 nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | what a shocking surprise! And the FCC and congress want to completely deregulate the ILECs? | |
|  | 
provisions
@optonline.net | Re: what a shocking surprise! Ya dude I hear ya, things were better with ma bell. | |
| | 
zoom314
Superman
Premium
join:2001-04-30
Yermo, CA
| said by nasadude  :And the FCC and congress want to completely deregulate the ILECs? SBC is being silly, Short of blocking VoIP entirely, I think They are testing how much they can get away with versus the FCC, I wouldn't doubt They'd like to shut out the VoIP providers entirely. Do I think SBCs claim of Vonages asking for assistance is proprietary? No I don't, As the other Bells to one extent or another are cooperating, So why can't SBC?
--
Firefox forever!»mysite.verizon.net/zoom314/ | |
| | | 
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| Re: what a shocking surprise! This may be the one and only time I side with a telco on something. SBC knows 911 service is the only thing they have over VoIP, and as a business, why would they give that up?
And as others pointed out, Vonage jumped the gun with an incomplete service launch, and is now upset their competitors aren't willing to give them another leg up.
As a VoIP customer, I'd like to see them get all this worked out. But I can't blame the telco's for not wanting to make it easy for VoIP providers to drive them out of business.
--
AMD A64 3200+/ MSI K8N Neo/ 2x 512Mb Kingston HyperX PC4000/ WD 74Gb Raptor/ Gainward GF4 4600/Gainward 5200PCI/ Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
| | | | 
Pz_
join:2001-03-31
Brownsburg, IN
clubs:
| Re: what a shocking surprise! I hardly think that Vonage or any other VOIP provider will be driving ANY of the telcos out of business anytime soon.
Too bad, since I hate SBC and would love to see them forced to play fair.
Sort of like how I don't think that alternative energy is going to put big oil out of business. They will just buy it all up when it gets popular enough. | |
| | | | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| said by Camelot One :...SBC knows 911 service is the only thing they have over VoIP, and as a business, why would they give that up? ... Maybe so people wouldn't die?
(Sorry, I forgot. This is SBC and heartless Ed Whitacre we're talking about here....)
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | |
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| Re: what a shocking surprise! said by calvoiper :Maybe so people wouldn't die? (Sorry, I forgot. This is SBC and heartless Ed Whitacre we're talking about here....) calvoiper Why is it SBC's responsibility? They provide a landline service that calls 911 just fine. Why should they go out of their way to make sure people who DON'T use their service are taken care of? Whats next, expecting them to provide free dial tone just in case a non-paying customer needs to make a call?
This is Vonage's problem plain and simple. If they can convince SBC to cooperate then great. But if not, they have no right to cry fowl.
--
AMD A64 3200+/ MSI K8N Neo/ 2x 512Mb Kingston HyperX PC4000/ WD 74Gb Raptor/ Gainward GF4 4600/Gainward 5200PCI/ Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
| | | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: what a shocking surprise! said by Camelot One :Why is it SBC's responsibility? ... Why should they go out of their way to make sure people who DON'T use their service are taken care of? ... Because they are in a position of control over the 9-1-1 system. The whole affair is that SBC uses that control to prevent other carriers from completing 9-1-1 calls unless they pay outrageous rates to SBC, based on tariffs that were set when there wasn't any competition.
In short: SBC's rates for 9-1-1 functions are outrageously high. SBC charges these rates to governments, to themselves, and to competitors.
The amounts SBC charges to itself are a wash. The amounts charged to others are extortionate profits.
It's as if a city awarded a contract to one ambulance firm to align the stoplights to facilitate ambulance runs. That firm, when it is a monopoly, decides to charge itself $800 per ambulance run to align the stoplights. When the second ambulance firm comes to town, the first tries to charge it $800 per run for the stoplight service. The first firm also refuses any effort to lower the cost or explore alternatives, saying instead that an "industry standards process" needs to review the issue.
Do you begin to understand the problem here? Do you begin to understand why the second firm would offer service without the stoplight alignment, but also warning their customers that when paying half the price, they don't get stoplight alignment?
said by Camelot One :... Whats next, expecting them to provide free dial tone just in case a non-paying customer needs to make a call? Uhh, that's actually already the law in several states. In those states, when a line is disconnected but not re-used, the LEC is obligated to provide "warm line" service that works only for 9-1-1.
calvoiper
PS--the expression is "cry foul", not "cry fowl", unless you're looking for chickens, ducks, and geese.
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | |
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| Re: what a shocking surprise! First off, fowl wasn't a typo. (SBC too chicken to compete on a level field) Little play on words, not that it matters.
But no, I still don't see the problem. Using your example, I still say why does company A have any obligation what so ever to help company B steal their customers? They provide an ambulance service that works, and that is the end of their obligation to the consumer.
I'm not saying I agree with the way 911 was paid for, nor in who runs it. But the fact remains...SBC in this case is in control, and I see no reason for them to cut Vonage any breaks. If the FCC wants to step in and do something that is great. That is what they are for. But if I were a share holder in SBC, I'd be pissed at any moves to help the competition, and resolving the 911 issue for VoIP providers would be exactly that.
All that said, after multiple posts defending them...I'd like to point out that I hate SBC. I am a Vonage and CallVantage customer.
--
AMD A64 3200+/ MSI K8N Neo/ 2x 512Mb Kingston HyperX PC4000/ WD 74Gb Raptor/ Gainward GF4 4600/Gainward 5200PCI/ Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
| | | | | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: what a shocking surprise! If you think it's OK for a company to turn a basic service contract with a government unit into a way to exclude competition, then I understand why you support SBC here.
Otherwise, I think SBC is acting in inexcusable self interest. By your logic, they should prohibit their linemen from helping out auto accident victims because it might cause overtime or extra wear and tear on their trucks...
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| said by Camelot One :This may be the one and only time I side with a telco on something. SBC knows 911 service is the only thing they have over VoIP, and as a business, why would they give that up? E-911 is not SBC's to covet. They did not pay for the network, WE did...Check your copper phone bill...That E-911 service charge is what funds the E-911 system.
--
Playing the Tuba isn't an art, it's an adventure! http://www.lakesidepride.org | |
| | | | 
WhyADuck
Premium
join:2003-03-05
| Let me post a hypothetical here. Let's imagine a land where, a few decades past, there was no such thing as 911. Everybody had a sticker on their phone with the numbers of the local police and fire departments, and maybe the ambulance number also, attached to their phone (which, by the way, was technically an illegal foreign attachment but the phone company knew better than to make a stink about it).
The someone came up with the idea of a three digit emergency telephone number that could be used in any sort of emergency. And it was good, and it saved lives, and whenever it saved lives someone made sure it got plenty of coverage in the popular press (newspapers and magazines).
Then citizens in towns large and small started asking their mayors to get the local phone company to put in one of these wonderful emergency numbers. And in city after city, the mayor and the council members looked into it and found the equipment required, and the special trunks required, were quite costly. So they told the citizens,"we can install one of these systems but we will have to raise your taxes!" And the citizens said, "But we are already taxed for police and fire protection - use some of that money to fund the new system!"
But the police chief didn't want to take a cut in pay, and the fire chief didn't want to take a cut in pay, and none of the police or firefighters wanted to take cuts in pay, nor did they want to do without new police cruisers or fire trucks for a year or two.
Then the Man from the Telephone Company came by. And he said, "Mr. Mayor, I have a solution for you. You can have your shiny new 911 equipment and you will not have to raise taxes by a single dime." And the Mayor, who was running for re-election soon, said, "Please, Mr. Man from the Telephone Company, tell me how!"
And the Man from the Telephone Company said, "All you have to do is lease the equipment from us, and lease the special trunk lines from us. We will install it, we will maintain it, and we will repair it for a nominal fee if it breaks. And the beauty is, we will add the cost to the telephone bills of all your citizens. So, you can tell them that you got them a shiny new 911 system without any increase in their taxes, and you don't have to worry about any pesky state laws that limit how much you can tax the people."
But the Mayor said, "How do we know we are getting a good deal on this equipment? Are you charging us a fair price for it? Will it last many years, or become obsolete soon?"
And the Man from the Phone Company's face darkened and he said, "Why do you ask such questions? What do you care if you are getting a good deal or not? Your citizens will pay for it because they have no choice, unless they want to give up their telephones. We can be a powerful friend or a powerful enemy. Wouldn't you like to win re-election? Wouldn't you like to be our friend?"
And so the citizens got their 911 service, the city got some nice shiny equipment that was overpriced and obsolete sooner than anyone expected, and the extra charges remained on the phone bills and were increased from time to time, which meant the Man from the Phone Company lived happily ever after.
And interestingly enough, in this hypothetical land, let's imagine that after some length of time had passed, the phone company tried to convince everyone that in fact the equipment was theirs, the circuits were theirs, and that their profits took precedence over the safety of the citizens. Even though the people had paid many times the value of the equipment, and even though lives might be lost, the phone company absolutely refused to cooperate with new competitors who wanted to connect to the 911 trunks because after all, that equipment and those trunks were theirs.
No, that couldn't happen, could it? Nowhere would people be dumb enough to say that even though they had paid for the equipment and circuits many times over, sometimes at vastly inflated prices, the phone company should still have the right to exercise absolute control over who was able to connect to those circuits, right?
Well, maybe nowhere but America! | |
| | audiog
join:2004-08-09
Detroit, MI
| The FCC has created this 911 problem by saying that the VoIP providers can make it work without our intervention.
The 911 problems were around when the FCC granted VoIP operators permission over the objections of the telcos who are working on the 911 problem with there packet based networks that they are testing.
Why would SBC help Vonage when they are getting AT&T VoIP platform. SBC is working on there own software hardware combo. The RBOCs are going VoIP because it will remove state regulation from the picture if they go VoIP and if the states lose in the battle court with the FCC over states right to regulate. You will lose your right to file a complaints at the local level if the states lose.
Yes there is a solution that is similar to the cell net but cellular nets are more directional than a packet based network. Cell calls are collected to a central area and then put into the wire/fiber nets at the tandems. So if the call stays in the cell net it incurs no cost all others are put in to the network at the access tandems for distribution and the cell net will tag a 911 call with location information as public and not secure. | |
| |
TeleTom
@bcvloh.ameritech
| After 36 years in the telecommunications business working for an RBOC I am not surprised or disappointed by SBC's response.
The Telecommunications industry has, at least since I started in 1965, had industry wide forums for the development, coordination and interface of equipment and technologies.
The fact that SBC prefers to develop standards in such an industry wide forum should be commended not criticized. Such forums insure ALL interested parties have input and a fair hearing. Backroom off the wall designs serve only special interests and not the general good.
If criticism, jeers and shame are to be passed out they should go to Vonage or any other provider who fails to clearly explain to their customers the capabilities AND limitations of the service they offer. | |
| | | achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| Re: what a shocking surprise! said by TeleTom:
After 36 years in the telecommunications business working for an RBOC I am not surprised or disappointed by SBC's response.
...
If criticism, jeers and shame are to be passed out they should go to Vonage or any other provider who fails to clearly explain to their customers the capabilities AND limitations of the service they offer. Please...Vonage clearly informs their Customer's about the pitfalls of 911 service on their VoIP service.
And, in terms of SBC, they may have push for development 1965 (which would have been AT&T at that time), but they have been far more lazy in the past 15 years I have been working in the telecom industry.
What ticks me off is that SBC is trying to harbor ownership of E-911 service (like they do for local loops), which are/were NOT funded by SBC, the infrastructure was paid for by Uncle Sam and Customer's through direct bill charges.
SBC, like they have been in the past with CLECS, is trying to get rid of competition though unfair business practices. Plain and simple.
--
Playing the Tuba isn't an art, it's an adventure! http://www.lakesidepride.org | |
| 
icp1
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| read both sides You should at least post the other half of the article of SBC's take:
»blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/index.php?p=328
Vonage goes live without real 911 capabilities, and in trying to figure it out later, they can't get what they want for nothing, so it's SBC's fault. Please. | |
| | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: read both sides Added and linked, thanks. | |
| | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: read both sides SBC's response is just so much h*%ses#!t.
They want to work "through industry-standards-setting organizations" and criticize Vonage for not working within the process.
Well, I've got news for everybody. The telco "industry-standards-setting" process is even more cumbersome and dilatory than the process for setting new 802.11 standards--largely because the ILECs are incapable of realizing that they no longer have the right to control everything.
When there is a difference, the ILECs routinely reject any sort of "majority" approach and demand "consensus", which they deny has been achieved unless the standard favors the ILEC.
Claiming that Vonage should wait for these standards is just SBC saying "we don't want to face your competition for at least another two or three years."
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| 
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
| Call Vantage I'm sure CallVantage will end up working just fine though...
"But what might be aggressive competitive policy is not responsible social policy." - Nothing new there from SBC.
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com | |
| achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| No Surprise... Point fingers at Vonage or SBC, the point is that Vonage is working towards an E-911 solution and SBC does not want to help.
Please, the E-911 network was paid for and is maintained by copper users, not SBC, not the Federal Gov't, but by us.
I *do* feel that Vonage users (and other VoIP customers) need to contribute to the E-911 fund in order to get E-911 service. Once they do, SBC should not try to block Vonage's action to interface with E-911. Sadly, SBC will think of another reason to block the VoIP carriers if they start to put money in the E-911 pool.
SBC has been a poor loser for many things, this is just another one of their temper-tantrums.
--
Playing the Tuba isn't an art, it's an adventure! http://www.lakesidepride.org | |
| | ke4pym
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC
 ·Verizon BroadbandA..
 ·Packet8
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: No Surprise... Too bad you can't opt out of the E911 service fund. Personally, I don't want, need or care about having "E911", and as such, don't want to pay for it.
I pay plenty in taxes to cover police/fire services. If something happens and I can't verbalize where I am, oh well. I'm that much of a cheapskate. | |
| | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: No Surprise... The "opt out" proposal ignores the fact that a major part of E-9-1-1 is providing emergency response to locations when the person reporting isn't the service subscriber.
Maybe your Aunt and her 3 kids are visiting, and when the fire breaks out at 3 am, only one of your cousins can reach a phone.
It's not all about YOU.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| Re: No Surprise... said by calvoiper :The "opt out" proposal ignores the fact that a major part of E-9-1-1 is providing emergency response to locations when the person reporting isn't the service subscriber. Maybe your Aunt and her 3 kids are visiting, and when the fire breaks out at 3 am, only one of your cousins can reach a phone. It's not all about YOU. Not to mention if you are unable to speak in an emergency.
It would be hell to be having a fatal asthma attack or be choking with dispatch on the other end of the phone asking you where you live, but you can not tell them.
--
Playing the Tuba isn't an art, it's an adventure! http://www.lakesidepride.org | |
| | 
DSLTech
join:2000-12-30
San Jose, CA
| Need to back up and take a good look at who and why.
Vonage entered the market without this E911 because they knew the only way they could push VoIP and get a head-start would be to begin with what they had at the time. They knew any 911 provision would take years to implement with the ILECs so they knowingly "began" the VoIP market.
Now that VoIP is becoming a true alternative and posing a real threat to traditional voice services, the issue of 911 has to be addressed.
SBC knows this and expected that Vonage would eventually be forced to hurry 911 service into its network in order to present itself as a true, safe alternative to regular voice.
I dont think SBC is going to want to help Vonage become a better competitor, even if this makes them look like the greedy little pigs they are. This is the American way and anyone who really needs 911 services should just go back to SBC and pay for a regular voice line. Nobody is forcing you to get Vonage service and endager your life, now are they? With this arguement, SBC can easily reflect accusations that it is insensitive.
The ILECs will do all they can to delay the arrival of VoIP, for reasons that should be obvious. I think eventually they will implement it but no Vonage is going to hurry them into it. Big guys dont take sh*t from little guys and this attempt by Vonage to force the hand with SBC is admireable but very naive.
What really bugs me is that we've allowed all these telecom companies to re-merge so now when one of them says no, there really is no other competitors you can go to in order to force the issue.
I think Vonage did the right thing in coming out with their VoIP service, even if it was sorta incomplete.If they were to have waited for E911, we'd all still be waiting for VoIP.
Wake up, fools. | |
| 
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey | SBC were not for your safety This is soooo dumb for SBC, so they dont care about peoples safety. Maybe that can be there new logo. | |
| |
icp1
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: SBC were not for your safety said by DaveNJ :This is soooo dumb for SBC, so they dont care about peoples safety. Maybe that can be there new logo. I guess I have to repeat myself:
"Vonage goes live without real 911 capabilities, and in trying to figure it out later, they can't get what they want for nothing, so it's SBC's fault. Please."
Vonage are the losers who have a phone service without adequate 911 service, that has nothing to do with SBC.
If you want to blame someone for poor safety record, blame Vonage for not have E911 before they went live. | |
| | | 
knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: SBC were not for your safety said by icp1 :said by DaveNJ :This is soooo dumb for SBC, so they dont care about peoples safety. Maybe that can be there new logo. I guess I have to repeat myself: "Vonage goes live without real 911 capabilities, and in trying to figure it out later, they can't get what they want for nothing, so it's SBC's fault. Please." Vonage are the losers who have a phone service without adequate 911 service, that has nothing to do with SBC. If you want to blame someone for poor safety record, blame Vonage for not have E911 before they went live. "Vonage solves world hunger and cures cancer"
I can make quotes are great as the next guy, just nothing to back it up as much as the next guy  | |
| | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: SBC were not for your safety I think the best headline is something along the lines of:
"Vonage refuses to pay SBC extortionate fees to operate as a telecom carrier...."
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
2 edits | Here, for those too lazy to read the linked article, is the crux of the matter: Vonage approached SBC with an offer “to test and deploy a joint VoIP E-911” service in a February 18 letter from CEO Jeffrey Citron to SBC CEO Edward Whitacre. “We cannot resolve fundamental issues associated with providing a native E-911 service to VoIP users without your assistance,” he said.
Mr. Citron received a response on March 25 from Christopher Rice, SBC’s Executive Vice President of Network Planning & Engineering. “SBC would welcome the opportunity to have its 911 expert meet with Vonage to explain SBC’s current 911 offerings,” said Mr. Rice. “We cannot agree, however, to participate in a separate, proprietary trial with Vonage.” (my emphasis) What this boils down to is Vonage maneuvering for their own solution instead of paying to use what is already available. This was not lost on an analyst a couple paragraphs later:Some analysts call Vonage’s request to SBC unreasonable. “Vonage is SBC’s competition. Why would SBC feel that it has to do anything to help Vonage?” asked William Stofega, an analyst at IDC.
“Vonage has the money to do so much advertising. They need to put the money into making the system bulletproof,” said Mr. Stofega. “The argument that these services can replicate everything for free is a bunch of crap. Vonage needs to take care of this. But once they do, it will cut down on their price advantage.” So, who are the greedy bastards who don't care about people's safety?"Vonage needs to take yes for an answer. We have 9-1-1 solutions in place for VoIP providers today. Vonage appears more concerned about finding ways to provide E9-1-1 on the cheap."
Warnock told me that according to Rice,"SBC is actively working with numerous industry organizations on enhancing E9-1-1 interface solutions. The telecom industry has always sought solutions through industry-standards-setting organizations. That’s how it s done on the scale we’re talking about. Rather than dismiss it, Vonage should embrace it and work within it like the ‘broadband phone company’ it claims to be." There are Vonage ads on TV every night with that "some people do the stupidest things" theme. It seems one of those is to believe the ad. | |
| | | |
Yougotit
@bls.com
| Re: SBC were not for your safety I think you nailed it. They don't like the existing 911 structure/product so they expect SBC to expend money and resources to change it to meet THEIR wishes. Why is the onus on SBC to outlay money and resources when they already did for other providers?
I think Vonage is the one with the problem here. | |
| | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: SBC were not for your safety Hey, wait a minute!
9-1-1 is a GOVERNMENT service.
Why should Vonage have to pay SBC ANYTHING for 9-1-1 operability?
Who put SBC in the position of 9-1-1 intermediary?
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: SBC were not for your safety The "government" did. The local phone company is contracted to provide the infrastructure. Vonage should be paying the GOVERNMENT via those neat little E911 fees every month. They aren't. Therefore, no service. | |
| | | | | | | achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| Re: SBC were not for your safety said by RadioDoc :The "government" did. The local phone company is contracted to provide the infrastructure. Vonage should be paying the GOVERNMENT via those neat little E911 fees every month. They aren't. Therefore, no service. I agree that Vonage should pay for E-911 through their Customer bills; however, SBC is pushing this issue as if SBC is the one that has outlaid the money for E-911.
Again, trying to take credit for something they neither own or funded.
--
Playing the Tuba isn't an art, it's an adventure! http://www.lakesidepride.org | |
| | | | | | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: SBC were not for your safety Where do you see that? | |
| | | | | | | | | achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| Re: SBC were not for your safety said by RadioDoc :Where do you see that? That is the general tone I get from the news stories...
Again, I am 100% in agreement that Vonage needs to contribute to the E-911 fund, but the way SBC is quoted in the story, they are treating E-911 in their region that it is "their" network, and others that want to play need to pay them handsomely for such access.
--
Playing the Tuba isn't an art, it's an adventure! http://www.lakesidepride.org | |
| | | | | | | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: SBC were not for your safety Exactly.
SBC has it's own little fiefdom of 9-1-1 that works, their relationship with the local governments is cozy, and they are in no hurry to agree to "industry standards" that would be fair to all players.
In the meantime, they criticize other carriers for not immediately jumping at the chance to lick up the crumbs SBC throws and pay handsomely for it. Additionally, they refuse trials which might assist the "industry standards" setting process and might lead to less one-sided 9-1-1 fee structures.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | 
burgermeister
All Computers Are Junk
join:2000-10-23
Utica, MI
| said by DaveNJ :This is soooo dumb for SBC, so they dont care about peoples safety. SBC has 911 service, Vonage doesn't. Sounds like Vonage is the stupid one. Maybe they should have thought of this before they started selling service.
Maybe Vonage can have a new logo...
--
"I've learned that depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." | |
| | |
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
·Comcast
·Patriot Media
| Re: SBC were not for your safety said by burgermeister :said by DaveNJ :This is soooo dumb for SBC, so they dont care about peoples safety. SBC has 911 service, Vonage doesn't. Sounds like Vonage is the stupid one. Maybe they should have thought of this before they started selling service. Maybe Vonage can have a new logo... Yes that might be true, however it doesnt help SBC image for announcing we dont care about your safety, and more about our lame 911 advantage, which really isnt one. | |
| | | |
burgermeister
All Computers Are Junk
join:2000-10-23
Utica, MI | Re: SBC were not for your safety To me, it makes Vonage look lame for not caring enough to have 911 in the first place. I guess to each their own...
--
"I've learned that depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." | |
| | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: SBC were not for your safety So all competitors should just pay SBC anything SBC demands, regardless of the fact that SBC is charging for what should be a government connection?
Sheesh.
With an approach like that, we may as well throw in the towel on competition.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | jpjackso
join:2004-04-15
Fayetteville, AR
| Not to mention, when I transferred my number to Vonage, SBC totally dropped me. There is no more dial tone.
If SBC was truly looking out for my safety, they would allow you to dial 911 whether your a paying customer or not, but that's my .02 cents. | |
| | | | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: SBC were not for your safety The problem, knowitall, is that SBC shouldn't be controlling 9-1-1 AT ALL.
Like everything else the ILECs have controlled, they use it to unfairly leverage their monopoly and then want to charge others for it.
In the '90's, Pacific Bell charged competitors between $15,000 and $25,000 just to assign them an NXX, claiming that PB "reprogramming" costs ran that much. It took literally millions of dollars in legal fees and regulatory proceedings to wrestle the NXX assignment process away from the RBOCs.
It's easy to tell that SBC is now doing similar things with the 9-1-1 network, i.e., charging carriers for the "privilege" of competing with them.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| 
starstuff
Fly By Wire
Premium
join:2001-12-05
Mcallen, TX | SBC 911 service charge In my SBC phone bill I see a $0.50 charge for the 911 service why can't Vonage do the same and handle all the 911 calls 'in house'?
--
If something goes wrong at the plant, blame the guy who can't speak English--Homer Simpson. | |
| jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
| Rediculous This is absoulutely rediculous, and should be illegal. SBC is doing nothing but endangering the lives of those that us Vonage (or any other VoIP carrier). I can see blocking som kind of feature (for instance an video-phone service) they want to give their customers, but the 911 service? Come on!
For this the government should definitely step in and FORCE SBC to commit to allowing 911 service to operate properly over VoIP.
Not only are some of their own customers (or past customers) using this service, many who are outside of SBC's territories are using it as well. This is not only bad for business, it should be illegal.
SBC, I like you internet (although slow on the upgrades), but someday you will give up landline and offer VoIP as well, and right now you are not even close to getting my sale. | |
| |
See 14 replies to this post | |
inciter
Noobie
Premium
join:2000-08-30
Rohnert Park, CA
2 edits | BullSh*t My Competition has been in Biz for one year, so I should go down and tell him to use a shurflow sprayer instead of a pump up? I should let him know I use a staining pad instead of a roller?
Give me a break! V knew about this when they started the service. Your telling me they said cut off your land line and we will do the service for you!  Yeah right someone in corp forgot about 911 it's not SBC fault it's V. This is why we don't allow non-Lic contractors in my trade.
Total BS.
I'm sorry but this Tech Head whining makes you want to puke! If this happened in other industries you would need 911 for the heart attacks caused by the laughing fits it would cause.
--
A SUCKER is born every min. On the Internet a SUCKER is born every Sec. | |
| |
VoIPGuy911
@verizon.net | Re: BullSh*t Uh - did you realize that you CELL PHONE DOESNT have the same 911 capabilities as your wireline - I suppose SBC/CINGULAR should not be offering CELL PHONE service either. You guys are so snowed by the PR that the bells serve you up. It's amazing. | |
| | | | |
|
|
SBC Rejects Vonage 911 Collaboration
