 911 service." Jeff Pulver, co-founder of Vonage and the man behind Free-World dial-up, hasn't been optimistic either. An entry to his blog questioning the FCC move was apparently met with harsh criticism. From a follow up post: "I have had much internal debate over how to approach what we believe the FCC is doing to the industry this week, and, frankly, I felt compelled to speak up, aware of the potential political consequences. I have deep concerns that the FCC is going to drastically overreach (like swatting a fly with a nuclear bomb) and bring down the VoIP industry." Pulver worries that "2005 may go down in history as the time we saw both the rise and fall of the unaffiliated VoIP service provider." Evident by discussion in our VoIP forum, others are also worried that the move is an opening salvo in the slaughter of indie providers by a well lobbied FCC.
|
1 edit | VoIP is not that good Never would I use it as a compelte substitute for a land line or cell. | |
|  |  sweintzPremium
join:2002-03-01
Chester, CT | Re: VoIP is not that good Why? I think it works quite well. Works sorta SO-SO when all you have is consumer broadband. But on our business sdsl line where I work, it works quite well. | |
| | | | I've used it for three months and I have used 911. No issues. Fire Dept. at my house in 4 minutes.
It is that good for $25 per month. The traditional providers are right to be scared of VOIP-they're not needed, something they're not used to at all.
Instead of trying to compete with this technology, they're going to try to kill it. We're at a sad point in history when innovation, quality, and better ideas are passed over because the Old Guys on the Block lose money. | |
| | niplet
join:2003-10-04
Antioch, TN | sounds better than my landline phone, just adjust the quality through your bandwidth options, well at least with Vonage that is.
--
xbox live gamer tag niplet | |
| | | | That's fine. No one is saying to rid yourself of your land line or mobile phones.
VoIP brings to the populous what has been sorely needed in the telecommunications industry... competition.
When my barebones dialtone service is advertised at $20 a month but I'm charged $32 (no services, no long distance, no feature packs) there's a problem with the money-grabbing industry.
Today, I probably would rely more on my VoIP more than the land line, for the fact that instead of cutting wires at the NID, they'd have to climb my roof and take down the 802.11 antenna on my roof to my W-ISP.
The problem is that this country always kow-tows to the lowest common denominator of person, not only in VoIP/Telecomm, but everything. Our motto should be changed to "Make it idiot-proof and we'll make a better idiot."
(Side-note, In the UK the emergency number is 111, but they added 911 because of Americans who obviously didn't understand that they were in a different country and not all phones are created equally.)
-m | |
| | | bgraham
join:2001-03-15
Smithtown, NY | Re: VoIP is not that good i thought the uk number was 999. when did they change that? i did leave 30 years ago by the way so things have changed i guess. | |
| | | | | | Re: VoIP is not that good You could be right.
I had this discussion with a UK friend about a year ago. Whereas I felt the need to shake my head in shame. | |
| | | | | bgraham
join:2001-03-15
Smithtown, NY | Re: VoIP is not that good Well i guess add me to the list of americans who would not know what to dial in the UK if their ass caught fire.
I only go there every couple of years for 2 weeks so the odds are good that i wont need 411, 112 or 999 whatever it is. | |
|
| |  DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1
 ·Vonage
·ViaTalk
1 edit | said by mykey2k:That's fine. No one is saying to rid yourself of your land line or mobile phones. VoIP brings to the populous what has been sorely needed in the telecommunications industry... competition. When my barebones dialtone service is advertised at $20 a month but I'm charged $32 (no services, no long distance, no feature packs) there's a problem with the money-grabbing industry. Today, I probably would rely more on my VoIP more than the land line, for the fact that instead of cutting wires at the NID, they'd have to climb my roof and take down the 802.11 antenna on my roof to my W-ISP. The problem is that this country always kow-tows to the lowest common denominator of person, not only in VoIP/Telecomm, but everything. Our motto should be changed to "Make it idiot-proof and we'll make a better idiot." (Side-note, In the UK the emergency number is 111, but they added 911 because of Americans who obviously didn't understand that they were in a different country and not all phones are created equally.) -m Not that i am negating you, but isnt 112, the universal number in Europe, and i know 112 works on gsm phones, in the US.
also
this site shows emergency numbers around the world
»www.911dispatch.com/web_graphic/···ic1.html | |
| | | |  calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: VoIP is not that good SHEESH!
The EU can't even get together on a common emergency number--let alone the rest of the world.
And we wonder why some folks think the UN is pointless?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | | Re: VoIP is not that good Sweden switched to 112 a few years back to be compliant with the "European standard" of 112.
So as long as the UK is also compliant, and I'm sure it is, it is 112. | |
| | | | | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: VoIP is not that good Well, according to the website linked to above, France is "17", Spain is "532", and the UK is "999".
Maybe they should work on this first, and a "Constitution" later.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | | MrY
join:2005-05-24
Ireland | Re: VoIP is not that good The UK never used 911!
The 999 service was rolled out in the UK and Ireland in the 1930s and is the worlds first and longest running emergency services number.
To make life simple in Europe, 112 was introduced some years ago as a pan-european universal emergency services number. It did not replace the existing national numbers, but simply mirrors them. There was no question of abolishing 999 or the other European numbers, just introducing a new code that everyone could use everywhere.
112 will also work on any GSM mobile phone worldwide.
It will also override the keypad lock, sim lock and in many cases you can even make a 112 call on a GSM phone (in europe anyway) without a sim card, a valid network etc. It will just find a signal and place the call.
As for the requirement to implement 911 on VoIP in the USA. I can see no reason why it's a massive technical hurdle. All they need to do is route calls to 911 into the correct emergency centre. We're talking software changes here, not ripping out and replacing entire networks.
I could see there being a similar problem in Europe, with a requirement to have 112 and the old national emergency codes carried on all public networks.
All of the small phone companies and cable companies and cellular operators have had to comply with this for years, I don't see why VoIP companies should be any exception.
I mean, who cares wheather the data coming out of your phone's going over an analogue voice line, an ISDN line, a VoIP line. As far as the end user's concerned it's still a phone. The technology behind it shouldn't matter!
So, if VoIP is to become mainstream I would think it should behave just like any other phone service.
Sounds to me more like vondage and others just didn't think of this snag when they were designing their networks in the first place!
If they don't fix it, they'll just go bust and you'll find new VoIP companies who do support it will take their place.
It's all a big fuss about nothing! | |
| | | | | | | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: VoIP is not that good said by MrY:... As for the requirement to implement 911 on VoIP in the USA. I can see no reason why it's a massive technical hurdle. All they need to do is route calls to 911 into the correct emergency centre. We're talking software changes here, not ripping out and replacing entire networks. ... No, we're not talking only about software changes here.
First, the VoIP provider has to "know" where the user is. Unlike landline, there is no hardwire link to one place. Unlike cellular, there is no possibility of triangulation between different cell sites. GPS doesn't work well indoors, which is where most VoIP users are. You're then left with "user entry" of a location, which works OK for your home but not well if you move and forget to change, or if you're on the road. When is the last time you stayed in an airport Holiday Inn and knew it's street address? If you were outside Chicago or San Francisco, I doubt you even knew what town you were in.
Second, this requirement applies whether or not the VoIP provider transmits location info, because there are hundreds, if not thousands, of emergency answering centers (a/k/a "PSAPs") nationwide and you have to send it to the right one.
Third, you seem to think that the VoIP provider can just "dial" the appropriate PSAP. In many cases this is possible, but the dial up numbers don't carry the location information AND the FCC has indicated that the connections must be made through traditional PSAP connections--meaning some kind of network connection to hundreds of centers nationwide.
Believe me, if this was as trivial as you seem to think it is, it would have been done long ago.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | | I think is a good idea they are forcing them to support 911 calling. 911 is extremely important to have. And like was mentioned, there are people who have died because 911 didn't work over these lines. One lady was trying to revive her baby, only to finally discover that when she dialed 911, it wasn't working, so she ran to her neighbors house to use her phone, but then it was too late. Her kid died.
911 should also be turned on for every person, not something they have to turn on themself like that one screenshot appears to make them do. | |
| | | | | Re: VoIP is not that good So pick up a cell phone and use it for 911 calls. You don't even need cellular service. As for the baby issue how about posting the article? | |
| | | zentec
join:2002-01-05
Monroe, MI Reviews:
 ·Charter
| If 911 is so bloody important, then it should be supported by the tax base and not just those who have a land line. *THEN* it should be free to whoever wants it.
The article is correct, 911 is the red herring. The purpose of this is to kill upstart VoIP companies before they dig into the profits of the incumbent telephone companies. The big boys are bleeding landline customers, and while the FCC would normally say "too bad", the incumbents are not prepared. | |
| | | | | I personally work as a VoIP technician for a startup VoIP supplier and I can assure you that it is not as easy as just flipping the switch and turning 911 on for everyone. There are many things that have to fall in place and becomes null and void when a user travels outside of their set service area.
Generally, there is a call center (PSAP) in the area code or county that is responsible for answering emergency calls. These are paid for and funded by the city and county. These calls are routed through our system based on zip code. The zip code determines which PSAP that our system terminates the call to. What happens when someone wants to travel out of state? Their 911 will still dial the local service. The user must communicate the change.
VoIP over fiber optics definitely ruffles the feathers of our incumbent competitors. If one takes into account that VoIP service has the same quality, which ours does, and is half the price to offer the consumer it becomes obvious that we are a threat to the 'big boys'. The move to require 911 is a good move for stationary people who want to use the service as a land-line solution, but will be extremely problematic for the people who travel. Again, the end-user must communicate their intentions. The log in screen for Vonage is a sufficient communication vehicle. | |
| | | | | | Re: VoIP is not that good I could not have said that better, thank you. Maybe there should be two kinds of accounts:
1. Stationary, landline replacement users
2. Mobile users who travel and perhaps don't need 911 | |
|
| | | | What about those who move their phones? I seldom use my phone at the registered address. VOIP is a different paradigm--you won't be able to force traditional solutions and the government shouldn't try. It should be clear to customers what the limitations of the 911 service are and let them choose accordingly. | |
|
| aeiouy
join:2004-08-05
Fort Worth, TX | I just can't support the idea that this is some kind of nefarious scheme to kick the upstarts out of the VOIP space.
They have the ability to provide 911 service, and requiring them to do so does not seem the least bit unreasonable to me at all.
I don't know how that gets them out of the space regardless...
Sounds like a lot of unnecessary whining to me. | |
| | Reviews:
 ·AT&T Yahoo
| said by AnonProxy:Never would I use it as a compelte substitute for a land line or cell. Sounds like a blanket statement against VOIP. Unforunately you're unduly generalizing.
Either you had a bad experience on one provider, or you have a bad broadband connection, or you never tried it at all.
I'll give you credit, as most independent providers are bad.
It's a great technology really. To the uninformed, a lot of Fortune 100 companies are slowly converting to Voip, because it makes business sense.
Going back to the topic, the FCC is really a jerk. They could have implemented this ruling in a way that's not burdensome to the small providers.
Obviously, the ILECs lobbied pretty well. And I think the bigger and established voip providers may have lobbied a little too to crush smaller competitions. I don't think Vonage is affected at all, as they're getting ready to roll out the 911 service.
--
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known - Carl Sagan | |
| | | | | Re: VoIP is not that good said by AlphaOne:And I think the bigger and established voip providers may have lobbied a little too to crush smaller competitions. I don't think Vonage is affected at all, as they're getting ready to roll out the 911 service.
Shame on Vonage that they didn't speak up on this issue. On all other VoIP issues, they have been fiercely vocal. This time, silence suits them becuase it fits their dream of becoming the AT&T of VoIP. Shame, shame, shame, --
-p2pvoice | |
|
|  vonsenJust BecausePremium
join:2005-01-06 | If you feel strongly about this issue, please take 60 seconds to fire off an email to the FCC or your option to obtain low cost VOIP service may quickly disappear. You can just click here & it will open most email programs, with the FCC address already filled in for you. Or you can visit the FCC Contact page here. It no one speaks up, the telcos will win this one by default.
--
five stars shy | |
| | | | I am sure you said the same thing when the cell phone was born - nevermind the early service meant dropped connections, scratchy voice, and garbled conversations !!!
Or, have you forgotten and forgiven!
And, how long did it take for the cell industry to get E911? You probably don't remember.
--
-p2pvoice | |
| | | | | Re: VoIP is not that good Unless your cell phone is GPS capable you still do not have E911 on it. In addition to that some GPS phones, My Nextel as an example, still can not get a GPS fix about 70% of the time. | |
| | | | | Does anyone remember that Western Union tried to eliminate Bell (telephone) in the 19th Century? Same thing again: The establishment trying to shoot down the competition.
VoIP is very cost effective and, in my place (we have Vonage), it is clear-sounding, reliable and better than SBC. I use Vonage exclusively.
The need is there for VoIP to provide a reliable emergency service, true. But, I am in agreement with others that the FCC is being "prompted" by Ma Bell and her offspring to undermine VoIP.
Let's hope that VoIP remains cost effective, provides adequate emergency service connections and improves as it seems to be doing. $24.99 per month is astounding, especially since it includes every feature imaginable as well as no-charge long distance for such an amazing territory.
If people actually read the sign-up information at Vonage, they will see that 911 Services MUST be registered with them in order to have that "feature".
Time will tell......just like the rift between the telegraph and early telephone. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by AnonProxy:Never would I use it as a compelte substitute for a land line or cell. I have to agree. To me it seams foolish to do so. | |
|
| | Great Idea It was inevitable that VoIP would be subject to having to provide 911 service. Eventually there would have been a lawsuit from the bells about the unequal regulation of VoIP vs. themselves... | |
| |  ToadmanHypnotoad
join:2001-11-28
Ohio
kudos:1 | Higher Costs All it means is that there will be an additional BS tax on our VOIP lines to cover this integration. My worry is that it will add $10-$15 a month just to meet the FCC rules. | |
| | |  rec9140Provoice just DO it
join:2003-07-29
Mulberry, FL | Re: Higher Costs said by Toadman:
All it means is that there will be an additional BS tax on our VOIP lines to cover this integration. My worry is that it will add $10-$15 a month just to meet the FCC rules.
The fee for 911 services is normally maxed at $1.50/line/month.
It varies from about $0.25 to $1.50/mo/line by area.
This whole situation could have been avoided by NOT offering 911 "like" services and CLEARLY UPFRONT getting a wavier signed by customers stating VOIP is not for emergencies.
Here marks the beginning of the end of VOIP field as we know it now. | |
|
| | | Re: Great Idea Maybe the next step would be to make VoIP providers subject to number portability... | |
|
L2006
join:2001-12-03
Stratford, ON | e911 What is stopping the small VoIP providers from implementing the 911 service??
Most (if not all) must be reselling from a bigger provider, who will ultimately install the e911 service to keep all the little VoIPs companys going. | |
| | | | Re: e911 The Bells who don't want to allow the VOIP providers access to the 911 system would be my guess.
--
4 More years and we won't have a country. | |
| | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: e911 Correct. The Bells have been very obstructive in the efforts of those VoIP carriers that have sought to connect to the existing 9-1-1 platforms.
Additionally, knowing where the caller is is not trivial. For a fixed home location, the user has to enter his location, which works until he moves. If, on the other hand, the user likes VoIP because the service and number can follow him on the road, the location question becomes a nightmare.
Even after you have a location, you may have to convert it to a street address if it's a lat/lon, and then you have to figure out where the call should go for a given address.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
 bbrlogueLearning New Things DailyPremium
join:2003-12-07
Alexandria, VA | tricky how would they define voip? what about skype? stanaphone? fwd via gateway to pstn? messenger voice systems? | |
|  DavidNow accepting new patientsPremium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:70
·AT&T Southwest
 ·DIRECTV
·AT&T Midwest
·Google Voice
| I don't think the bells had anything to do with this fire besides the one already there..
For instance, a recent packet8 review
»Review of Packet8 by ms9723
As well as
»Baby Death Blamed on Vonage 911
The public added fuel to the fire, the bells did not have to do a damn thing. Except sit back and watch. If people depended on e911 availability I would think (as a consumer) that would be the first thing I would expect to be working with landline service. Mainly last time I checked is you don't move landlines very often so basically emergency services know where they are going, and can plan the route accordingly.
So (and true I am a bell employee) I have a hard time believing they had anything more to do with the E911 problem that has not been created by ourselves (the consumer public), or by the VoIP providers themselves. fortunatley for me I have seen a 911 call center, and I have seen the equipment they use, and in 95% of most cases, the bells maintain the equipment at the 911 centers, or local police departments, and (or as least where my mother works) the equipment is constantly updated, maintained and is always in proper running order. if there is a problem they call the number on the side of the box (computer terminal) and they are usually there within 4 hours to replace the computer completely and make sure the system is back online. Most people probably did not even know that.
Bottom line is, if they are going to provide phone service they should be making it clearer, or be offering it right from the get go and charge the customer for it. Let the customer decide what is more important. Then the decision could only be on their shoes!
Least that is how I feel anyway.
--
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this. Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!! | |
| | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: I don't think said by David:.... The public added fuel to the fire, the bells did not have to do a damn thing. Except sit back and watch. If people depended on e911 availability I would think (as a consumer) that would be the first thing I would expect to be working with landline service. Well, sitting back and watching the fire is near criminal--especially when you've been obstructing the efforts of others to install sprinklers (i.e., connect to the existing E-9-1-1 systems.) I'm sure the Bells are having a good laugh over the deaths involved, thinking that their own obstructionism had nothing to do with it.
As for what you "would think" about something new, you remind me of the sleazy lawyers who argue to juries that boats are unsafe because they don't have brakes like cars--since they have a steering wheel and a dashboard, they must be just like a car, right? It's not like we would expect people to understand that new things are sometimes different?
People who think we must "idiot proof" every new technology don't realize that if we only allow new technology that's "idiot proof", we will only get the new technology that idiots could conceive, develop, and implement.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | DavidNow accepting new patientsPremium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:70 Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest
·DIRECTV
·AT&T Midwest
·Google Voice
| Re: I don't think Well do remember I am a tech that posts here, but from a consumer viewpoint (I did watch a vonage commercial on my tv the other day the "doing something stupid commercials") the commercials on tv made no mention to me (and probably 75% to 90% of the normal untechnical public ) about e911 being impacted if I switch to vonage. Now keep in mind the same public will be thinking "Ok I have a broadband line, why don't I get vonage?" Then disaster strikes like it did for the 2 incidents I point above and they look for someone to blame. Who's fault was it really? The VoIP's fault? the bells fault? and the bells fault for what? not making something work? for the VoIP providers not stating that e911 might not work? I can't fathom to imagine it being the bells fault for something the VoIP providers did not consider in the initial long run, for that I blame them, and solely them for their lack of responsibility. That just proved they put the bottom line above public saftey and now it is catching them in the shorts.
As for thinking making things idiot proof.. I agree, but to the same extent if you try, we just invent a better idiot.
--
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this. Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!! | |
| | | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: I don't think ...and I don't doubt that some customers have been misled about the impact on their 9-1-1. However, I think the answer is in requiring proper disclosure, not in more regulation that limits customer options and raises prices.
And while we may differ on the "obstructionism" (or not) that the VOIP players have encountered, you have to admit that today's FCC effort to make the VOIP network work like (i.e., look like and cost like) the LEC network will hurt VOIP more than a reasonable disclosure only requirement would have.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | | | |  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | all the stupid people. The problem here is all of the people who act like they have one working brain cell,and when they do something stupid they blame everyone but themselves. These are the same idiots you see out on the open road careening down the highway in a motor home the size of a Nimitz class aircraft carrier, and they shouldn't be driving a remote control for a TV.
I am not a big fan of VoIP but this dumping on these providers is just what the Telco's want, they may not be facilitating these legal assaults but you can be sure they are not upset they are happening.
As I have said before there is going to be a mass extinction of small VoIP providers, while the larger ones will be ingested by the one of the big boys. From a investor's point of view the only value I can see in having stock, if traded, in any of these larger VoIP companies is to be in a position to be bought out by a Telco, or Cableco at an inflated price.
--
Low voltage Tech's are wimps, Real tech's use 45 pound filament transformers, plate voltages no less then 2400 volts with at least 10 amp's lighting 8877 triodes...BPL I'm coming to get you. | |
| | |  n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| Re: The first thing the VOIP providers could do... [BQUOTE=beach boyI would agree with this theory and would expect to pay more for it to.. From a strictly consumer standpoint.
[/BQUOTE
I am not sure it would cost more unless we are talking about a fully e911 integrated system which the FCC order does not appear to address. If it is to be setup like Vonage has now, you are programming the number "911" to forward to a specific 7 or 10 digit number. That obviously will not provide e911 features but the call will go through. If the FCC is pushing e911 then it will definitely cost $$$$ because the telco's are going to extract their pound of flesh.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
 firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
·Frontier Communi..
| 911 has a real phone number... Ma and Pa voip service user dials 911 and that number is forwared to 1-888-my-local-emergency-dispatch-center-number, pretty simple so the problem here is..... ? That's how cell phones used to do it and you know what the big problem there was? The telcos wouldn't give that super secret real phone number to the cell provider, that was the only holdup to having 911 on your cell phone in some areas back in the day. 
--
Location: N48°05.3' W119°48.5' | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| |
See 16 replies to this post | |
 winkyTurn Left At The Moon
join:2001-02-11
Saint Louis, MO | The bottom line rears it's head The only reason VoIP providers didn't include 911 is because they figured it was just another overhead expense they wouldn't make money on, plain and simple. I'm surprised the telcos haven't come out with an ad campaign "Use VoIP and Die!"
--
If you can break it,I can fix it.Of course, It'll cost ya' | |
| | EKS2
join:2004-09-14
Round Lake, IL | Re: The bottom line rears it's head Check your facts. I have zero problems dialing 911 and getting connected to dispatch over vonage or any of the other services I've used. The burden is on the people who were too lazy to set up or confirm their address that gets passed to 911.
The same thing happens to regular POTS lines near me all the time. I've got three different prefixes on my street alone, and they all show up as different towns. People aren't complaining about it because it's just easier to call up and have it corrected. | |
| | | | | winkyTurn Left At The Moon
join:2001-02-11
Saint Louis, MO | Re: The bottom line rears it's head Good spot. | |
|
| | No surprise What makes VoIP attractive is the lack of all the regulatory cruft that the POTS system has been burdened with after a century of regulation. E911 is just the most obvious and useful part of that stuff, so they use it as a foot in the door. Once the telcos have got that required, they'll move on to all the other stuff on your phone bill, such as the TDD relay service. Eventually your VOIP will be as full of taxes as your POTS bill. | |
| | |
lkeyesPremium
join:2003-12-22
Colchester, VT | E911 BS I think this whole E911 thing is a communist plot, and that users should be able to opt in or out.
If I need the fire department, I can also dial my local department using the number that appears on the handy sticker that they distribute for sticking on my phone. Likewise, the police and ambulance.
I generally am in favor of community members working together.
Requiring 911 for what should be a transaction between two smart, peer-to-peer endpoints is an intrusion. Somehow, we manageed to survive without 911, and E911, and GPS cell-phone autolocation for years, and we are still alive.
These new, mandetory services are creeping big-brotherism. | |
|  xdeadhead220, 221, Whatever It Takes.Premium
join:2000-11-08
Mechanicsburg, PA
 ·Verizon FiOS
·Comcast
| wrong number please check the number and dial again.... | |
| | | Bells will not charge much if anything for 911 Both Verizon and SBC are rolling out VoIP as part of their big IP offerings -- access to Internet via DSL, TV via IP, wireless hooked into IP. If big charges for 911 were mandated, then Verizon and SBC would have to charge each other, and neither would want to do that, given the massive number of VoIP customers they expect to have. If they agreed to waive charges for each other, that would be anticompetitive and would be stopped by the FTC, DoJ, and courts. If the two allowed reciprocal access to 91l, but shut out independent providers of VoIP, that, too, would be anticompetitive and disallowed.
What is needed is a system for locating VoIPers when they are telephoning away from their home base (which would be required information during set-up). One easy solution would be to require entering the ZIP code of the calling place away from home, with special codes for airplanes, trains, buses, and similar. | |
| | | bli 120days? When cell phone's needed to start doing 911 it was years.. then they added more years.. I would say its a tactic to drive out the startups..But VoIP is a newer technology and shouldnt take as long. | |
|  alphapointeDon't Touch MePremium,MVM
join:2002-02-10
Columbia, MO
kudos:2
·Socket Internet ..
·Mediacom
| Of course... The FCC is driving out indie's. They're just using 911 as an excuse. Anything the FCC can do to help the ILECs whose ass they are kissing anyway....
/rant
--
root@paradise:/home/God #make install..................................Big Bang | |
| | | Well, any FCC ruling can be challenged in court. If their ruling is overly broad--espeically if it touches peer-to-peer which has no regular POTS outgoing, it may well be challenged in court. Just the other week the FCC lost in court. Expect to see litigation if the rumors about the broadness of the ruling are correct. I hate to tell the ILECs, but a move like this by the FCC will just drive many to cellphone only use.
I think we mandate far too many things in this day and age of political correctness, which tend to drive costs of services up to a point that many poor are locked out. (We retired to a rural area where there are still many people who don't have phones due to the cost. Heck, our no flavor, no options, local calling only service was almost 20 dollars more than when we lived back east and most of that was additional fees imposed by the ILEC, which mainly serves rural markets with no choice and puts the screwes to its customers. We're actually getting many more services bundled with VOIP that the ILECs charge substantial fees for--even though the ILECs recouped their investiment in equipment for such services many, many times over and could stand to loweer their fees.)
As for 911, I seem to recall that several generations, including mine, lived for years dialing more than 3 digits to get emergency services. Kids were taught to dail 7 digit numbers. Most of us survived and got prompt reponses from police and fire. It's a nice, but not essential service. | |
| | | Nice Graphic, but... quote:
apparently this welcome screen every customer sees was simply too mystical
Welcome screen? I'm not disputing that a Vonage customer can navigate to the page that screen shot came from, however, labeling it as a welcome screen seems to be a bit of an exaggeration. When I log in at Vonage's site, the Dashboard comes up. The Features page (where the screenshot comes from) is a click away, however, it is certainly not a welcome screen. | |
| nydwarf
join:2001-08-24
St Catharines, ON | Competition It shouldn't be mandated let the customers decide. If a VOIP company doesn't offer 911 service then let customers decide if they want it or someone else's service who does offer it. How about a little competition for a change! | |
| | | | Re: Competition OK I give up ........ whether it is a conspiracy by the telcos or not isn't the question here. The problem is the non technical people who sign up for VOIP, and have no clue of what they're doing other than saving some money. Then the time comes and they need emergency services and it's not available because they are too technically challenged to set it up right. So because of the media blitz of incidents where people couldn't call 911 and some one dies because the end user didn't set it up right. So now the government steps in makes the VOIP operator carry the burden so people can call for emergency services.
The argument in these forums should be a mute point as most the people here are technically orientated. | |
|
kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL | VoIP won't go away......... even if the FCC gives the incumbents the freedom to cripple VoIP's price advantage by burying them with escalating 911 fees. If they do make things tough for VoIP providers, Skype (and others) will explode, filling the demand for cheap & reliable digital communication.
The incumbents declining land-line numbers will continue no matter what. | |
| lawrence171Evilly Yours - Evilness
join:2001-12-24
Canada | Vonage suggestion Well, the only suggestion to Vonage would be for them to have an annoying message to the user everytime they dial using the service that says "You will have not enabled e911 on your line. Please do so via your account setup at Vonage.com", until e911 is enabled on the line.
--
What I used to be I no longer am... God, why can't you freeze time for my sake? | |
|
| |
|
|
The first thing the VOIP providers could do...
Good Lord!
