Comments on: US VoIP Carriers granted extension http://news.techwhack.com/1970-us-voip-carriers-granted-extension News from the Tech and IT World Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:03:06 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: S. Owens http://news.techwhack.com/1970-us-voip-carriers-granted-extension#comment-3227 S. Owens Fri, 09 Sep 2005 18:34:36 +0000 http://news.techwhack.com/1970/us-voip-carriers-granted-extension/#comment-3227 The reason Comcast can do this is they do not allow mobility of the VOIP device under their terms and conditions. Any VOIP provider which implemented those rules coudl be E911 compliant, as the device shoudl always be where it was initially installed. The fact is that most VOIP providers allow the user to take the ATA with them when they travel and use it anywhere they have a high speed connection. This is a majro selling point for many VOIP carriers and this service makes it very hard to comply with the FCC ruling. The reason Comcast can do this is they do not allow mobility of the VOIP device under their terms and conditions. Any VOIP provider which implemented those rules coudl be E911 compliant, as the device shoudl always be where it was initially installed. The fact is that most VOIP providers allow the user to take the ATA with them when they travel and use it anywhere they have a high speed connection. This is a majro selling point for many VOIP carriers and this service makes it very hard to comply with the FCC ruling.

]]> By: J. Alec West http://news.techwhack.com/1970-us-voip-carriers-granted-extension#comment-3131 J. Alec West Thu, 01 Sep 2005 12:48:34 +0000 http://news.techwhack.com/1970/us-voip-carriers-granted-extension/#comment-3131 Fact is, some VoIP providers have already solved the problem (for example, Comcast) and are fully e911-compliant. In a free-market economy, we're supposed to let the "strong" companies survive and the "inferior" companies fall by the wayside. So, I'm hoping the FCC doesn't extend the final November 29th deadline for that reason ... and subsidize inferiority at the expense of companies already compliant. Sadly, though, it's a deadline that should have never happened. If the FCC needs to mandate anything, it should be a two tier service level - BASIC (no 911) and ENHANCED (completely e911 compliant). The misunderstandings, lawsuits, and deadlines we now see today are the direct result of the FCC's inability to tackle this problem early on, leaving a confusing and variable "middle-ground" of 911 scenarios. And, they KNEW it was coming. Since some VoIP providers are already e911 compliant, a 2-tier scenario would allow market pressure, not mandates, to determine who offers what. And consumers wouldn't have cut-offs to worry about, they'd have 2 distinct "options" to consider - a provider who offers no 911 service at all, or a provider who offers 911 service as the term "911" is traditionally understood. When life is at stake, there is NO acceptable "middle-ground" for emergency service. Fact is, some VoIP providers have already solved the problem (for example, Comcast) and are fully e911-compliant. In a free-market economy, we’re supposed to let the “strong” companies survive and the “inferior” companies fall by the wayside. So, I’m hoping the FCC doesn’t extend the final November 29th deadline for that reason … and subsidize inferiority at the expense of companies already compliant. Sadly, though, it’s a deadline that should have never happened.

If the FCC needs to mandate anything, it should be a two tier service level – BASIC (no 911) and ENHANCED (completely e911 compliant). The misunderstandings, lawsuits, and deadlines we now see today are the direct result of the FCC’s inability to tackle this problem early on, leaving a confusing and variable “middle-ground” of 911 scenarios. And, they KNEW it was coming. Since some VoIP providers are already e911 compliant, a 2-tier scenario would allow market pressure, not mandates, to determine who offers what. And consumers wouldn’t have cut-offs to worry about, they’d have 2 distinct “options” to consider – a provider who offers no 911 service at all, or a provider who offers 911 service as the term “911″ is traditionally understood. When life is at stake, there is NO acceptable “middle-ground” for emergency service.

]]>