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."
> 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
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."
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.
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*.