Re: Vonage Changes 911 to Opt-Out

In message TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to DevilsPGD :

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wonder how this scheme would work ... > any calls to 911 from a VOIP get intercepted by the broadband ISP > who is handling the connection. The IP address in use (and its > physical address) get transmitted 'like ANI' to the local police. The > 'ANI-like' information passed along (from wherever) to the PSAP > identifies it as a VOIP from address (registered with the ISP for the > IP street address.) Am I correct in my assumption that most stationary > computers with broadband stay in the same place and they are almost > always on the same IP address as well? I know in my instance I have > been 24.xxx.xxx.xxx for however long, here at the same street > address, etc. Can't those two items (IP and street address) often as > not be matched? PAT]

IP and street address? -- Only your ISP can match it, and then, only to your billing records which may or may not be accurate.

If the user is dialing up, what you need is the ANI information of their dialup, along with the E911 lookup of *that* ANI information.

If the user is on a fixed broadband service, you can at least take a stab at pointing an address. However, with most PPPoE broadband networks, you can take your VoIP gear anywhere on that ISP's network and connect up, and the broadband provider won't know the difference. With DHCP, they can probably tell, but most ISPs only note where the lease is given out -- You can actually move to another location and reconnect without renewing your lease and depending on the configuration of the network, it will work.

It gets more complex then that, not all "retail" ISPs actually have any equipment, much of the time they lease access from a wholesale provider in the area. This is especially true of dialup, but it happens with broadband too (Think @Home as the best example), which means that there is another layer of obfuscation since the connectivity provider may not know your name or phone number, and depending on the setup, may not even have a physical address (cable networks, for instance, don't need any setup from the cable plant in the area to establish a connection, 100% of the work is done from the end user's location and can be done by a completely different service company.)

Lastly, there is the privacy issue -- Once ISPs have the infrastructure to instantly provide a name+address+whatever that matches to an ISP, how long before law enforcement demands access to that database? Without warrants, in the name of fighting Bin Laden or Saddam or whoever is annoying the-powers-that-be today, of course.

Next the MPAA+RIAA will be demanding access to this information. Then Microsoft will tuck a note into the EULA that they reserve the right to look up this information when you activate Windows.

Next will be collection agencies and repo agents, and we know how good at noticing that a phone number was reassigned they are -- How long before you get a phone number which was reassigned from a deadbeat and a repo man shows up and steals your car thinking it was the previous owner of the phone number?

And all of this is assuming that thousands of ISPs cooperate in implementing the system securely and that it never gets compromised.

"Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong" -- Dennis Miller.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Dialup (56K) generally is too slow to work with VOIP. And if you _were_ us> Mark Peters wrote:

> A big problem is visitors, especially children who have been taught >> to dial 911 in case of an emergency. A device that looks like a >> phone and provides dial tone is expected to behave like a phone >> which includes 911. 911 should not be opt-in or opt-out. 911 should >> be there. E911 is the goal. > It's not just children. > From reading messages in the newgroup, it appears that the > technocrats assume everybody out there is as tech-savy as they are. > The reality is that the vast majority of the people have no clue as to > what VOIP even is, let alone how it works or its limitations. To > expect another person to know the phone isn't 911 equipped is > ludicrous. The goal of 911 is to have a universal help number so a > stranger/outsider can get help quickly in an emergency.

Sure, but at least a competent adult will hear and understand the warning that this phone can't dial 911 and will go elsewhere for help.

Again, it's better to provide no appearance of help then the appearance of assistance when no help is coming.

There is nothing wrong with telling the drowning man you can't save him, but if you tell him you WILL save him and he stops screaming for help (expecting you to save him) and you don't, you're guilty of criminally negligent homicide.

Same principle here: If I call 911 and say "Help my house is on fire, I'm trapped in my bedroom with the guy from chainsaw massacre, my wife is giving birth, and 'I've fallen and I can't get up'" and the 911 operator says that someone is on the way, I'll wait for help. Meanwhile, the 911 operator was three states away and just sent the fire department, police, an ambulance, and a guy with a 2x4 to the wrong house and I'm left to burn, get sliced up, get my wife pissed off because I don't know what I'm doing, and left writhing on the floor.

On the other hand, if I am immediately informed that no help is coming, I'll know that I either need to use a lifeline and call a friend for help, scream for the audience (neighbours?) to help me, escape myself, or that I AM the weakest link.

911 for everyone, everywhere, is a great idea. However, it's at direct odds with mobile VoIP unless you can force people to enter their current address when they move the device. Vonage's 3-10 business day wait before changes are reflected doesn't help either, but it's still not reasonable that I will update my address twice a day as I carry my VoIP hardware from my house to my office and back again.

Something needs to be done, but frankly, I'm not seeing the solution even with a relative infinite amount of money.