Editor6
join:2003-04-27
Sterling Heights, MI
| Why mandatory E-911 for VoIP is a very bad thing
TechKnow Times: Why mandatory E-911 for VoIP is a very bad thing
I just wanted to call your attention to a post in TechKnow Times (a technology blog) on the subject of VoIP and E-911, entitled "Why mandatory E-911 for VoIP is a very bad thing." Some of you may want to leave comments on that post, and they would be welcome.
http://www.TechKnowTimes.com
--
Thom Byxbe |
|
voiplover
Premium
join:2004-05-28
Portsmouth, NH
2 edits |  »www.techknowtimes.com/
A must read: voip users, get out your check book, the party will be over if this goes through. |
|
okieopie
Premium
join:2004-02-06
Alexandria, KY | Re: Why mandatory E-911 for VoIP is a very bad thi
Great article. Go to the following webpage for contact info to express your opposition.
»www.fcc.gov/contacts.html |
|
lstevens
join:2002-08-17
Brookline, MA | Why would the party be over? Sunrocket is one of the lowest price providers, and has e911.... |
|
davco
join:2005-04-11
| Istevens,
if you are using Sunrocket you may want to test your 911. I just received a phone call from Sunrocket saying 911 does not currently work with my service and gave no timeline for implimentation. I gave my SR 911 a try and sure enough it doesn't work. The representative suggested an alternate be available. |
|
okieopie
Premium
join:2004-02-06
Alexandria, KY
| reply to lstevens
said by lstevens  :Why would the party be over? Sunrocket is one of the lowest price providers, and has e911.... Because (according to the article) the telcos will begin to charge access fees for routing through their systems to 911 centers. Now, the service is not mandatory so there is no leverage. But the day is coming when we'll be paying through the nose for a service that many of us don't want (or are happy to have in a limited configuration). |
|
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ | reply to Editor6
Is the FCC going to mandate that 911 must be provided or that is must be offered?
Big difference... |
|
vonsen
Just Because
Premium
join:2005-01-06
1 edit | reply to Editor6
It is a cogent article that explains what is going on with voip 911. The telco's are not very happy with vonage, et al taking business away from them. How best to strike back? By manipulating 911 sentiment, so that mandatory 911 is rushed into place. If you force vonage to get access through telco facilities then the telco's gain a lot of economic leverage over vonage and other voip providers. Anyone who is concerned about 911 should go read the original Op/Ed.
--
five stars shy |
|
Ludwik
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Poland | reply to Editor6
»pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/002189.html
»pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/002209.html |
|
WhyADuck
Premium
join:2003-03-05
| reply to jjoshua
said by jjoshua :Is the FCC going to mandate that 911 must be provided or that is must be offered? Big difference... The articles I have read indicate that they are going to mandate that it must be provided within a certain, relatively short number of days (a deadline that may be impossible for smaller VoIP companies to meet). Of course these articles fall into the category of "informed speculation" but since government agencies have been known to leak their intentions a couple of days ahead of time to test the public reaction, I would say that if you are going to e-mail the FCC about this today would be a very good day to do it, using the link in okieopie 's post.
Of course, as the editorial states, the fix may already be in on this, and the FCC is just being a willing patsy for the big phone companies and no amount of public input will change their minds. An "act of congress" could override the FCC, but what congressman is going to want to be painted as being against saving lives? So if they do introduce legislation they are going to have to be very careful about how they do it, and anticipate a possible smear campaign from the big phone companies. It would be much easier for the FCC to address the issue in a reasonable way, but since they really didn't provide any comment period on this, I fear they are going to try and ramrod something really bad through.
Note that on most telecom issues the FCC moves at the speed of a constipated snail, taking over a year to reach a decision on even minor issues. So the speed at which this is being addressed suggests that there are political forces at work on this one. Still, who knows, if they received a flood of objections in e-mail today, it might cause them to make a quick modification or two that would at least give VoIP providers a bit more breathing room. |
|
WhyADuck
Premium
join:2003-03-05
| reply to Ludwik
That second link in particular is another great blog entry on the subject. It seems the bloggers have a better understanding of this issue than the traditional media people, who are content to regurgitate months-old "news" (probably as they receive it in press releases, sent out by PR firms that were hired by one of the big phone companies). |
|
vonsen
Just Because
Premium
join:2005-01-06
| reply to Editor6
If you feel strongly about this issue, please take two minutes to fire off an email to the FCC at this link, as okieopie suggested. Or just click here & it will open most email programs, with the FCC address already filled in for you. It could make the difference.
--
five stars shy |
|
WhyADuck
Premium
join:2003-03-05 | Another suggestion: If you feel this is an important thread, you could mark it as "thumbs up" or "news-worthy" (see the green bar above the first message in the thread). Maybe if it was highlighted, more people would read it and take action. |
|
jansm38
Vn800-B
Premium
join:2003-05-19
Blackwood, NJ
| reply to Editor6
Re: Why mandatory E-911 for VoIP is a very bad thing
WTF is a 911 Router?
quote:
But note that the phone companies retain control over the 911 routers. If your VoIP company wants to get calls to the local 911 centers over the designated 911 trunks - and for now, that’s the only way the 911 centers really want to get them, thank you very much - you pretty much have to go through the phone company’s routers.
quote:
If the FCC were solely concerned with saving lines, they could order the traditional phone companies to provide access to their 911 routers free of charge, or at cost.
I work for a Telco and we also do VOIP, there isn't any such thing as a "911 router". |
|
vonsen
Just Because
Premium
join:2005-01-06
| Re: Why mandatory E-911 for VoIP is a very bad thi
said by jansm38 :WTF is a 911 Router? It was a lucid way of getting the concept across. The idea is apparent & the fact that 911 is not actually implemented by routers is known by a smaller subset of techies, like you & me. It is less confusing to most readers to make a "911 router" metaphor, rather than say something like "CAMA MF trunked E911 tandem".
--
five stars shy |
|
FCC only impacts US
@partners.org
| The FCC's mandate is going to be a HUGE BOOM for VoIP providers!
Just not the ones in the US. Personally I'm going to keep my eyes open on non US players who offer unlimited calling to US numbers.
Sure I'd like to keep my money in the US, to provide for US families for the hard working folks, and even the not so hard working folks at the US VoIP companies, but as crazy as it sounds the Federal Government would rather I send my money oversees.
Time to have a talk with the Chinese lady down the hall, she said something about a pair of VERY cheap Hong Kong VoIP providers offering unlimited calling to the US.. And with a Hong Kong number I'll look real "Exotic" on caller-ID.
Hey someone has to feed the Chinese, and it seems that the FCC would like the US VoIP enthusiasts to pitch in...
Although I could look into a Canadian number, perhaps London, or Paris, or Ahh heck it's a global world I could have all four! |
|
notloggedin
@shawcable.net | reply to Editor6
Your efforts to vote this thread "newsworthy" were apparently noticed. This topic just made the dslr news page..
FCC's 911 Move a Trojan Horse?
|
|
notsosmart
@verizon.ne
| reply to Editor6
Re: Why mandatory E-911 for VoIP is a very bad thing
thinks if the fcc does force it then they should also force that the people can choose whether they want it or not. The telco's have to charge on a per person basis, So the peeps have the choose and will pay if they want it. Would take care of the telco's force feeding the price they want to charge the voip's. Also would satisfy the voip customers, they would have the choose. |
|
DancingBear
join:2005-05-18
Mount Royal, NJ
| reply to Editor6
You all fail to see the point. You can not replace just part of a service that consumers are familiar and accustomed too. For many people E911 is part of normal phone service. In addition, it is a farce to provide less of a service and call your service cheaper and equal.
The RBOCs (Baby Bells), CLEC and ILEC (Incumbents but not RBOCs) have be told by the government that they must provide E911 and other services. These services have costs to the service companies and the communities that provide these services. For you to demand a “free ride” for VoIP providers is unrealistic.
And all of this is ranting is unnecessary at this time. Wholesale providers like Level 3 offer Local IP origination with E911, 411, 711, DA Listing and MSAG (Master Street Address Giude for E911) to VoIP service providers. The prices that these wholesale providers are offering this service for is well within the limits of acceptable cost to provide a quality product.
In truth the providers that are using VoIP or any new transport method must meet the accepted standard. This is a sign of a product that steps out from the gray market shadows and into the light of the real world. Thanks to Vonage this new method of voice service delivery is in the light of the real world.
Welcome to the real world! |
|
sunshine12
join:2005-05-12
Regina, SK | Finally someone actually says it like it is! Good job DancingBear  |
|
