New Fee. Woo hoo.Woo, hoo hoo.

Posts: 2257 · Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:32 am Post subject:

hookbill wrote:

I'd like a clarification on what exactly is E911. As I understand it E911 is when your number/address appear at the 911 operators work station. Regular 911 is when it goes to a general center in your calling area. Is this not correct?

In my case my 911 call would go to a general center. So why should I pay for E911 if I'm not getting it?

I think this is a "cart before the horse" problem, the same one that the local telcos had years back. The telcos started charging 911 charges in some cases YEARS before they had a 911 system up and operational, but in many cases they used (or at least claimed to use) the money to set up their 911 capabilities.

911 is a wonderful service, but it ain't cheap. The Man sez they gots to have it on every line in the US, and Vonage was unfortunate enough to be classified as a phone line meeting that requirement under FCC regs. Someone's gotta pay for all those gewgaws and doodads and das blinkenlights, and you know it ain't gonna be the FCC, and Vonage has already sunk big buckeroonies into setting this up...

And so the compliance fees begin... Anyone want to take bets on when the LNP (Local Number Portability) $1 fee starts? And I'm sure my local school board is salivating to start adding their $5 a month fee just as soon as enough people get Vonage around here to make the FCC filing worth the effort.

Posts: 168 · Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:25 am Post subject:

Well, I guess it's still cheaper then the landline phone. But I really don't like all those other charges the phone company comes up with.

I will pay the .99 gladly if they are willing to add e911 soon. I thought they had to do that though in a couple of month period from last July. Yes, I can understand it being an impossible task but I wonder if Vonage is going to be fined for non-compliance?

Posts: 2257 · Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:49 am Post subject:

Fined for non-compliance? Well, maybe that'll be where the fees go for a while. (grin).

I do believe that Vonage could be commended for doing "best effort" to become compliant, even if their compliance is late. Of course, some other companies have stopped offering lines in areas where they cannot offer E911, but Vonage has contracted with a national call center and:

1. When I dialled 911 for a test someone answered immediately, and asked if I needed police, fire, or ambulance.
2. That someone had my name and address in front of them.
3. That someone was able to find and contact my local 911 center nearly instantly after being informed that this was a test and that I had pre-approved said test with my local call center.

So, for my needs, I'd call that good 911. Not perfect - I'd rather see it go to the Sagadahoc Op Center (my local 911 Op Center), but the call DID end up there after a slight delay. And that works for me, for now.

If Vonage is offering this basic 911 service to all of their customers, then they may not be in compliance with the full E911 requirement, but they ARE offering working emergency 911 dispatch service. I doubt they would get fined when they are working so hard to be in compliance and offering a "suitable replacement" in the meantime.

Posts: 168 · Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:55 am Post subject:

I called my local police department and asked if I could test explaining the situation. They said fine. I called and was connected to Bainbridge 911 (I live in Bainbridge). I told the operator I was testing. She told me she could not see any information at all, not even my phone number. That's how Vonage explains it in their 911 info so I knew what I was getting into.

They took about 3 rings to answer. The police department took about 4 rings. I decided to put the police departments number in my phone book as well, it can't hurt.

Posts: 2257 · Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:08 am Post subject:

I'd send a letter to the CEO telling them they REALLY should have your call going to their contracted dispatch center so someone answers who knows your name and address.

To me, that's worth the slight delay in relaying the call.

Of course, they may not do it, and local laws may prohibit them from doing it anyway. But I'd rather take an extra 30 seconds to go through someone who DOES have my name and address, than get to someone quicker who does not. The scenarios where that 30 seconds would make a difference are less likely than the ones where them not having my address would make a much bigger difference. At least IMHO.

Posts: 35 · Vonage Forum Junior Joined: Jan 21, 2006 Posts: 35

Vonage is getting as bad as the 'old sckool' phone companies with all these crap fees. We already have a $1.50 / line 'Regulatory Recovery Fee' and now a $0.99 911 Fee and some other unknown E-911 fee.

They act like this is some kind of tax or regulatory requirement, when it is not. It's a cost of doing business. Vonage should either absorb it, or price the service accordingly. It's also hypocritical for Vonage to choose to be an 'information provider' and not a phone company when arguing against regulation, but then to hide behind 'regulatory fees' when trying to extract more money from its customers.

Personally, I'd be more comfortable if they'd just raise the monthly rate from $14.99 to $17.48. It's silly and somewhat deceitful to advertise a "$14.99 / mth" rate when it's impossible to get it any cheaper than $17.48.

Posts: 409 · Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:37 am Post subject:

The only problem with raising there monthly fees is all the advertising $$ they dished out and the base of there advertising is the price difference the Huge savings...

Then as the fees slowly creep up and up the customers will slowly creep away.

Posts: 168 · Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:37 am Post subject:

NateHoy wrote:

I'd send a letter to the CEO telling them they REALLY should have your call going to their contracted dispatch center so someone answers who knows your name and address.

To me, that's worth the slight delay in relaying the call.

Of course, they may not do it, and local laws may prohibit them from doing it anyway. But I'd rather take an extra 30 seconds to go through someone who DOES have my name and address, than get to someone quicker who does not. The scenarios where that 30 seconds would make a difference are less likely than the ones where them not having my address would make a much bigger difference. At least IMHO.

I think you have enhanced 911. I don't.

From the Vonage 911 info page:

Customers in locations where the emergency center is not equipped to receive your telephone number and address have basic 911. With basic 911, the local emergency operator answering the call will not have your call back number or your exact location, so you must be prepared to give them this information. Until you give the operator your phone number, he/she may not be able to call you back or dispatch help if the call is not completed or is not forwarded, is dropped or disconnected, or if you are unable to speak. As additional local emergency centers become capable of receiving our customers' information, Vonage will automatically upgrade customers with basic 911 to E911 service. Vonage will not give you notice of the upgrade.

I read it when I signed up. I knew the consequences. I don't think bugging the CEO is going to help. I'm pretty sure I just have to wait my turn.

Posts: 2257 · Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:38 am Post subject:

Quote:

It's also hypocritical for Vonage to choose to be an 'information provider' and not a phone company when arguing against regulation, but then to hide behind 'regulatory fees' when trying to extract more money from its customers.

Vonage argued that it is not a telephone company when talking to regulators in the hopes that they would not be held to the 911 standard.

The FCC has stated that Voip providers who use POTS *ARE* subject to that. Vonage now has to comply with that law, no matter what their opinions. They can continue stating that they are not a telephone company, but the FCC is holding them to the standard, and the standard costs money.

I don't understand how that is "hypocritical". They have regulations that they are required to follow, those regulations are part of their cost of doing business, but like every other phone company they recoup the cost of those regulations by billing them as a line item.

Sure, I'd love to see it all rolled up into the base cost - it would make it a lot easier to choose providers. But unfortunately no one does it, and if Vonage was the only one that did, their $30 a month (after all the new fees get tacked on) for the unlimited plan is going to look awfully high compared to their competitors.

Plus, of course, the fees vary by location, since some of the money goes to local municipalities for access to their systems (or, in the case of local school taxes, to fund other non-telco-related things). Imagine the horror of THAT price list...

Hmm. That leads me to an interesting question... If I can set up my own phone number, where are the local taxes the LOWEST? I'll keep my current number as a virtual, then pick some location in East Noob, Takistaniaanabad where they don't charge any telco taxes at all, and set my "official" number there. I wonder if that would work? Wink

Posts: 2257 · Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:43 am Post subject:

hookbill wrote:

I think you have enhanced 911. I don't.

Well, color me confused all over again.

Sorry, I thought "E911" meant that my call would go to my LOCAL call center with name and address information, and that the BASIC 911 meant that Vonage would forward it to a contracted emergency center that has the Vonage data in their databases.

"933" tells me I have basic 911, not E911, but I don't really trust it anyway which is why I did the test.

But apparently there's a third level in there. "BASIC BASIC 911" Or I'm just confused as always. Wink

All the more reason to TEST YOUR 911 so you know what happens, regardless of what anyone like me mistakenly calls it. (grin)