I have yet to see any comment anywhere supporting the AG's action. I think most everyone, with the possible exception of the traditional telephone companies and their PR firms and "astroturf" organizations, think that this is entirely the wrong approach and the wrong thing to do.
Posted Apr 29, 2005, 4:59 PM ET by Ted Wallingford
Michigan is legally threatening Vonage, claiming the startup VoIP carrier intentionally misled consumers by not providing ?enough? notice to its customers that 911 call routing needs to be activated before users can access the emergency dispatch capabilities of Vonage.
Michigan isn't exactly known for being at the forefront of telecom theory. But, really, I don't see how state governments suing IP telecom operators is going to improve E911 compliance. Quite the contrary, I don't even believe the idea that a majority of VoIP subscribers don't realize they can't call 911 using their service. To me, it would seem that an early adopter who's savvy enough to jump on the VoIP bandwagon during the industry's infancy is in a very well-informed minority, indeed. So what's all the fuss about, Mr. Attorney General?
I have two questions about all this. First, why Vonage? There are plenty of VoIP carriers out there. Second, why not push for legislation to regulate disclosure rather than going the judicial route? Apparently, as was the case in Minnesota last year, attorneys general would rather compete in the arena of the injunctive and punitive -- that is,-- courts than in the arena of ideas. *sigh*
Article + reader comments at:
- Posted Apr 30, 2005, 9:09 PM ET by Roy
I live in Michigan and have Vonage. The first thing I did when the VOIP was working, register my number with 911. I agree, whats all that fuss about? (maybe SBC lobbist?)
How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: