VOIP, 911, and Crown Grants
There has been some hand-wringing over VOIP telephony and the ability to call emergency services ("911"), with Vonage frequntly cast in the role of villian in this melodrama.
The issue seems to boil down to a couple of points for me:
First point, is it possible, technically and practically, for a VOIP carrier to kow where I am without my help?
If reverse-DNS is correct for my IP, well, I'm probably a company not an individual. If I'm an individual, then my broadband supplier owns the reverse-DNS and all the VOIP provider can easily know is where my provider is, not where I am. For example, for my own IP address I get m198-163.dsl.rawbw.net. Not very helpful. When I'm in a hotel, one might be able to find the address, but probably not the room.
To know where I am without help from me, my VOIP provider would need access to my broadband supplier's subscriber data, and my hotel registration. And my friends DSL provider. And cable provider for the LAN party I'm attending. Perhaps the FCC should require and enforce all this, but to date I don't know that they do.
Second point, how is the service marketed?
I read one comment that complaining about Vonage being irresponsible about providing emergency service access was akin to requiring labels admonishing one to not use a hairdryer in the bathtub, or climb a ladder with only one leg on the ground.
Well, maybe. Recall that the public is, by and large, not thoughtful about technology. Sorry, reality bites. We do, after all, make jokes about setting the clock on a VCR. If VOIP is advertised to this community as a reasonable replacement for primary phone line, which one might expect to use for 911 calls, then the advertiser probably deserve all the ire one can muster. If it is advertised as intended for second or other lines, then the limitations of the service are more reasonable.
Though in either case, the limitation should be spelled out real clear above and in larger text than any description in which any cost savings are described.
Quote: It would be more appropriate if the box bore a big red label. "Warning: Larks' Vomit!"
Which brings us to the final comment, more philosophical about what a company is for.
I saw a comment (sorry, can't find it now) to the effect of "how can the government allow [Vonage] to remain in business?"
Historically - very historically, back when the notion of a company was first created in British tradition - a company was founded by a Crown Grant, to serve a particlar defined goal. The goal was intended to, and sometime really did, serve a public need. Not a good public need, but an expressible public need. Which could mean Crown need. Examples of such companies include breweries, the Hudson's Bay Company (formed for resource extraction from North Amerca by the british crown), East India Trading company, that sort of thing.
Along with declining influence of the Crown into our lives, so the notion of company has evolved to not require a royal blessing, or even government blessing, but rather to require that the company figure out the public good for themselves. So long as they're willing to comply with law and pay taxes, who is the government or crown to say whether this is a useful good or not?
For all my own issues with VOIPs inability to easily and reliably access emergency services, I won't say that such a phone service isn't useful for others, and that offering that service clearly to those for whom those limitations don't matter shouldn't be permitted.
Above I said, essentially, that if folks know what they're getting they
should be able to choose such a system. Where this gets a bit murky is
where third parties ener the picture. Something like second-hand smoke. I
can choose to smoke, but not to inflict my smoke on others.
Well, I can know that my VOIP phone is a secondary line and that I shouldn't use it for 9-1-1. But visitors to my house might not know that. Like the babysitter, or my parents, etc. They may still have a "reasonable expectation" that dialing 9-1-1 will get them an emtergency operator.
If a burglar can sue if he trips at the top of the stairs because there wasn't a light, and breaks his leg whilst we all cheer, can he also sue if he crawls to the nearest phone and fails to reach a 9-1-1 operator?
Well, I can know that my VOIP phone is a secondary line and that I
shouldn't use it for 9-1-1. But visitors to my house might not know that.
Like the babysitter, or my parents, etc. They may still have a "reasonable
expectation" that dialing 9-1-1 will get them an emtergency operator.
I suspect most all bloggers own mobiles, but we're not necessarily the
market targetted by Vonage (or other VOIP) marketing. My parents don't a
mobile. A neighbour doesn't. One of my babysitters does.
Im sure most bloggers own mobiles, but we're not necessarily the market
targetted by VOIP marketers.
If the caller doesn't know or can't speak the information provided, 9-1-1
has a tracker on their end to identify the location you are at as long as
you leave the phone on.
""Of course, a mobile has a very similar limitation - how does an operator
tell where a mobile caller is located with enough precision for delivery of
emrgency service? If the caller doesn't know or can't speak? "good point! "
"If a burglar can sue if he trips at the top of the stairs because there
wasn't a light, and breaks his leg whilst we all cheer, can he also sue if
he crawls to the nearest phone and fails to reach a 9-1-1 operator?" I
think not because phone service is optional.
I agree, GSM support will go a long way towards solving these issues.
In an emergency you can always use a cell phone. I mean everyone and their
mom has cell phone. I am glad VOIP is doing well because it opens the door
for http://ds1blowout.com to compete with the bigger companies.
That does kind of suck if you cant call 911 w/ voip. but almost everyone
these days have a cell phone or landline dont they? With the technology
these days you would think high speed providers would think of something to
include 911 in there. http://ds3blowout.com