Yesterday the FCC Commissioner said this...

Posts: 1424 · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:21 pm Post subject:

ToddlerTN wrote:

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.

You are grossly oversimplifying the current E911 process, excluding all reference to ANI and ALI systems. You massively underestimate the task of reimplementing the current systems to run off of a combination of IP addresses and phone numbers instead of ALI data. I don't know for a fact, but I would hazard a guess that Vonage's E911 solution is phone number and not IP based.

It would be much simpler to scrap the whole call center system and rebuild it completely using SIP based equipment. The investment would pay for itself in a couple of years and the task could be completed using a combination of existing call center software and public domain systems like asterix in a matter of months. The Voip companies could easily create a reference system for municipalities to copy.

Once the call center is rebuilt then implementing the IP geographical information would be trivial. The first phase would be a simple update to the adapter firmware or new revision of the softphone allowing the user to specify his address on equipment he controls.

The only hurdle then is correct call routing based on that address. If that work started now it could be completed within the year.

Quote:

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?

First of all, I have no plans to attack you in your home, I kind of like you. You have spunk.

There have already been posts about how the Vonage site is not secure. The number of compromised computer systems in this country is vastly underreported and in the last few weeks we have already heard about the accidental release of or theft of thousands of social security numbers. There have been several highly visible cases of malicious unauthorized DNS changes, undoubtedly there are dozens more that never made headlines.

So, a hacker could probably break into both Vonage's site and your email server if he so desired. Technically it is probably a lot easier than making the current E911 system work with IP addresses.

Posts: 482 · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:22 pm Post subject:

Trek234 wrote:

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.

Ah, for a moment I thought you had expressed an opinion...but of course you couldn't have, because you weren't on the jury.

Posts: 206 · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:28 pm Post subject:

iskyfly wrote:

Martlet wrote:

iskyfly wrote:

do you disagree that 911 is not only for you?

Yes, I disagree.

so you dont think a scenario where somebody other than you or the people living in your house would need to call 911 on your phone could happen? really?

Sure. I can think of plenty of scenarios. However, I can't think of one that would justify the government forcing me to have 911 and you certainly haven't provided one.

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

ToddlerTN wrote:

Trek234 wrote:

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.

Ah, for a moment I thought you had expressed an opinion...but of course you couldn't have, because you weren't on the jury.

I was expressing the opinion of the jury.

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

Martlet wrote:

iskyfly wrote:

Martlet wrote:

iskyfly wrote:

do you disagree that 911 is not only for you?

Yes, I disagree.

so you dont think a scenario where somebody other than you or the people living in your house would need to call 911 on your phone could happen? really?

Sure. I can think of plenty of scenarios. However, I can't think of one that would justify the government forcing me to have 911 and you certainly haven't provided one.

I agree with you to an extent. I don't think the government should force *you* to have 911, but I *do* think the government should force Voip providers to *provide* 911 if a customer desires it.

Then have the customer pay for it if it's desired, and if the customer doesn't want it they don't have to pay the fee.

The fact is hundreds of thousands are getting rid of POTS in favor of Voip. *Eventually* there are going to be more and more problems when all these people don't have 911 service anymore and emergencies come up.

Posts: 206 · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:36 pm Post subject:

Trek234 wrote:

Martlet wrote:

iskyfly wrote:

Martlet wrote:

iskyfly wrote:

do you disagree that 911 is not only for you?

Yes, I disagree.

so you dont think a scenario where somebody other than you or the people living in your house would need to call 911 on your phone could happen? really?

Sure. I can think of plenty of scenarios. However, I can't think of one that would justify the government forcing me to have 911 and you certainly haven't provided one.

I agree with you to an extent. I don't think the government should force *you* to have 911, but I *do* think the government should force Voip providers to *provide* 911 if a customer desires it.

Then have the customer pay for it if it's desired, and if the customer doesn't want it they don't have to pay the fee.

Unfortunately, as we saw in the LEC/RBOC industry, that isn't how it works.

However, I do disagree with you less vehemently since you've changed your stance.

Posts: 482 · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:37 pm Post subject:

scerruti wrote:

You are grossly oversimplifying the current E911 process, excluding all reference to ANI and ALI systems. You massively underestimate the task of reimplementing the current systems to run off of a combination of IP addresses and phone numbers instead of ALI data. I don't know for a fact, but I would hazard a guess that Vonage's E911 solution is phone number and not IP based.

Even simpler, let them run the query based off of the CID phone number like they currently do. The only missing piece would be a backend process the Voip providers could tie into to update the universal database. The point is, it would not be all that difficult to modify the current system if the Baby Bells would cooperate with Voip providers.

scerruti wrote:

So a hacker could probably break into both Vonage's site and your email server if he so desired. Technically it is probably a lot easier than making the current E911 system work with IP addresses.

Well if someone had that kind of ability to break into Vonage's site and modify my address, then break into my email server to confirm the changes, and all the while go undetected...I doubt if someone with those skills would use them simply to break into my home. All they really need is a pair of wire cutters and *snip* my connection to the outside world is gone. That's a heck of a lot more realistic scenario than the "uberhacker" who also wants to steal my VCR.

Posts: 1424 · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:39 pm Post subject:

Trek234 wrote:

I agree with you to an extent. I don't think the government should force *you* to have 911, but I *do* think the government should force Voip providers to *provide* 911 if a customer desires it.

Then have the customer pay for it if it's desired, and if the customer doesn't want it they don't have to pay the fee.

I agree with your sentiment, but look at this realistically. If the government forces carriers to offer E911 then they are going to charge every user for it. It is a cheap enough service with almost universal demand that the hassle of billing for it separately would not be worth the benefit of a lower cost for customers who did not need it. In this case the government mandating E911 would practically mean forcing you to pay for it.

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

Martlet wrote:

Trek234 wrote:

Martlet wrote:

iskyfly wrote:

Martlet wrote:

iskyfly wrote:

do you disagree that 911 is not only for you?

Yes, I disagree.

so you dont think a scenario where somebody other than you or the people living in your house would need to call 911 on your phone could happen? really?

Sure. I can think of plenty of scenarios. However, I can't think of one that would justify the government forcing me to have 911 and you certainly haven't provided one.

I agree with you to an extent. I don't think the government should force *you* to have 911, but I *do* think the government should force Voip providers to *provide* 911 if a customer desires it.

Then have the customer pay for it if it's desired, and if the customer doesn't want it they don't have to pay the fee.

Unfortunately, as we saw in the LEC/RBOC industry, that isn't how it works.

However, I do disagree with you less vehemently since you've changed your stance.

I see your concern. But I think the best way to avoid regulation is to provide 911 service because it's one of *the* services that effects peoples general welfare.

When Voip gets in to many more hunderds of thousands of users if all those people STILL don't have 911 because the Voip providers have dropped the ball then it's going to be a near gurantee of government regulation. When the media starts running more and more "little child tried to call 911 when parents shot, couldn't do it" stories it's going to get attention.

Hopefully the Voip providers realize this. If not, they'll have to be regulated to at least some extent.

Posts: 1424 · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:42 pm Post subject:

ToddlerTN wrote:

Even simpler, let them run the query based off of the CID phone number like they currently do.

I already addressed this. Not everyone has a phone number (FWD users) and the call centers don't work off caller ID anyway.