Slashdot Mirror
VoIP Providers Given 120 Days to Provide 911 Service
linuxwrangler writes "According to this SFGate article, federal regulators have given VoIP providers 120 days to provide 911 service to their customers. The vote came after testimony from people including a Florida woman who had her infant die after being unable to call 911 from her internet phone. VoIP providers are also required to notify their customers of the deadline and of the limitations of VoIP 911 service."
Usually even if your local phone service has been disconnected you can call 911.
What do the libertarians/EFF have to say about this?
It seems against libertarian principles to require anything of VOIP providers (other than that they not defraud people).
E.g. they didn't say it had 911 service. Nor did they say it would work in a blackout.
Yet it is hard to argue with (cue violins) dead babies.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
Could she not have run to the neighbor's house and borrowed a phone?
They already DO that. When you sign up you have to check a zkillion boxes saying that you acknowledge that you don't have real 911 service.
Of course, then a few people died, lawsuits ensued, and we wound up where we are now.
Why would you expect it to be any different?
In this case, however, I think it's a good thing. VZ and the other encumbents were playing the "oh, it's HAAAARDDD to open our 911 systems", which has to be a load of horse shit.
Before 911 that you posted a telephone number for each of the emergency services next to your phone. Phone books would have the numbers inside the front cover.
I'm sorry to hear about the infant dying. But shouldn't VOIP users if they are technically savvy to use VOIP also be responsible and be sure that they can dial (ie have phone number handy) an emergency service?
As another idea, why not have an old cell phone around that is plugged in. You do not need to have a cell plan to dial 911.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
> proof that the feds don't understand the internet
No, it's proof that the feds don't CARE what the technical limitations are. If you want to offer dialtone, you have to support 911 emergency calls. If a given technology can't support 911 calls then they don't want it being used for telephone service.
People have died because of this. They don't really care why it's difficult to fix.
Somehow I think the technical difficulties will be solved. Even if it means a database of IP address to geographic location mappings.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
Vonage, to pick an example, already supports 911 services. But you have to set it up to tell it where to call. Most people, including that stupid lady in the article, simply don't set up the 911 service. All Vonage will likely do is change it to where you must setup your 911 service before the system actually works.
But then I gotta wonder, how loosely do they define "VoIP" services? I mean, Skype is a VoIP service, technically. You can use it to connect to the PSTN and dial phone numbers if you pay for the priviledge, right? It's outgoing only though. But how in the heck would they handle this sort of thing? Configure the client with where you are? Would this law even apply?
These are the kind of problems I see with regulating this sort of thing too early.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
The idea that VoIP providers must provide emergency services is bogus. If you want something for emergencies, then get a land line. The internet is not reliable enough to depend on for emergency communications like this.
You are missing the point. The government wants technology to advance and the old phone system to be replaced. If this is going to happen, new technologies have to offer the same emergency features. "Get a land line" will eventually not be an option, when it is no longer cost-effective for the telcos to provide them. The internet is not reliable? The Internet was designed to be reliable in the face of node failure, it was one of the primary design goals of the original Arpanet. The military wanted a system that could get messages from A to C even if B failed, by finding an alternate B. Your DSL service may not be reliable, but this is not the Internet. There is a difference, and it is an important one.
Hate to break it to you but people have not died *because* of this. They died because of a lack of understanding on *their* part.
Yes, I'm sure Vonage (and others) could have put a "hair dryer" style sticker on the top of the ATA that read something like "Warning -- Do not use for 911 calls if you are in danger", but the information (last I looked, anyway) was available as to what happens when you dial 911.
Hmph.
---
Read this if you liked calling BBS's.
bork bork bork!
Another possible solution is to put a GPS or some other sort of tracking device in the phone that is activated when a 911 call is made. Just like the current system where a little light goes off on a board, but it will be a light based off of some sort of global coordinates rather than a street address. They have devices that are accurate to within 50 feet or so, definitely close enough to pinpoint one house.
All your
The point is that if there's an emergency, you need to get help FAST, without thinking about it. There's only one thing you need to know: 911. From there they can just ask you where you are. But if you have to look up the number for fire, or police, or the hospital, you could be dead before you find a phone book.
It's only recently that E911 gave the emergency responders the ability to determine your address automatically. Asking people to know their present location isn't much. Asking them to memorize emergency numbers that they don't use often is.
I think you've got it exactly right: this is the first step towards saying "If your customers can't get in touch with emergency services easily, you can't offer this as a replacement for traditional home phone service."
As long as the VIOP companies understand this, I don't think we need to worry about some solution being found.
Don't save Windows XP! http://www.petitiononline.com/jjw1xp/petition.html
"Hate to break it to you but people have not died *because* of this. They died because of a lack of understanding on *their* part.
Yes, I'm sure Vonage (and others) could have put a "hair dryer" style sticker on the top of the ATA that read something like "Warning -- Do not use for 911 calls if you are in danger", but the information (last I looked, anyway) was available as to what happens when you dial 911."
A reasonable point, though it merits mention that Vonage is currently being sued by the state of Texas for intentionally misleading their customers about their 911 coverage.
Personally, I don't see what the problem is with giving them four months to handle the technical aspects of this. They've got everyone's zip code and (I would assume) a directory of each zip code's appropriate 911 response center. How hard is it to make these ends meet? I would think the chick that worked the switchboard at the Mayberry RFD phone company could handle this.
This tagline is umop apisdn.
What if the customer had to register the MAC Address of their VOIP adapter (or router) with their provider and gave the address 911 should respond to. Lots of people use VoIP as a substitute for their regular phone line so their location does not change realative to this. When they make a 911 call, the VOIP provider would send this address to the dispatch center as the location of the caller.
This address would be changable either by calling the VoIP provider or can be changed online. The customer would be responsible for keeping the address up to date if their location changes.
If they make a 911 call and the router isn't at the location they have listed and they don't tell the operator their real location otherwise, they would have no one to blame but themselves. Their VoIP provider isn't psycic as to where they are.
I think, if I understand the problem correctly, that they don't HAVE a directory of each zip code's appropriate 911 center. The phone companies are fighting them by not giving them this info. This is one of only two reasons that VOIP providers don't have good 911 service... no straightforward way of telling where you are and the fighting of the phone co in letting them find the 911 center.
IANAL, but I play one on
You don't know what on EARTH you are talking about. If you had read anything about the Florida woman, Cheryl Waller, such as the May 12 WSJ article, you would know she did everything she was supposed to do, but Vonage forwaded her 911 calls to a non-working, non-emergency number.
From the WSJ article: "To get 911 service from some Internet-calling services, customers have to register their address, on top of the normal signup process. But even some customers who take that extra step -- as Ms. Waller did -- are surprised to find that their emergency calls are relegated to second-class status."
You are such a jerk for blaming the victims. What are they supposed to do, test the system as we are repeatedly admonished not to do? Get some understanding *yourself*.
Hate to break it to you but people have not died *because* of this. They died because of a lack of understanding on *their* part.
Today we find VOIP phones that are indistinguishable from traditional POTS devices. They are intentionally designed to emulate traditional POTS phones. Yet, somehow, your expectation is that the caller is supposed to somehow "know" whether it's POTS or not. This is unreasonable. Many times 9-1-1 callers are using whatever phone they happen upon under stressful conditions.
The 9-1-1 emergency number has been nearly universal throughout North America for about 37 years. The idea is simple; 9-1-1 works for things with dial tones.
I knew this was going to happen. Over two years ago I posted my thoughts and got modded as a troll. Anything that might impede sticking it to Ma Bell must be dismissed and derided. If you're going to compete with POTS, you're going to be expected to provide parity. That's means 9-1-1 service, no ifs ands or buts.
The solution is simple and obvious; VOIP customers will need to disclose the location of their devices so the phone company can route the 9-1-1 calls.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
Yes, this is becuase the incumbent telco's have been refusing to provide access to the actual emergency trunks leading into the PSAP's. If you'll RTFA, you'll note Vonage talking about agreements with varioues telco's, and that theyve been trying for a very long time. The FCC order, thankfully, also *requires* the telcos to allow access to them.
All in all, a good thing, however I *hope* that the order allows a customer to consciously make the choice to *not* have 911 service, if they know they will aboslutely not need it for some reason (either if they have a standard landline as well, or if they are shipping the VOIP box to a foreign country for a relative to use to call them free, etc)
The bit about requiring the VOIP companies to make sure their customers know the limitations of 911 - I'm honestly not sure how much clearer Vonage could be. (I have another Voip provider myself, that does not currently support 911 service, and I was fully aware of that and the consequences of it, before I ordered service from them)
That said, if lack of 911 is in any way hoding back adoption of Voip, then I applaud this, as it forces the telco's to allow the Voip's to connect to 911 properly, and will allow them to offer it, which could very well be the hinge point that allows a lot more people to dump their expen$ive pots lines and go with Voip. Maybe this will be the competition that finally drives the ilecs to lower the prices.