Sign up
 Vonage  

       
 
Vonage Forum Menu

Vonage Forums
Vonage VoIP Forum
tplink Posted:
Im trying to add
my HT802 vonage
adapter to my home
network. I
currently have
...

In The Forum:
Hard Wiring - Installation
Topic:
Vonage behind switch
On Dec 05, 2016 at 06:35:11

DWSupport Posted:
After recent
Vonage update that
took place on the
4th and 5th of
Nov. E-mails with
...

In The Forum:
Vonage
Topic:
Voicemail Not Forwarding to Outlook Accounts
On Nov 10, 2016 at 12:23:26

peterlee Posted:
Had a call from a
Hospital in Ajax,
Ontario to my home
in
Scarborough, Onta
rio
...

In The Forum:
Vonage Canada
Topic:
Hospital Incoming call unable to connect
On Nov 08, 2016 at 11:59:50

TELLDOUG Posted:
I am looking for a
product that will
make my phone ring
louder so I can
hear using
...

In The Forum:
Vonage
Topic:
Looking for a ringer ameliorate
On Oct 26, 2016 at 09:21:30

HildBeft Posted:
You can recollect
password by
connecting the
router to your pc
and open the
browser
...

In The Forum:
Hard Wiring - Installation
Topic:
How to arrive at wifi password?
On Oct 20, 2016 at 05:05:49

HildBeft Posted:
Great tips..
Thanks for sharing
...

In The Forum:
Hard Wiring - Installation
Topic:
How to have Vonage and another land line?
On Oct 20, 2016 at 04:55:03

massrman Posted:
The devices are
available at
different price
margins , please
share your
estimated
...

In The Forum:
Vonage
Topic:
IP PBX for small business
On Sep 30, 2016 at 00:48:03

massrman Posted:
Hi these are most
commonly used SIP
PBX interops and
their
configuration
guides,
...

In The Forum:
Vonage
Topic:
IP PBX for small business
On Sep 30, 2016 at 00:37:45

Sammy00 Posted:
Has anyone setup a
W52p phone for
vonage? I have
a W52p with two
wireless handsets,
...

In The Forum:
Hard Wiring - Installation
Topic:
W52p Setup
On Aug 30, 2016 at 10:38:01

James44 Posted:
Hi, I am
looking for a good
Sip Trunking
provider in
Canada. they
should offer
...

In The Forum:
Vonage
Topic:
A good sip trunking provider
On Jul 17, 2016 at 23:42:46


Vonage VoIP Forums

Vonage In The News
Vonage Holdings Corp. Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2013 Results

Carolyn Katz Elected to Board of Directors of Vonage Holdings Corp.

Syndication

Vonage Customer Reviews
Vonage vs. Time Warner Cable SoCal
Vonage vs. Time Warner Cable SoCal



Vonage UK Review
Vonage UK Review



Vonage Pros and Cons for 2006
Vonage Pros and Cons for 2006



Vonage, a VT2142 and a RTP300, My Experiences - A Detailed Review
Vonage, a VT2142 and a RTP300, My Experiences - A Detailed Review



Salt Lake City: impressions after several months
Salt Lake City: impressions after several months




Vonage Reviews


Post new topic   Reply to topic  Vonage® VoIP Forum - Vonage News, Reviews And Discussion » Vonage Forum Archive
Author Message
scerruti
Vonage Forum MVM
Vonage Forum <b>MVM</b>


Joined: Feb 05, 2005
Posts: 1424
Location: Carlsbad, CA (finally)

PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Back to top

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.


Last edited by scerruti on Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
ToddlerTN
Vonage Forum Evangelist
Vonage Forum Evangelist


Joined: Feb 12, 2005
Posts: 482
Location: Nashville, TN

PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Back to top

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.
View user's profile Send private message
ToddlerTN
Vonage Forum Evangelist
Vonage Forum Evangelist


Joined: Feb 12, 2005
Posts: 482
Location: Nashville, TN

PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Back to top

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.
View user's profile Send private message
scerruti
Vonage Forum MVM
Vonage Forum <b>MVM</b>


Joined: Feb 05, 2005
Posts: 1424
Location: Carlsbad, CA (finally)

PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Back to top

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.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
ToddlerTN
Vonage Forum Evangelist
Vonage Forum Evangelist


Joined: Feb 12, 2005
Posts: 482
Location: Nashville, TN

PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Back to top

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.
View user's profile Send private message
ToddlerTN
Vonage Forum Evangelist
Vonage Forum Evangelist


Joined: Feb 12, 2005
Posts: 482
Location: Nashville, TN

PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Back to top

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.
View user's profile Send private message
Trek234
Full Forum Member
Full Forum Member


Joined: Jan 30, 2005
Posts: 68

PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Back to top

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.
View user's profile Send private message
ToddlerTN
Vonage Forum Evangelist
Vonage Forum Evangelist


Joined: Feb 12, 2005
Posts: 482
Location: Nashville, TN

PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Back to top

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.


Last edited by ToddlerTN on Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Trek234
Full Forum Member
Full Forum Member


Joined: Jan 30, 2005
Posts: 68

PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Back to top

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.
View user's profile Send private message
ToddlerTN
Vonage Forum Evangelist
Vonage Forum Evangelist


Joined: Feb 12, 2005
Posts: 482
Location: Nashville, TN

PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Back to top

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.
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


All times are GMT - 5 Hours

Vonage Service Plans


Vonage VoIP Members
Members List Members
New elvakn1
New Today 6
Yesterday 10
Total 99063

Who Is On Site
Visitors 94
Members 1
Total 95


Vonage VoIP Forum Members:
Login Here
Not a Member? You can Register Here
As a registered member you will have access to the VoIP Speed Test, Vonage Service Announcements and post comments in the
Vonage VoIP Forums

Vonage Stock Price
Value: 6.84
Change:   N/A
Up to 15 Minute Delay

Site Search
 






†AK and HI residents pay $29.95 shipping. ††Limited time offer. Valid for residents of the United States (&DC), 18 years or older, who open new accounts. Offer good while supplies last and only on new account activations. One kit per account/household. Offer cannot be combined with any other discounts, promotions or plans and is not applicable to past purchases. Good while supplies last. Allow up to 2 weeks for shipping. Other restrictions may apply.

1Unlimited calling and other services for all residential plans are based on normal residential, personal, non-commercial use. A combination of factors is used to determine abnormal use, including but not limited to: the number of unique numbers called, calls forwarded, minutes used and other factors. Subject to our Reasonable Use Policy and Terms of Service.

2Shipping and activation fees waived with 1-year agreement. An Early Termination Fee (with periodic pro-rated reductions) applies if service is terminated before the end of the first 12 months. Additional restrictions may apply. See Terms of Service for details.

HIGH SPEED INTERNET REQUIRED. †VALID FOR NEW LINES ONLY. RATES EXCLUDE INTERNET SERVICE, SURCHARGES, FEES AND TAXES. DEVICE MAY BE REFURBISHED. If you subscribe to plans with monthly minutes allotments, all call minutes placed from both from your home and registered ExtensionsTM phones will count toward your monthly minutes allotment. ExtensionsTM calls made from mobiles use airtime and may incur surcharges, depending on your mobile plan. Alarms, TTY and other systems may not be compatible. Vonage 911 service operates differently than traditional 911. See www.vonage.com/911 for details.

** Certain call types excluded.

www.vonage-forum.com is not an official Vonage support website & is independently operated.
All logos and trademarks are property of their respective owners. All comments are property of their posters.
All other www.vonage-forum.com content is © Copyright 2002 - 2013 by 4Sight Media LLC.

Thinking of signing up for Vonage but have questions?
Business and Residential customers can call Toll Free 24 hours a day at: 1-888-692-8074
No Vonage Promotion Code or Coupon Codes are required at www.vonage.com to receive any special,
best Vonage cheap deals, free sign up offers or discounts.

[ | | | | | ]

Vonage Forum Site Maps

Vonage | VoIP Forum | How VoIP Works | Wiring and Installation Page Two | International Rate Plans 2 | Internet Phone
Promotion | Vonage Review | VoIP | Broadband Phone | Free Month | Rebate | Vonnage | Vontage | VoIP | Phone Service
Phone | llamadas ilimitadas a Mexico | Latest News | VoIP Acronyms | Deal | Philippines Globe Phone | Site Maps

The Vonage Forum provides the Vonage sign up Best Offer Promotion Deal.
If you are considering signing up for Vonage and have found our Vonage News, Customer Reviews, Forums
& all other parts of this site useful, please use our Vonage Sign up page.


Vonage VoIP Phone Service is redefining communications by offering consumers
& small business VoIP Internet phones, an affordable alternative to traditional phone service.
The Vonage VoIP Forum Generated This Page In: 0.94 Seconds and 452 Pages In The Last 60 Seconds
The Vonage VoIP Forum