Cheap tramadol Buy tramadol Online casino Tramadol prescription Buy cialis Cialis levitra High roller casino Savings account payday loan Zovirax Augmentin Buy xenical Meridia Consolidate credit card debt Prilosec Best poker software Xenical Best online casino Pay off debt Buy propecia online Credit card debt Debt negotiation Viagra gel Consolidating debt Term life insurance Amoxicillin rash Purchase avandia Car and insurance Classic car insurance Womens Health Zoloft Protonix Prescriptions Funeral director Oncology Pathology Accutane Business credit cards Hydrocodone Vicodin Hydrocodone buy online Insurance Rivotril Percocet Timeshare Movies Phentermine to fla Forex broker Norton Office Vonage Domain names Adult dating Hot Online degree Equifax credit report Cytotec Hair Commodity trading Care Aricept 

911 for the 21st century

The FCC recently voted to require VoIP providers to offer full 911 support.

Obviously, my initial libertarian reaction is that the government should butt out and let consumers choose the phone service they like. If 911 service is important to them, they can choose a provider that offers it. If none do, they can stick with good old Plain Old Telephone Service. No one is being forced to get VoIPed.

But I think it’s not crazy to argue that 911 service is one of those things you don’t really think about until you need it, and then it’s too late. Moreover, one can’t always tell if one has 911 service–you can’t exactly call 911 to find out if the service is working. So I’m not sure I’m necessarily opposed to a 911 mandate as such. In the POTS world, at least, it’s minimally intrusive and probably saves lives.


However, VoIP poses some fresh challenges, primarily because as an end-to-end, packet switching network, it’s very difficult to determine the physical location of a call’s point of origin. There isn’t a monolithic phone company that owns both ends of the system. That means that it’s going to be difficult for VoIP providers to set things up so that the 911 operator can see the physical address of the caller.

The problem is particularly acute because VoIP phones are inherently mobile. All you need is an Internet connection, and any Internet connection, anywhere in the world, will do equally well. That means that the methods of the traditional telephone company, where the phone company matches your address to your phone number when you sign up, simply won’t work.

The only way I can think of to fix the problem is that the VoIP phone itself has to tell the 911 operator’s system where it is. I don’t know enough about VoIP protocols to know if this functionality exists, but I imagine it wouldn’t be difficult to add if not.

The hard problem is how the VoIP phone itself knows where it is. Asking the user to enter the address manually won’t work well enough– users are lazy, and are unlikely to update it as they move from home to home. Even worse, some users will probably want to use VoIP from their laptops at a variety of locations. They are unlikely to be happy about having to re-enter their address every time they plug into a new Internet connection.

It seems like the right solution is for the local network to tell the VoIP phone where it is. If you’ll pardon the geeky technical jargon, perhaps existing protocols could be extended to accomodate this functionality. DNS or DHCP come to mind: either type of server could have a “where am I?” feature which returns the physical address of the computer. This could be set by the system administrator, who could probably automate the process for large networks. When a VoIP application launches, it can fire of a query that says “Hey, what’s my physical address” and then use that when a 911 call is made.

The security risk would be minimal, as the server could be limited to only talk to machines on its own subnet. And this same facility could be used for other purposes as well: it could indicate the timezone and daylight savings policy, for example.

So I guess the question is whether an FCC mandate helps or hinders the development of such functionality. I’m afraid that an FCC mandate to get 911 to “work” will simply push Vonage to offer a 911 service that gives out some address even if it’s not the right address. They could claim that that’s the best they can do and throw up their hands.

On the other hand, creating a new, universal, address look-up service will require overcoming a tremendous amount of inertia. My suggestion would require adoption by the majority of ISPs to be effective. Perhaps having the FCC breathing down their necks would spur VoIP companies to persuade ISPs to adopt such lookup software more quickly.

May 21, 2005 | Comments |

  • If the issue is being informed, the FCC could have addressed that simply by requiring providers to state that they do or don't offer 911 service.

    I'm not sure whether by "physical address" you mean the IP address of a computer or its physical location. Getting the IP address is trivial; figuring out where that computer actually is, is an unsolvable problem in the general case. Where would the geographic information initially come from, other than people's own assertions?

    Perhaps the government will eventually mandate a GPS device in every computer -- not to keep people under surveillance, of course, but just so they can find us if we call 911. Purely for our own good.
  • Tim
    Right, by physical address I mean their street address. My idea was that the address could come from another machine on the computer's subnet. In an office environment, this would only have to set up once by the company's sysadmin and would then work for all devices on the network. In the home environment, the ISP would know the addresses of its customers, and could therefore tell devices that plugged into the network what their physical location was.
  • Braden
    I'm going to hold true to my libertarian convictions and say I'm against this FCC order. But you don't need to be a libertarian to understand that this was a knee-jerk reaction by the FCC. I think it sets a bad precedent for future technologies, because it is of a mindset that once a service begins to establish a sizable customer base it is ripe for burdensome regulations. Such a belief ignores the reasons why such services are popular in the first place. Low cost and new features exist because the market, not government, was the driver of the new service. Instead of forcing a one-size-fits-all emergency contact system onto each new technology, let's revisit how communications providers can achieve social goals like 911 in ways that provide consumers with options and the ability to decide for themselves what is important.

    Yet the FCC told consumers that they have no option but to have 911 service bundled with VoIP. 911 is an important service, but it should not be a legal prerequisite for offering new communications services. Any government action that mandates the inclusion of features from legacy networks threatens the growth of new services. The FCC, while trying to help current VoIP consumers, may be hindering the future development of new, more advanced VoIP emergency service solutions.

    And the pathetic display of "victims" of VoIP not having 911...the rhetoric of the statements from each FCC Commissioner make it seem that VoIP itself caused that poor mother's child to stop breathing, or that Texas couple to be held at gunpoint. So now any smart entrepreneur that comes up with a great new way to communicate will be blamed for not offering legacy services? There are those people that look at a new technology and say "hey, that's great, look at the neat things that I can do with it at such a great price" and those that say "but it can't do that, or that, and what about this social obligation?" The market could've and should've worked this out.
  • dmarti
    The phone could look up the LOC record for its own IP address.
  • Luisa Martinez
    What about GPS location, can be used for this?
  • short url
    bae2478182c8 Good work http:/0zu.tw/ short url
  • 81e31de21f46 My homepage http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav tramadol
blog comments powered by Disqus