Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



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This discussion has been archived.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 jmcmunn ( 307798 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:04PM (#12582762)

    My cell phone works with 911 even if you cancel all other service to the phone. Does that mean broadband and Voip companies will have to do the same?

    I always wondered why it was that my cell phone always has to have 911 access, yet Ma Bell can cut my service and I get no dial tone if I don't pay my bills.
  • One soloution (Score:4, Interesting)

    by FidelCatsro ( 861135 ) <fidelcatsro&gmail,com> on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:05PM (#12582767) Journal
    Would to provide new handsets with basic Mobile/cell phone phone functionality to hitch hike on the current networks emergency dialing capabilities.
    It would be a short term soloution indeed , but then 120 days is a very short term .
  • by Sv-Manowar ( 772313 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:11PM (#12582852) Homepage Journal
    Initially, when noticing this article, I immediately thought of Skype as potentially having issues under this legislation (due to its ability to 'Skype-out' to phone lines). The article would seem to point to it not being required to comply under the 'Instant messaging' software gotcha. If Skype were required to implement 911 support, its possible they could have problems distinguising between those who use the software for internet-based voice chat and internet telephony.
  • Run a trace route? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by deft ( 253558 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:18PM (#12582939) Homepage
    Sure, I guess thats really important, if you dont want to TELL THEM WHERE YOU ARE WHEN YOU CALL.

    This is like that russian pencil, Million dollar US space pen email I get all the time.
  • Re:120 days.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Rasta Prefect ( 250915 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:19PM (#12582956)
    Even if it means a database of IP address to geographic location mappings.

    Only if IP's corresponded reliably to physical locations, which is broken to start with and gets even works when you start throwing in VPN's and tunnels.

  • Not ready for homes (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Palshife ( 60519 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:21PM (#12582975) Homepage
    This is a bad move, in my opinion. All this does is force people to provide "good enough" service in the next 120 days. If the issue is that VoIP calls to 911 are problematic, then attach a stigma to using it in the home. No amount of money saved is going to make me trust a system created in 4 months as opposed to one that's been refined for decades.

    If it's not ready for the home, then it's not ready. VoIP should start with businesses. If you really want it in your house, I believe it should come with the understanding that 911 is either going to be suboptimal or just plain unreliable.
  • Re:120 days.... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jtn ( 6204 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:26PM (#12583035) Homepage
    Right. Magic box just work when Grog press 911! Grog get helpy service good!

    Just because you don't want to understand the technical limitations behind addressing a location-specific service to a non-location-specific service doesn't mean you can just wave your hands around and say "Make it so".
  • "the feds" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by almostmanda ( 774265 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:27PM (#12583051)
    Yeah, right. We know who is really pushing for this--phone companies who want to put VOIP providers out of business or at leaast bleed them financially. If nothing else, it's a scare tactic. "Not yet, Joe Consumer. You want to keep your land line in case of an emergency!" While I agree that VOIP companies should disclose their 911 abilities and should make moves towards getting 911 working, 120 days is an unreasonably short amount of time, and seems designed for failure with companies who haven't even started yet. How about we give them a year so they can put something reliable together instead of each company scrambling to hack it together before they're fined?
  • Re:Libertarians? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:42PM (#12583247)
    It seems against libertarian principles to require anything of VOIP providers (other than that they not defraud people). Agreed. "Truth in labeling" laws ARE a valid function of government. Any communication from the VoIP providers should have "Hey stupid, you can't make E911 calls via this service!" written across the top of it in large red letters. I'd have no problem with the government mandating that. But mandating that any new technology work exactly like the old technology it replaces should have a chilling effect on innovation.

    Case in point: Rather than passing laws that mandate "Emmisions must be below such-and-such a level", the federal government passed laws mandating that "All cars MUST be equipped with a catalytic converter". That's right, even if you can come up with a more effective, cheaper, and longer lasting method of reducing emmissions, your are still required to use a catalytic converter instead! I strongly suspect that the manufacturer of catalytic converters had a big part in lobbying for the catalytic converter law, just like the older phone companies had a huge part in bribe^H^H^H^H^H convincing the congresscritters to pass this new VoIP legislation.

  • by Ucklak ( 755284 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:08PM (#12583485)
    I remember when the back and inside cover of every phone book had the number to the local police, fire, and hospital (back in the phone monopoly days)

    911 is great for a visitor but if you live in a community, it is your duty to know when your trash is picked up, the status quo of the community, and appropriate telephone numbers for whatever services (septic pumps, fire department if you live somewhere where your burn trash, etc...).

    Every family with small children know the name of their pediatrician, the location of the office, and the phone number of the office.

    True Story:

    2 guys unloading goods off a truck at a restaurant where I worked. 1 guy holds the unloading ramp waving to the driver to back up. The driver guns the gas, the truck is in reverse, the ramp hits the back door and the guy holding the ramp gets a finger cut off.

    The kids who witness this freak out, I keep my cool. I pickup his finger (which was grey in color and kind of flat) and put it in ice, call 911 and monitor the time.

    There is a fire house less than 2 miles away from us so I figure that it shouldn't take that long.

    After 15 minutes, I call again.

    27 minutes after the first call, they arrive.

    A police dispatcher will tell you that calling their desk will result in a faster response time anyway.

  • by dereference ( 875531 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:08PM (#12583486)
    It's one of the oldest tricks in the book--all the landline dialtone providers have been looking for some way to steer people away from thess less expensive VOIP alternatives, so they're highlighting all these horror stories just to scare people away.
  • Re:120 days.... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:08PM (#12583491)
    Well, actually, that part is the problem. The local 911 centers don't want to give out their DID (direct inward dial number) because they're not getting any tax money from the VoIP providers.
  • by pavera ( 320634 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:15PM (#12583548) Homepage Journal
    Ok, I didn't know that.
    I worked for a while at a CLEC actually setting up our 911 interconnection with the ILEC here and the 911 call centers had routable numbers.
  • those days are gone (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kebes ( 861706 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:52PM (#12583853) Journal
    When I switched to VoIP I thought the same thing: "even if 911 doesn't work, I'll just dial the number for the police station or fire station or whatever." So I contacted the local police station and asked what the # was for calling in an emergency. They said: "911" ... no matter how many agencies I asked about calling the emergency center or police station directly, they all said: "no, direct calling has been phased out... you have to call 911." Calling a police station directly means you are calling about something non-critical and will be put on hold or get a machine.

    I don't know how widespread this problem is, but the "direct calling" idea is no longer an option in some locations. Sad, really.
  • by TimButterfield ( 16686 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @06:55PM (#12583892) Homepage

    Yes, it is really useful to tell a recording where you are!

    Why not? When I call 411 on my cell phone, the automated system asks for City, State. Why can't 911 on VoIP do the same thing if the IP being used isn't registered? VoIP will need to account for both registered and unregistered IPs. If the IP is registered, then route the call to the mapped 911 call center. If the IP is not registered, the automated system can ask for City, State the same as 411 does and route appropriately.

  • by burnsy ( 563104 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:01PM (#12583972)
    Jeff Pulver of Freeworlddialup (not subject to the order) wrote at his blog [pulver.com]...

    My final thought on today's events: Amidst all the emotionally heart-wrenching anecdotes about failed Vonage 911 calls, no one ever mentioned the failures of traditional carrier emergency response services. I'm forced to wonder what would have happened if the FCC had paraded the spouses and parents of those who died when 911 failed on traditional wireline and wireless networks? I guess that wouldn't be acceptable - that might scare consumers of traditional telecom services and antagonize the traditional communications power structure. Let's bully the new weak kids in town but not draw attention to current emergency response failures by those that are capable of fighting back.

    Couldn't agree more. This order is just the stepping stone to full regulation of VOIP inlcuding lawful intercept (CALEA) in order to kill it on behalf of the BOCs.
  • Re:120 days.... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by zeuqsav ( 884673 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @08:26PM (#12584665)
    A ZIP code is no good ... they need what's known as a "911 Address", which is an address that's been "normalized" by the local PD (or city) so that they know where it actually is. I had a problem a few years ago with a lakeside place we rented in NH, there was some glitch on the line and it kept calling 911 and hanging up, but the address the local PD had didn't exist and turned out to be related to where the phone poles were located. After about 2 weeks, the local PD finally pulled up and asked me if that was my phone number -- they then updated it with the proper "911 address". Good thing we never needed to use it, because no-one would've turned up!
  • by jjhall ( 555562 ) <slashdotNO@SPAMmail4geeks.com> on Friday May 20, 2005 @12:55AM (#12586128) Homepage
    I think not having a phone capable of 911 service would be a "real reason" for not being able to assist. My monthly phone bill (minus long-distance) costs slightly over $10 since I've switched to VoIP. My old landline used to cost me over $30 per month, again not including long distance, and I have more features that I can use than I did before. Lack of E911 services is worth the $240 per year for me, especially considering my wife and I keep cell phones that are no longer activated both upstairs and down. And yes, they are always charged.

    I don't deny that if it were purely a cost factor, it should be implemented. In fact, my old POTS provider itemized out the E911 fee at $1 per month. I would gladly pay that difference if I could get the service on my VoIP line. It doesn't only benefit me, but it would be an additional saftey net for my neighbors and visitors as well. Unfortunately it is not a cost factor at all.

    As others have pointed out in other threads in this story, the biggest hurdle is technological. The E911 system works as well as it does because when a call comes in the copper pair used to carry that call is tied to a specific physical location. That location is then displayed on the screen of the call-taker, so they can have emergency crews on the way before they even find out the full emergency.

    With my VoIP line, there is technically no physical location to tie my call to. I can be making the call from my ATA here in the house. Or I can be using a softphone on my PC at work. I can be using a WiFi phone at a McDonalds a thousand miles away from my house. Since geographic tracing of IP addresses is all but reliable (I generally use a VPN when I am not at home, and calls still get routed out my home IP) there is no way to give accurate data to the E911 dispatch center.

    What I have done on my phone is configured it so that when (if) 911 is dialed, the call is routed to my local sheriff's office dispatch center. Everybody in my household and who visits often knows that they will have to give the address to the call taker if they have an emergency. When I am traveling away from my home, I know not to dial 911 on my phone.

    As I said before, the problem is that Jane Soapwatcher doesn't take the time to read through the documentation provided prior to signing up for the service. They read the advertisements that say they can take their ATA with them when they travel and can plug in their phone in a hotel room and get their calls. They try to dial 911 and you know the rest of the story.

    Personally I think the providers should actively NOT support 911 because of the limitations, not implement pseudo support. When the user dials they should get a greeting to the effect of "This phone line does not support 911 services. Please use another phone or press 1 now to be connected to directory services to search for the local sheriff's office number." That way when Jane Soapwatcher tries to call, she won't waste time trying to dial 3 times not understanding why the call won't go through as the original person in TFA did.

    To sum it up, I have valid reasons for saying the providers should not be forced into something the technology doesn't support. And by the way, if you are hurt and ask me for help, I will do whatever is in my power to assist. I'm not "just an egotistical asshole," I sometimes like to play Devil's Advocate as well.

    Jeremy

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Working...