Yesterday the FCC Commissioner said this...

Posts: 1424 · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:11 pm Post subject:

Trek234 wrote:

And what does it matter if it's a "general" fund or not? Let's say you get taxed $1.50 more as opposed to getting it directly taken as a 911 fee - either way you're coming out the same.

Unless you're a business with a hundred lines. Then it matters $148.50.

The point was more that E911 isn't a public safety issue as evidenced by the fact that only people with phone lines pay for it. Unlike for instance fire engines or ambulances which are typically funded from property taxes. E911 is a government mandated telecommunications option.

Just to clarify:

1) I believe E911 is a good concept in general and should be implemented and available.
2) I believe Vonage and other Voip carriers should not try to shoehorn their systems into the existing E911 system because it will break down more and more as people adopt SoftPhones and mover adapters. It is a waste of time and money to put a temporary patch in. We should expect more.
3) I believe that Vonage and other Voip carriers should work on implementing E911 standards before the government steps in and does something stupid.
4) I believe carriers should be adopting international standards for emergency dialing.
5) I believe that taxes collected for establishment and operation of call centers should be funded from property taxes (just like fire and police).
6) I believe that any Voip telecommunication tax would have to be Federal as the States lack the authority to regulate Voip services like they regulated POTS.
7) Any such tax would have to be used for national emergency call purposes such as setting standards and not distributed to the local level for emergency services.

Phone bills should not be increased to pay for a service which benefits society in general. (See my other posts on why E911 is not intended soley as a benefit for the phone line holder.) This is not a valid use tax, it is a tax that discriminates against people with phone lines.

Should the government be able to require companies to include E911. Absolutely, requiring seatbelts in cars illustrates that point. However, should consumers be able to opt out provided they assume the cost burden of not having E911 if incurred. I believe the government should ideally permit it, but leave it to the carriers to decide whether to offer a discount for not subscribing to E911. However, realistically I don't think it makes much of a difference because if the carriers have to have it on their system then they are going to pass the cost on to the customers regardless of whether they want it.

Posts: 482 · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:12 pm Post subject:

AirJunky wrote:

But the failure point is that if they build the new E911 system around you & your needs, then they screw the odd person who happens to travel with their router, pick up that phone instead of the hotel phone & call 911. Now the police show up at this person's home instead of where the emergency is located. Even better screwup than the 911 screwups we have already!

Oh come on, you can always come up with an example of someone so stupid that no system can "outthink" their stupidity. I hope anyone smart enough to travel with their Vonage device wouldn't be that foolish.

AirJunky wrote:

In my case, I signed on with Vonage & then moved twice before I bought a house. In the day or two between moves where I had not yet updated my 911 info, had someone had an emergency & called 911 & were automatically sent to my old address instead of the new one....... yet another loophole for those that don't fit the ToddlerTN mold.

That's no loophole, that's your fault for not updating the database.

I'm not sure how you've read the thread and yet you think I'm the one with an inflexible point of view. I didn't imply that my requirements were the only way or that they should be met at the expense of others or better ideas as they come along. It's the people who say "if you care that much about 911, you have no business ever using Voip" and can't concede that some users may truly need access to traditional 911 who expect everyone to fit into their particular mold.

Think about how DNS records are updated and maintained. Now imagine the same process, except instead of tying your IP to a domain name entry, it would tie your IP to an address entry. Substitute an IP address for a phone number and that's basically how the current 911 databases work, just a simple query.

I agree that a comprehensive federalized 911 system is the long-term solution, and that it will come in a few years. But until that arrives, the next best thing would be a process that would allow you to be responsible for updating your address as needed. That seems pretty doable in the short term. But tying into the current system is about 10% technical and 90% political, and that's where the real problem lies.

A decent short-term solution is not only in the interest of public safety, but in the interest of the Voip industry as well. Voip is far from mainstream at this point, and as the customer base moves away from early adopters and into more average users, you're going to hear a lot more about this issue.

Posts: 482 · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:22 pm Post subject:

Trek234 wrote:

ToddlerTN wrote:

Danno_CFR wrote:

If 911 is something we must have for others to use "just in case" then put public 911 phones on every block. Its the same thinking as putting up a "beware of dog" sign on my gate to warn those that hop my fence and cut through my yard. Even then, if they get bit Ill get sued. I have 911 active and we also have cell fones "just in case". People need to take responsibility for themselves and stop blaming others. No hostility intended to anyone. Its up to me, not Vonage or the government.

If you're going to get upset about "rights" being taken away, then get mad at the Supreme Court. Just yesterday they overturned 200+ years of jurisprudence and ruled that suddenly now capital punishment for juvenile offenders is unconstitutional. Do you know what they based that decision on? Two unratified international treaties. Someone tell me how unratified international treaties have anything to do with the US Constitution. Five justices yesterday conspired to subvert America's sovereignty and subjugate our entire system of representative government to some unelected, unaccountable international suggestion box. That's almost treasonous, in my opinion.

Actually if you bothered to read the ruling (I know, that's too much to ask of people) they ruled as they did due to the constitutions prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment".

Wrong. I read it this morning actually, and in the decision, Justice Kennedy wrote that "an evolving community standard is the hallmark of a mature society" which was his justification for having reversed himself (he had previously voted to uphold the death penalty for juvenile offenders in a 1989 decision). The decision also cited two unratified international treaties. The decision did not refer to any previous Supreme Court decisions (of which there are plenty on this matter)--no prior precedent was relied upon in issuing their decision. Five Justices changed the law of the land since our nation's founding with a one-vote majority.

For over 200 years, the Court has consistently ruled that the death penalty for juvenile crimes is not "cruel and unusual punishment"--including just 16 years ago in 1989. So when did the Constitution change? Of course, it didn't...what changed was the opinion of Justice Kennedy, who decided that suddenly it IS "cruel and unusual punishment" and that it's the Court's role to help usher in a "maturing" of our society. But that's not the role of the Court...at least, it's not supposed to be.

Posts: 1424 · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:33 pm Post subject:

ToddlerTN wrote:

Think about how DNS records are updated and maintained. Now imagine the same process, except instead of tying your IP to a domain name entry, it would tie your IP to an address entry. Substitute an IP address for a phone number and that's basically how the current 911 databases work, just a simple query.

I agree that a comprehensive federalized 911 system is the long-term solution, and that it will come in a few years. But until that arrives, the next best thing would be a process that would allow you to be responsible for updating your address as needed.

This is incorrect. An E911 system that works with POTS phone numbers excludes all users who do not have POTS numbers. For example the users of FWD.

Implementing a temporary patch to make E911 work is a step in the wrong direction and will solidify the current paradigm rather than point out its weaknesses.

Finally the security problems with allowing unauthorized individuals to update a centralized database are enormous. If I wan't to assult someone in their home all I have to do is change the E911 database before hand so the police go somewhere across town instead of to the correct address.

Posts: 482 · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:36 pm Post subject:

Trek234 wrote:

egeller624 wrote:

Quote:

Even if you argue that you are responsible for yourself, you are also responsible for others. In a nation where McDonalds gets sued for hot coffee and robbers have successfully sued homeowners for tripping on broken sprinkler heads or getting locked in garages, as ridiculous as it may sound, I can envision a guest in a Vonage household who wasn't able to reach 911 deciding to sue the homeowner.

And what if I were visiting a home that didn't have a home phone at all, only a cell... and for whatever reason the reception wasn't good enough to get an emergency call through, would I sue the person I was visiting? Would I sue the cell phone carrier? Of course not. But then I'm not one to sue McDonald's for hot coffee lol.

I wish people would actually read the decision of a court instead of the 10 second news summary.

McDonalds was ruled against in that case NOT because they had "hot coffee", but because they had been TOLD before that their coffee was too hot, needed to be cooler, and had resulted in injuries before, yet they did nothing. The person who was burned had 3rd degree burns to the genital area.

If they had addressed the issue when it was brought to their attention multiple times before and had lowered the temperature as they were instructed they wouldn't have been successfully sued.

First of all, don't insult me. I'm sure you read every court's decision as it comes hot off the presses. I actually knew the details, but why would I mention them? They had nothing to do with making my point.

Secondly, my opinion still is that it was a ridiculous lawsuit. The lady was about 80 if I remember, and she was trying to put sugar in her coffee while she held the cup over her lap with the lid off, and she spilled it...whose fault is that? When they print "WARNING: CONTENTS ARE EXTREMELY HOT" on the cup, that ought to tell you something, and after 80 years of living, you'd think she'd have picked up on that before. And while I prefer my coffee a little cooler than most, I know people who scramble for a fresh pot or drive farther out of the way to get a cup somewhere that they believe will be hotter than average.

Same with Vonage. I know Vonage doesn't have true e911 yet, I accept the risks and if I need 911 one day and can't get through, I'll blame myself, not Vonage. But accepting that risk doesn't mean I can't lobby for a better system to be created in the meantime.

Posts: 482 · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:53 pm Post subject:

scerruti wrote:

ToddlerTN wrote:

Think about how DNS records are updated and maintained. Now imagine the same process, except instead of tying your IP to a domain name entry, it would tie your IP to an address entry. Substitute an IP address for a phone number and that's basically how the current 911 databases work, just a simple query.

I agree that a comprehensive federalized 911 system is the long-term solution, and that it will come in a few years. But until that arrives, the next best thing would be a process that would allow you to be responsible for updating your address as needed.

This is incorrect. An E911 system that works with POTS phone numbers excludes all users who do not have POTS numbers. For example the users of FWD.

Where did I claim otherwise? What I said is that the current e911 database system uses your phone number to pull up your physical address from a database. You could do the exact same thing by using an IP address instead of a phone number to execute a query. If nothing else, the operator could use that for confirmation or in cases where the caller is unable to speak.

scerruti wrote:

Implementing a temporary patch to make E911 work is a step in the wrong direction and will solidify the current paradigm rather than point out its weaknesses.

Then we simply disagree concerning the importance and negative implications of waiting 2-3 years at a minimum for a comprehensive replacement system while the estimated millions of users over the next few years languish without access to e911 services.[/quote]

scerruti wrote:

Finally the security problems with allowing unauthorized individuals to update a centralized database are enormous. If I wan't to assult someone in their home all I have to do is change the E911 database before hand so the police go somewhere across town instead of to the correct address.

Who said unauthorized individuals would be updating the database? Picture this: log in to your Vonage account and change your 911 address, it could be that simple. If you want to get more secure then email me a confirmation and once I click the verification link, the change goes through. Now how exactly would you change my 911 address without authorization if you plan to assault me in my home? Those same hypothetical vulnerabilities you described exist in the current e911 database system. In fact, if someone changes my address or enters it incorrectly in the current system, how would I ever know that prior to a true emergency? At least what I described would be more secure and verifiable to the end user.

Posts: 68 · Full Forum Member Joined: Jan 30, 2005 Posts: 68

ToddlerTN wrote:

Trek234 wrote:

egeller624 wrote:

Quote:

Even if you argue that you are responsible for yourself, you are also responsible for others. In a nation where McDonalds gets sued for hot coffee and robbers have successfully sued homeowners for tripping on broken sprinkler heads or getting locked in garages, as ridiculous as it may sound, I can envision a guest in a Vonage household who wasn't able to reach 911 deciding to sue the homeowner.

And what if I were visiting a home that didn't have a home phone at all, only a cell... and for whatever reason the reception wasn't good enough to get an emergency call through, would I sue the person I was visiting? Would I sue the cell phone carrier? Of course not. But then I'm not one to sue McDonald's for hot coffee lol.

I wish people would actually read the decision of a court instead of the 10 second news summary.

McDonalds was ruled against in that case NOT because they had "hot coffee", but because they had been TOLD before that their coffee was too hot, needed to be cooler, and had resulted in injuries before, yet they did nothing. The person who was burned had 3rd degree burns to the genital area.

If they had addressed the issue when it was brought to their attention multiple times before and had lowered the temperature as they were instructed they wouldn't have been successfully sued.

First of all, don't insult me. I'm sure you read every court's decision as it comes hot off the presses. I actually knew the details, but why would I mention them? They had nothing to do with making my point.

Secondly, my opinion still is that it was a ridiculous lawsuit. The lady was about 80 if I remember, and she was trying to put sugar in her coffee while she held the cup over her lap with the lid off, and she spilled it...whose fault is that? When they print "" on the cup, that ought to tell you something, and after WARNING: CONTENTS ARE EXTREMELY HOT80 years of living, you'd think she'd have picked up on that before. And while I prefer my coffee a little cooler than most, I know people who scramble for a fresh pot or drive farther out of the way to get a cup somewhere that they believe will be hotter than average.

Same with Vonage. I know Vonage doesn't have true e911 yet, I accept the risks and if I need 911 one day and can't get through, I'll blame myself, not Vonage. But accepting that risk doesn't mean I can't lobby for a better system to be created in the meantime.

Well, I'm a paralegal so yes, I do read many decisions.

"WARNING: CONTENTS ARE EXTREMELY HOT"

Actually, that message came as a result of the suit.

Anyway, the jurors who actually heard the case tend to disagree with you. Seems McD lost on appeal too. That should tell you something.

As far as the SCOTUS - you read a concurring opinion, friend. Did you read the opinion of all 5? If you had, you would realize "cruel and unusual" punishment was the justification. No clue where you are getting international law from.

Posts: 482 · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:56 pm Post subject:

Yeah, it tells me that twelve morons made a stupid decision. They awarded her like $2.5 million dollars and I believe the judge threw that out and reduced it to $500k and even then the plaintiff settled for much less than that. So that ought to tell you something, too.

You sure McDonald's cups didn't have a warning prior to that case? I thought during the trial that the plaintiff's attorney noted the warning on the cup and cited it as evidence that McDonald's knew their coffee was hot, at which point the defense tried to claim that the text on the cup was not intended as a "warning" but rather as simply a "reminder". The plaintiff never claimed that she wasn't warned the coffee could be hot. As I believe you are aware, the basis of the suit was that McDonald's coffee was much hotter than a reasonable person would expect.

Anyway, what happened to her sounds awful. There's no amount of money that would be worth pouring scalding coffee on my groin and thighs.

Posts: 68 · Full Forum Member Joined: Jan 30, 2005 Posts: 68

ToddlerTN wrote:

Yea, it tells me that twelve morons made a stupid decision. They awarded her like $2.5 million dollars and I believe the judge threw that out and reduced it to $500k and even then the plaintiff settled for much less than that. So that ought to tell you something, too.

The vast majority of large cash awards in *any* case are reduced on appeal.

It's also interesting you, not being a juror and thus not hearing any argument, evidence, testimony, etc are qualified to decide the merits of the jury’s decision. This is what happens when we let the public decide cases on FOX News - everyone thinks they're a juror and can decide guilt/innocence based on 5 minutes of talking head commentary.

Thank you also for conceeding the SCOTUS.

Posts: 482 · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:14 pm Post subject:

Trek234 wrote:

As far as the SCOTUS - you read a concurring opinion, friend. Did you read the opinion of all 5? If you had, you would realize "cruel and unusual" punishment was the justification. No clue where you are getting international law from.

Our Constitution is being shredded by a cabal of valueless zealots. Read Scalia's 24-page dissent, it is an eye-opener.