Back in February, we pointed out how one Minnesota man was blaming Vonage for being put on hold by 911, despite no actual evidence Vonage did anything wrong, or that the Vonage systems were to blame. "I called 911 using Vonage broadband and they put us on hold," said the man at the time, citing no further specifics. This same man, according to the KSTP story linked above, had to be handcuffed because he kept running back into the house to salvage his mp3 loaded PC.

For whatever reason, the story was re-born yesterday and spread like wildfire; see Inquirer, Slashdot, RealTechNews, Digg, and more. This of course, led to more cries about how VoIP 911 was a flawed technology, despite no evidence the failure was VoIP specific. Says the website "Consumer Affairs":

"The incident has raised anew the question of how VoIP services, which provide telephone services over the Internet, interface with community 911 emergency services systems."

Despite endless evidence of instances where cellular and traditional 911 systems have failed, VoIP 911 has received far more negative press. Last May, a mother blamed Vonage 911 service for her baby's death, despite the fact Vonage informed local news outlets that the 911 call in question went through - twice. That didn't seem to matter. This and other similar reports created an uproar, and VoIP 911 became a hot political issue.

In response, States started suing Vonage, and the FCC began making strange demands of the VoIP industry. All based on a series of similar stories with little supporting evidence. Was it human error? Was it VoIP 911? Which call center dropped the ball? Did the user test his/her service?

Yes, VoIP 911 has kinks to work out. But shouldn't the debate over the technological shortcomings of VoIP 911 be a little more grounded in fact?