Yesterday the FCC Commissioner said this...

Posts: 482 · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:52 pm Post subject:

Trek234 wrote:

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.

LOL, oh spoken like a true lawyer-wannabe. For what purpose would you have felt the need to express the opinion of the jury? The jury's opinion is prima fascia--they awarded her nearly $3 million. Are seriously trying to claim that no one here knew the opinion of the jury until you expressed it?

No, Trek...you expressed the opinion that the case had merit, and that anyone who disagrees with the jury must not be informed and doesn't read briefs or decisions, and that, being "uninformed" since I disagree with the jury's decision, I must be getting my news from FOX News Channel in 5-second sound bites.

Given that neither you nor I were on the jury, thus not hearing any argument, evidence, testimony, etc., then either each of us can form valid opinions on the case, or neither of us can. You can't have it both ways.

Posts: 482 · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 10:04 pm Post subject:

scerruti wrote:

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.

Well you keep shifting on me. One minute you say querying based on IP would be too difficult and expensive because they're set up to key off of the phone number, and the next minute you say they can't go off of the phone number because they don't work off of caller ID, and then some people don't have a phone number. Responding to you is like trying to catch water with my fingers. Would you set aside the details of how to implement the system for a moment and at least recognize that the obstacles at this point are not so much technical as they are political? It's the same reason that so many customers are frustrated by LNP transfers taking months to complete. It's not so much technology that's making it impossible right now, it's the Baby Bells who don't want to sell Voip providers the rope for their own nooses.

Posts: 1424 · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 10:34 pm Post subject:

ToddlerTN wrote:

Would you set aside the details of how to implement the system for a moment and at least recognize that the obstacles at this point are not so much technical as they are political?

There are political aspects to using the current E911 infrastructure that can be completely avoided if the Voip carriers quit wasting time trying to tie into existing call center infrastructure and develop and sell to localities call center infrastructures that;

1. Serve all customers (POTS, Mobile, POTS connected Voip, Voip only, TTY, SIP text communication, eventually SIP video)
2. Recognize callers geographic location dynamically
3. Are cheaper to build and operate because they are based on Voip
4. Are faster to set up because they are based Voip
5. Can easily have functions transferred to a back up center or neighboring call center in the event of an emergency again because of Voip (also requires standardized radio equipment and interconnection, but that is currently happening courtesy Homeland Security).
5. Add additional classes of functionality (e.g. alarm system messaging, video tie ins to surveillance systems)

Why fight the political battles? Political battles are the ILECs' forte. Fight the technical ones instead, the technical arena is where Voip shines. Especially since, if you win the political battle, you end up with a system that doesn't serve the evolving needs of the community anyway.

The people who should be doing this are the Voip carriers. They stand a lot to gain monetarily, not just from satisfying customers but also in proving that the technology is suitable for emergency use. Once people understand that all 911 calls are routed over Voip then what would be their excuse for keeping a POTS line.

Posts: 1424 · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 10:50 pm Post subject:

ToddlerTN wrote:

One minute you say querying based on IP would be too difficult and expensive because they're set up to key off of the phone number, and the next minute you say they can't go off of the phone number because they don't work off of caller ID, and then some people don't have a phone number. Responding to you is like trying to catch water with my fingers.

You are oversimplifying the technical issues. Current call centers are phone number based because the numerous systems involved use phone numbers as keys. However the call centers themselves don't work off caller id. They work off of ALI and ANI.

While currently Vonage can easily interface to POTS and send CLI (caller ID). When Vonage wants to make an emergency call they have to get the interconnection point to generate the ANI/ALI information. If Vonage can't even get outgoing caller ID with name, how hard do you think it is to get ALI/ANI information set up.

Quote:

Now, when a call comes into the building, the Siemens device captures the caller's ANI (automatic number identification), delivered with the call. CallBridge sends that information over the LAN to the server running CallCenter Millennium. That action triggers CallCenter Millennium to make a redundant request to the phone company, via dual RS-232 modems, for ALI (automatic location identification) information maintained in a database reserved for 911 access. In the meantime, the Siemens switch automatically routes the call directly to the next available call taker.

After it receives the ALI information back from the phone company, CallCenter Millennium sends ANI/ALI information to the call taker's screen in time for the caller/call taker interaction. If a caller hangs up before an operator responds, the system alerts the call taker to press the automatic redial button. From the time the call enters the building until services have been dispatched, the CAD system is all the while maintaining call history (on an Oracle database server), which can be reviewed and updated by call takers or dispatchers. In addition, a digital voice recorder from NICE Systems (Ra'anana, Israel), attached directly to the Siemens switch, records the verbal interaction.

http://www.integratedsolutionsmag.com/Articles/2002_04/020402.htm

Those modems are not calling Vonage. They are calling the carriers that carry Vonage's calls locally. If I am using a number that is not in the area code where I live I may be out of luck because that carrier may still be using a 7 digit ANI database. How is it going to resolve my out of area call? Carriers are used to updating ALI every few years. How will they respond to Voip customers who want to change their ALI much more frequently.

Posts: 482 · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 11:22 pm Post subject:

scerruti wrote:

While currently Vonage can easily interface to POTS and send CLI (caller ID). When Vonage wants to make an emergency call they have to get the interconnection point to generate the ANI/ALI information. If Vonage can't even get outgoing caller ID with name, how hard do you think it is to get ALI/ANI information set up.

I have no problem conceding that you seem to know more about the technical details than I do. I never intended to get into an argument about how to build it, but you can't seriously say that it's technically impossible.

I've never seen a technical discussion of how they're doing it in Rhode Island, but Vonage is somehow able to do it there, and I read an article that explained they were able to do it there because the e911 system in Rhode Island is regulated and managed by the state, whereas in most other places in the US, the e911 system is controlled by the phone companies, which do not have to open their systems up to VoIPs because they are unregulated service providers.

Put it this way: I suspect if there was money to be made by the phone companies for providing the service, they'd be working hard to make it happen.

Anyway, I think I will try to bow out of the thread now, if I can pull myself away. I sincerely enjoyed the lively discussion. I hope nobody got too bent out of shape. Thanks to the moderators for letting us debate a wide range of issues. There's nothing wrong with a little healthy difference of opinion!

Posts: 30 · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 11:26 pm Post subject:

Look where Voip phone technology is going. I travel weekly with my router, and look forward to the day of WI-FI technology where I can have Voip service almost like a cell phone. Does that mean I can't purchase a phone without GPS technology to determine my location in case of an emergency? I haven't had a POTS line in two years, and live on a lake where I do have my kids on weekends where there is potential for accidents. I do agree that e911 services should be available, but it is the person's responsibility to activate it. I chose not to due my travel, but I did tape emergency numbers to my two cordless phones. On each I also have my address. This is MY responsibility to make sure that someone can reach emergency services, and I have done that without government regulation. It may mean dialing a couple extra numbers, but I feel I comfortable in that without the intervention of government regulation. And for those who may say if I had younger children I may feel different.....to tell you the truth, I probably wouldn't have this service and stay with POTS. But in my case, I know anyone that reaches for one of my phones will see the emergency numbers to call.

Posts: 70 · Full Forum Member Joined: Jun 17, 2004 Posts: 70

ToddlerTN wrote:

I never intended to get into an argument about how to build it, but you can't seriously say that it's technically impossible.

There ya go, it's a conspiracy to keep 911 from your home. And no amount of money will make it happen. It's actually very easy for them to impliment 911 service. They just don't wanna.....

Posts: 52 · Full Forum Member Joined: Jun 21, 2004 Posts: 52

It is interesting all of the philosophical and esoteric analogies I am seeing here.

I am not that old (39), but when I was in 1st grade in my humble roots of rural middle America, I had to know a PHONE number each for POLICE and AMBULANCE. We also had a rotary dial phone. I can still remember those numbers...

You know what? I also had to know how to say my address and what was happening. My parents made sure all of us knew how to dial those numbers from memory and what we would say.

My older sister was deaf and mute and had a tone generator device that was registered with the ambulance and police numbers. Its noise signified our address. (TTY/TDD was for really rich deaf people then...)

My point is this: When I was 6 my mother fell down the basement stairs and suffered a severe head/neck trauma. I found her (panicked) and dialed the ambulance number and told them the problem. They asked my address and in no time an ambulance was there to help my mother.
All of this happened without 911 or E911. BTW: HUxley 4-9890 was the ambulance number...

Now that I am grown and use Vonage with a registered 911 access point, and with my monitored alarm system (both together costs less than my old Verizon bill with E911) my 4 year old can summon the police or fire or medical with the press of a blue, red or green button and not say a word! (Believe me, I know. When she was 3 she tested it... and we got great response.)

BUT my 8 year old knows when she dials 911 what to say. We practice it. Just like my parents did with me. Just like we do with the fire alarm. I even make it go off at 3:21AM to give the kiddies some practice.

Is all of this at the governments push? Or mandate? No. It is because I feel I am responsible and must teach my children and family. (although my smoking is not a great example, I admit) Am I over reaching? Well when I have had one too many cigarettes and finally have my double coronary, I know my children would know what to do.

You may ask: What about visitors? Well first off my visitors are an extension of my family - with three alarm panels in the house at visible areas I think this is a no brainer.. but I tell them how to use them and how 911 works. It seems strange to them at first but I just tell them to humor me. Just in case, there is a nice red note with white lettering at the "main" phone about 911 and what needs to be said.

I fail to see the problem and wonder why the fuss? Yes there are horror stories and yes 911/E911 has minimized problems but is it something that needs mandated/regulated? Should I pay a fee to subsidize those that are not responsible enough to teach the users/members of heir household proper emergency summoning techniques and/or self-control?

Yesterday my elderly neighbor fell off of a step-ladder picking grapefruit. His wife yelled over the fence. My wife dialed 911 stated "we have a alternative phone carrier without 911... our address is xxxxx our neighbor has fallen hit his head and hurt his chest. The operator that answered at the access point stated "hold on" rang a 911 dispatch and repeated the info and asked for verification. My wife said yes. EMS was dispatched.

Maybe I will have my neighbor pay my Vonage 911/E911 regulatory fees in exchange. My Vonage 911 without fees got him medical service, not their regulated Verizon.

I think I will stop now. I've babbled too much. I'll shut up and take my flaming(s).

Posts: 1424 · Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 12:46 am Post subject:

[FLAME]You let your elderly neighbor climb a ladder to pick fruit?![/FLAME]

Posts: 52 · Full Forum Member Joined: Jun 21, 2004 Posts: 52

I didnt say I liked him...