Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Communications United States

VoIP Providers Given 120 Days to Provide 911 Service 626

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

VoIP Providers Given 120 Days to Provide 911 Service

Comments Filter:
  • by BenFranske ( 646563 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:06PM (#12582780) Homepage
    Usually even if your local phone service has been disconnected you can call 911.
  • Stupid (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:07PM (#12582795)
    Why should VoIP providers be required to provide 911?

    You cannot be guaranteed the same level of reliability with VoIP. Public telephone service operators are held to strict regulations regarding PSTN service, ISPs are not.

    Something could break with a person's cable or DSL service and I would have to call and file a trouble ticket. Then, maybe 5 days later, a truck will arrive at their house to fix it. The next internet worm could be released at any time, causing major congestion on the internet which hinders usage of VoIP.

    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:08PM (#12582812)
    Shouldn't it be that providers can say "Whoops, sorry, no 911 with our service", and that's it?
    Why can't they?
    I mean, if someone wants to pay less and go the cheap route, should they really expect the same amount of service?
    The government should NOT be regulating this kind of stuff, IMHO.
  • Last time... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sootman ( 158191 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:08PM (#12582815) Homepage Journal
    ...I moved into a place with no phone service (California, mid-1990s) the phone would work and you could call two numbers, IIRC--611 to set up phone service and 911 for emergencies. If you tried to dial anything else it wouldn't work. Am I remembering correctly? If so, is that still the case? Is that the case everywhere?
  • Re:120 days.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by eobanb ( 823187 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:08PM (#12582817) Homepage
    Well this is all nice and good, but it's also proof that the feds don't understand the internet yet. Since I can plug a VoIP phone in anywhere, how is the dispatch going to know where you are like they would with a POTS line? Run a traceroute??
  • by TorKlingberg ( 599697 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:09PM (#12582822)
    When will legislators learn not to hurriedly pass new laws right after terrible things happen? We all know it's not a good idea.
  • Libertarians? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by putko ( 753330 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:09PM (#12582831) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • Infant died? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by scarolan ( 644274 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:11PM (#12582856) Homepage
    Could she not have run to the neighbor's house and borrowed a phone?
  • They cant (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:14PM (#12582885) Homepage Journal
    If they want to be a phone company, they have to follow phone company regulations in matters like this.

  • by xyzzy ( 10685 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:14PM (#12582887) Homepage
    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.
  • There was a day (Score:4, Insightful)

    by eclectro ( 227083 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:14PM (#12582892)
    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.
  • Re:120 days.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hoggoth ( 414195 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:15PM (#12582897) Journal
    > 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.

  • by Otto ( 17870 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:17PM (#12582925) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cyngus ( 753668 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:19PM (#12582951)
    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.
  • Re:120 days.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nzkbuk ( 773506 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:21PM (#12582983)
    Even if it means a database of IP address to geographic location mappings
    What about ISP's that give dynamic addresses to Cable / DSL ?

    Or maybe someone who runs their own asterisk box for family / friends and all calls go out using only 1 account ?
  • Re:Libertarians? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hsmith ( 818216 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:22PM (#12582997)
    Simple: if there is a demand for 911 service, someone would provide it. you know good and well when you purchase the phone it lacks those numbers. you should have your local fire dept and police dept #'s written down somewhere close to the phone in case of emergency. Another example of idiots expecting people do to everything for them.
  • Re:120 days.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by michrech ( 468134 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:22PM (#12583000)
    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 [slashdot.org] if you liked calling BBS's.
  • Re:They cant (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pavera ( 320634 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:24PM (#12583020) Homepage Journal
    They don't want to be the phone company.
    The want to be Internet Telephony providers. Their networks aren't designed to be carriers of last resort (if you don't know what that means look it up). They aren't and can't be required to provide SLA's the way CLECs, ILECs, and RBOCs are. VoIP is not telephone service, it is a data service.

    This ruling is hairy because now it gives the CLECs and ILECs the precedent to say "Hey, you said these guys weren't subject to regulation, but you regulated them wrt 911, we want them regulated wrt taxes, sla's etc, just like we are." Which will immediately put VoIP out of business.
  • Re:Stupid (Score:2, Insightful)

    by TerminaMorte ( 729622 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:29PM (#12583074) Homepage
    Because you hear testimony from women with dead children, and news papers report on it.

    Do you really expect law makers to say "Too bad, you shouldn't have been cheap?"

    I agree with you though, in that VoIP having to provide 911 service is bogus. 911 calls are free on a land line, and I can't imagine a house (of a person worth saving ;)) that doesn't have a land line which they could have an 'emergency phone' hooked up to.
  • by BenFranske ( 646563 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:31PM (#12583093) Homepage
    Cell phones did not support real 911 for quite a long time and people died then too. Just because we have a new technology (square peg) doen't mean we should try and make it fit within our exiting infrastructure (round hole). I would have preferred to see it required that providers EITHER make their service 911 aware OR put a warning label on bills, sign up forms and equipment that warns Joe Sixpack he may not be able to dial 911.
  • Re:120 days.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by lostwanderer147 ( 829316 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:34PM (#12583145) Journal
    Somehow I think the technical difficulties will be solved. Even if it means a database of IP address to geographic location mappings.

    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.

  • How saddening (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:35PM (#12583148) Homepage Journal
    If that story is true it must be heart wrenching to know that if you had simply kept a list of emergency telephone numbers (real local numbers like everyone did pre-911) that things would have turned out differently.

    Note to self: The 911 system is based on technology working correctly, have a backup system.
  • Re:120 days.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jfengel ( 409917 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:35PM (#12583152) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • Re:There was a day (Score:3, Insightful)

    by OS24Ever ( 245667 ) * <trekkie@nomorestars.com> on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:40PM (#12583218) Homepage Journal
    You're not married are you? Not all geeks are lucky enough to find another computer geek to marry and procreate with. We can only have kids and teach them how to outwit their mother by the time they are 5.

    I went with Time Warner's VoIP because it had hard wired 911 we know where you are service, that is what kept me off of Vonage.

    Also what do you do if your 3 or 4 year old is smart enough to do 911 but has a problem telling you where they live other than the state?

    There are lots of instances where E911 service is important, and you don't have the time to think 'damn, VoIP doesn't support this'
  • by jjhall ( 555562 ) <slashdot@@@mail4geeks...com> on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:40PM (#12583221) Homepage
    I know people who don't even have a phone of any kind in their house. Are you saying *you* shouldn't be denied the ability to call 911 because they are a cheapskate? I hope not.

    I have no expectation of being able to use his phone in an emergency. By your reasoning, everyone should be forced to carry a phone line capable of dialing 911. Whether or not you want to call someone a cheapskate is not relevant. You should have no assumption of saftey if you are not at a location where you have control over the type of phone line. If you are in need of emergency services, you have no *right* to use my phone line to call. It is my courtesy and generosity that allows you to do so. If my phone line doesn't support 911 (and it doesn't, I use strictly VoIP myself) why should that responsibility be placed on me?

    The whole point of this regulation is that this lady bought a service, and agreed to its terms stating that she had no real 911 access. She did not understand it, or thought she would never need it. She took a risk, and now is trying to place the responsibility onto someone else. She made the choice to drop her landline and become the "cheapskate" and now the rest of us are being made to suffer for her actions.
  • Re:120 days.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wakejagr ( 781977 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:41PM (#12583229) Journal

    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.

  • Re:120 days.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by brogdon ( 65526 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:44PM (#12583273) Homepage
    "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 [tmcnet.com] 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.
  • by Supp0rtLinux ( 594509 ) <Supp0rtLinux@yahoo.com> on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:45PM (#12583277)
    You call 911 and get a busy tone...

    Or you call 911 and get a recording that they're overwhelmed with calls at the time...

    Or when you work at a 7-11 and a guy robs you at gunpoint and you call 911 and they say they're really busy and won't be there for 30 minutes... (happened to me a few years back)

    My point??? I can see plenty of times the system has failed or people have died even when 911 service was available.
  • by SeaFox ( 739806 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:47PM (#12583304)
    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.
  • Re:120 days.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by boarder ( 41071 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:55PM (#12583366) Homepage
    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:57PM (#12583385)
    Gee, then it might be like it was for the previous 10,000 years. I'm sure we would go extinct!
  • Re:120 days.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:59PM (#12583398)
    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*.
  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:03PM (#12583450)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Re:120 days.... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:10PM (#12583503)
    The problem is that how to do you trace the IPs? expecially if they are behind a router? or a wierd setup?

    And since most companies use dynamic IPs, you would need a real-time updated list for EVERY ISP in the world cross referenced for all emergency services. And that is a huge privacy issue.

    Now something like a voice prompt when you dial the first call from a new location (different IP block) would work, you just need to remember their old IP block.
  • Re:120 days.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TopSpin ( 753 ) * on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:24PM (#12583621) Journal
    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 [slashdot.org] 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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:25PM (#12583624)
    ...and firmware such that whenever you dial 911, it initially rings an automatic call center and transmits the GPS coordinates to the backend systems at the call center which automatically forward the call to the appropriate local 911 PSAP and include the GPS coordinates in the "ANI/ALI" stream in lieu of textual street address like the new cellphone systems are supposed to provide.

    The only problem is the existing load of end-user voip phones already out there in service that will be made forceably obsolete immediately and all users will have to repurchase your end-user hardware. I say this to the early adopters of VoIP: Tough sh*t. Anytime you try to "blaze a pioneer trail" in the technology world, you gamble on your investment in hardware a few times until robust standards emerge.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:30PM (#12583669)
    You're misunderstanding the problem. The 911 dispatcher doesn't get your exact address from the telephone provider, they ask that from you when you call (especially since you may be calling about something happening at a neighbor's). But. The telephone provider still needs to know your approximate location in order to figure out which 911 centre you should be connected to. E.g., they need to know what city you're in, because there's no point connecting you to the dispatcher in San Francisco if you're in Houston.

    Anyway, the registration thing you describe is basically what's being ordered. Not all VoIP providers have such a facility, and they're being ordered to provide it universally.
  • Re:120 days.... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:36PM (#12583716)
    Good point. I'd hate to be in charge of the Dulles, VA 911 system 120 days from now.
  • Re:Infant died? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by MaTriXxx1 ( 708146 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:10PM (#12584063) Homepage
    well cumbo, RTFA, 'By the time she was able to summon help with a neighbor's phone, the child was dead.' That would imply that she was dicking arround for about 5 minutes (if not longer) with a voip connection.... Im sorry but if I was witnessing a child dying, I wouldnt plug my voip phone into my cable modem... first thing id do is use a cell... if thats not available, then bang on the neighbors doors... Seriusly now... We all know how unreliable the internet can be... why in bloody hell would it be the first thing you tried when your daughter is dying?
  • GPS? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by g00bd0g ( 255836 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:10PM (#12584065) Homepage
    Why not integrate a GPS reciever into the phone? You can be GPS recievers for under $30 retail. This could automatically forward your location to your VOIP provider AND 911 services.

    A bit more money, but you'll still save in the long run.

    Gabe
  • by david.given ( 6740 ) <dg@cowlark.com> on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:14PM (#12584114) Homepage Journal
    I don't know what it's like in the US, but here in the UK all phones that require an external power supply have a large warning label telling you that you should not use it as your primary telephone.

    The problem is that if there's a power cut, all the mains-powered phones stop working. However, dumb phones are powered from the phone line, and remain operative. (I once spent some time in a holiday house with no electricity at all, except for the telephone.)

    You probably don't want to train people to rely on unreliable devices like computers for emergencies --- you want to train them than when they need to call emergency services, get a real phone.

  • Re:120 days.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fbjon ( 692006 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:50PM (#12584410) Homepage Journal
    Unworkable hack.

    And IP address is a no-go. Basing location on where the cable is plugged in is hairy.

    Either the operator asks where the emergency is, or the phone itself has some facility for setting/changing the location; those are the only sensible options, in my opinion.

  • Re:120 days.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by trentfoley ( 226635 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @08:14PM (#12584604) Homepage Journal
    Besides the indoor signal issue that others have mentioned, there remains the problem with not being able to determine elevation. There are many high-rise apartment buildings.

    Even with a two-story 8 unit building, that 50 foot granularity is not good enough to determine from which apartment the call came.
  • by Jackie_Chan_Fan ( 730745 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @08:24PM (#12584659)
    Is it Voip's fault that her babied died or is it her fault for buying a phone service without 911 ?

    I agree that VOIP should support 911. Its a good thing but in reality VOIP is still unreliable even with 911.

    If the power goes out, VOIP goes out... and so does VOIP with 911. So in a real emergency, VOIP should not be relied on. It is unreliable. Voip service could go down, the broadband pipe may be done... Power may go out...

    It is best to have VOIP with a cell phone. Anyone with just a VOIP line is asking for trouble in any real emergency.

    It's sad to say, but her baby's death is partially her own fault for relying on an unreliable phone service. VOIP is great but i would never rely on it soley until we can address power outages, and network stability.... The 911 issue is probably the easiest problem with VOIP to fix.

  • Re:120 days.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by CristalShandaLear ( 762536 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @08:42PM (#12584775) Homepage Journal


    ...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...People have died because of this. They don't really care why it's difficult to fix.


    From the post (DRTFA) 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.


    As much as your post and this woman's plight may pull at our heartstrings I would still want someone to prove that had these people been connected to 911 service, that this lady's baby or anyone else would have lived.

    I would also want to know what type of disclaimers or whatever these people signed knowing FULL WELL that they wouldn't have 911 or that the service might be limited, only to turn around and sue because they are too guilt-ridden to admit THEY risked their own or their loved-one's life to save a buck.

    911 is to dispatch as soon as possible in an ermegency. That does not guarantee that any further mayhem may not occur until the calvary arrives. Dialing 911 is only the beginning of help. It's not a direct guarantee that the the minute you call, you're safe. It just means that someone else now knows that something bad has happened and that possibly the danger isn't over.

    I work in telecom. People call and cancel their long distance because they're switching all their land line based svc to switch to VoIP. And I ask them if they are aware that they may not be able to reach 911. And the response 9 times out of 10 is that the savings is worth the risk. Of course no one will think that after an emergency. I wonder if her parents took the risk, initialed the little box, checked the appropriate little form box and if so, the risk factor assumed is their own.

  • Re:120 days.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MoneyT ( 548795 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @08:57PM (#12584858) Journal
    Then they invented this nifty little thing called speed dial. One touch and you made a call. Even better, many phones had specific buttons with cute little icons to tell you which to press.

    Don't get me wrong, 911 is great, but you should aways have a backup plan, and that should mean having your local emergency numbers programed into your phone.
  • by The Cisco Kid ( 31490 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @09:03PM (#12584887)
    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.
  • by Frizzle Fry ( 149026 ) on Friday May 20, 2005 @12:14AM (#12585897) Homepage
    Cell phones did not support real 911 for quite a long time

    This is different because during most/ all of this time very few people had a cell as their primary phone. Even though cells did not provide 911, if an emergency happened at home, they could call 911 on their regular phone. Today, people using voip are generally using it as their main home phone, which means that it needs 911.
  • Vonage makes it abundantly clear that you must activate 911 Service by providing address information. You'd have to be an absolute idiot to miss this.
    But hidden away in the small print is the truth - Vonage's 911 isn't the equivalent of the E911 service that you will get with a POTS or cellular phone. 'Activating' the '911-type service' that Vonage provides doesn't give you full 911 functionality.
    I activated my 911 service as soon as I signed up, 'cause it was made imminently clear to me that I needed to do so. By the time my adapter arrived, my 911 service was in place.
    You are making the same mistake the lady with the baby made - she believed Vonage when they said that 911 was completely and properly set up. (If you RTFA and have actually followed the story, you'd know that she had, just as you have, followed all the steps and jumped through all the hoops.) But niether she, nor you seemingly, realized that Vonage provides not full 911 functionality, but a '911-type' of service.
    If you're too damn stupid to activat the service, I just see it as evolution in action. Hopefully you were too damn dumb to breed yet too.
    She *did* activate the service. But the company *lied* to her about the level of 911 functionality that was provided. Rather than connecting her to 911 - it connected her to a daytime police information operator.

    Let's hope *your* life doesn't depend on '911-type service' someday - you too might be a story on Slashdot. (And I bet smug and self important idiots will hope you didn't breed either.)

New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman

Working...