For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
TELECOM Digest Mon, 16 May 2005 18:00:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 215
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Senate Tech & Energy Committee Proposed VoIP 911 Resolution (J Decker)
Canada Regulates ILEC VOIP Pricing (Jack Decker)
BellSouth Sells Cellcom Stake (Telecom dailyLead from USTA)
Original Definition of 'Class 5' (soren.telfer@gmail.com)
Very Early Modems (Lisa Hancock)
Re: Traveller Seeks Phone Advice (Mark Crispin)
Re: Traveller Seeks Phone Advice (John Levine)
Re: Traveller Seeks Phone Advice (Michael D. Sullivan)
Re: Traveller Seeks Phone Advice (Justin Time)
Re: Traveller Seeks Phone Advice (Joseph)
Re: Vonage Changes 911 to Opt-Out (DevilsPGD)
Re: Vonage Changes 911 to Opt-Out (Dave Garland)
Re: Vonage Changes 911 to Opt-Out (Robert Bonomi)
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
===========================
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld_on_request>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 12:19:25 -0400
Subject: Senate Tech & Energy Committee Proposed VoIP 911 Resolution
[Forwarded message:]
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 11:51:40 -0400
From: "Chris Gillett" <CGillett@senate.michigan.gov>
Subject: Senate Tech & Energy Committee
We will likely be looking at a resolution much like the one attached
at this Wednesday's committee hearing.
It will be submitted for introduction tomorrow, and then officially
introduced on Wednesday.
Please let me know if you have any thoughts or concerns with this
resolution.
Thank you!
Mr. Chris Gillett
Legislative Director
Senator Bruce Patterson
P.O. Box 30036
Lansing MI 48909
517-373-7350
517-373-0753 (direct)
1-866-262-7307
517-373-9228 (fax)
517-281-8431 (cell)
[Text of attached resolution follows:]
***Draft1***
Senator Patterson offered the following concurrent resolution:
Senate Concurrent Resolution No.
A concurrent resolution to urge the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) to use its authority post haste to require
that VOIP service providers make enhanced 9-1-1 emergency
services available to all customers.
Whereas, Access to enhanced 9-1-1 emergency services is vital
to the health and safety of Michigan's citizens. Enhanced
9-1-1 emergency services route 9-1-1 calls to the designated
dispatch center for the caller's location, provide the
caller's name, call back number, and location, even when the
caller cannot speak; and
Whereas, The public has an expectation that by dialing 9-1-1
they will immediately reach a trained responder who can
provide emergency assistance, regardless of the type of phone
service and whether it operates on the public switched
telephone network, wireless networks, or the Internet; and
Whereas, Many VOIP service providers offer a very limited
level of 9-1-1 service or they offer no 9-1-1 service at
all. Additionally, there is a very real likelihood that a
9-1-1 call from a VOIP telephone will be lost, delayed, or
misrouted; and Whereas Significant growth in the use and
availability of VOIP telephony services, which may be
indistinguishable from traditional public switched telephone
services, is expected in the near future. More than four
hundred vendors are now selling VOIP; and Whereas, The FCC has
declared that a certain type of VOIP service is not subject to
traditional state public utility regulation. The FCC nullified
a state attempt to require a VOIP service provider to offer
emergency 9-1-1 service comparable to that provided by
incumbent phone companies. The FCC makes clear that it, and
not state commissions, has the responsibility and obligation
to decide whether certain regulations, including enhanced
9-1-1 rules, apply to Internet Protocol-enabled services like
VOIP. Recognizing that the FCC has the power to preempt state
regulations that thwart or impede federal authority over
interstate communications; now, therefore, be it Resolved, by
the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), that we
urge the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to use its
authority post haste to require that VOIP service providers
make enhanced 9-1-1 emergency services available to all
customers; and be it further Resolved, that copies of this
resolution be transmitted to the Federal Communications
Commission. R 0186'05
How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home:
http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html
If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld_on_request>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 12:24:34 -0400
Subject: Canada Regulates ILEC VOIP Pricing
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=73831&site=lightreading
Canada Regulates ILEC VOIP Pricing
The Canadian telecommunications regulatory agency ruled last Thursday
that the country's ILECs must get regulatory approval on pricing
for VOIP products. But the VOIP offerings of the country's
startups, CLECs, and cable companies are immune (see Rogers Picks
Sigma for VOIP and MetaSwitch Lands Canadian Deals).
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)
ruled that VOIP is more like a telephone service than a data service
and must be regulated as such.
The ruling comes as Canada's VOIP market is getting its legs, and
it may have serious impact on which industry and which companies take
an early lead in the competition for users (see Nortel Comments on
VOIP).
In its ruling the commission sought to prevent Canada's ILECs from
forcing smaller players out of the market by selling VOIP service at
bargain basement prices (see VOIP for Life?). The ILECs hold a strong
position in the Canadian marketplace, controlling 97 percent of the
country's wireline telephone business.
The commission also rejected forbearance requests from BCE Inc. (Bell
Canada) and Telus Corp. The two said they will immediately appeal the
CRTC's decision.
Full story at:
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=73831&site=lightreading
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 12:28:58 EDT
From: Telecom DailyLead From USTA <usta@dailylead.com>
Subject: BellSouth Sells Cellcom Stake
Telecom dailyLead from USTA
May 16, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=21606&l=2017006
TODAY'S HEADLINES
NEWS OF THE DAY
* BellSouth sells Cellcom stake
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* ECI snaps up Laurel Networks
* Qwest could bid again for MCI
* Telcos fight to get their ads on cable systems
* DSL port shipments rise 6% in Q1
* AOL Europe plans home phone service for U.K.
USTA SPOTLIGHT
* USTA's VoIP Webinar Series: Now Available On Demand!
HOT TOPICS
* Ethernet services market poised for boom, report says
* Gates: Mobile phones will supplant iPod
* Big providers add record broadband subs in Q1
* Report: For telecom, more subscribers aren't growing revenue
* Mobile phone TV set for primetime
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* Report predicts VDSL boom
* Internet TV narrowcasters bet on large audiences
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* Mobile phone taxes help cities close budget gaps
* India mulls giving away free 3G licenses
Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=21606&l=2017006
------------------------------
From: soren.telfer@gmail.com
Subject: Original Definition of 'Class 5'
Date: 16 May 2005 05:44:52 -0700
Can someone point me to a technical document that 'defines' class 5
switch functionality? Does one exist? I somewhat understand the
historical development, but I'm interested in some text, preferable
from Bell.
Thanks in advance.
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Very Early Modems
Date: 16 May 2005 13:14:42 -0700
In the IBM history series by Pugh et al, they said IBM converted
punched cards to paper tape for transmission in the 1940s. My guess
is that that particular transmission used telegraph TTY lines (not
voice) of either AT&T or Western Union. Recall that AT&T maintained
telegraph long distance lines as part of carrier long distance
circuits. Because of the low bandwidth, a telegraph channel could be
carried on the low end of a carrier channel. Accordingly, no
modulation was required and thus no modem needed.
It was also said IBM limited development in this area to avoid
annoying AT&T who was IBM's best customer.
However, in the 1950s, IBM developed card-to-card directly without
paper tape and "over AT&T lines". Modems were developed to take good
advtg of the available bandwidth (about 1200 baud). Undoubtedly the
equipment and implementation was developed in close cooperation with
AT&T.
I was wondering if the modems in that application were supplied by IBM
(who appears to have developed the technology) or by AT&T. My
understanding that AT&T's "Dataset" modem-telephones didn't come out
until the 1960s.
Comments by anyone familiar with pre-1960 data communications would be
greatly appreciated.
------------------------------
From: Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Subject: Re: Traveller Seeks Phone Advice
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 14:15:15 -0700
Organization: University of Washington
On Sun, 15 May 2005, D. Dude wrote:
> Hi, I'm planning on traveling to the US and Europe in the near future
> so I'd appreciate some recommendations on which providers I should use
> for cell service and phone/calling cards.
I assume that you are from Australia.
If your Australian cell phone is an unlocked "tri-band" or "quad-band"
phone (that is, with GSM 900/1800/1900 or GSM 850/900/1800/1900) then
you can use your Australian cell phone in the USA and Europe. All you
need to do is buy a prepaid SIM card in from a cell phone provider in
the country that you are visiting. For the USA, the big two GSM
providers are T-Mobile and GSM.
If your Australian cell phone is unlocked, but just dual-band (GSM
900/1800) then it is useless in the USA but you can use it in Europe.
You will have to buy a phone in the USA.
If your Australian cell phone is locked, see if you can get your
Australian carrier to unlock it for you.
Of course, if you do not mind paying exhorbitant roaming charges, you
can use your Australian SIM card in the USA and Europe. Presumably,
you're asking about pre-paid service so you don't have to pay roaming.
Ask your Australian carrier for more details. Foreign roaming rates
start at about US $1.25/minute, but if you only make one or two calls
that would be cheaper than buying a pre-paid SIM.
If you find that you must buy a prepaid phone in the USA, there are
several carriers which offer prepaid service and cheap prepaid phones.
You can buy prepaid phones at many places, including grocery and
convenience stores, but activating the service may be difficult.
As elsewhere in the world, the social problems caused by anonymous
prepaid phones have caused many USA carriers to require some form of
identification for their prepaid customers. Basically, they want some
means of identifying the user of the phone in case the phone becomes
involved in illegal activities. This is not just the USA; Japan,
Canada, and the UK are also adding identification requirements.
So, your best bet is to go to a company-owned cell phone shops,
explain that you're a foreign tourist (have your passport handy) and
ask if they will sell you a phone. Pay with a credit card; that
serves as excellent identification. Alternatively, if you have a
friend in the USA, ask that friend to buy the phone for you and
register it in his name.
Assuming that you're buying a phone in the USA, I would recommend
against the GSM carriers. GSM is primarily an urban service in the
USA, and coverage can be spotty or non-existant outside of the large
cities. On the other hand, it sounds like that's more or less where
you'll be the entire time.
I recommend Verizon as having the best overall coverage; they are the
largest CDMA network. Try to buy a phone with dual CDMA/analog
coverage. Although analog is rapidly becoming less important than it
once was, there are still analog-only parts of the USA.
You'll find that the topic of which carrier is the best is rather
hotly debated. Verizon is more expensive than the others, and has a
somewhat stodgy reputation. Verizon certainly has data acces, but you
may have to buy a somewhat more expensive phone.
AFAIK, Virgin resells SPRINT (Verizon's primary CDMA competitor)
service and has good pricing on both phones and service. I don't care
for SPRINT as a company, but that's my own prejudice.
There are also some companies (e.g. Tracfone) that sell cheap
analog-only phones or TDMA phones. For a short-term visit this is a
good deal, but both analog and TDMA are on their way out. Forget WAP
or any other data access with these.
Another reason for going with Verizon is you buy a phone in the USA is
that a US GSM 1900 phone is of no use outside of the USA and Canada.
A US CDMA phone, on the other hand, *is* useful in a few other
countries besides the US, including Korea and China. Verizon does
*not* lock their phones (the security code is 000000) so the phone can
be reprogrammed and used in other countries. The other carriers lock
their phones.
I would recommend against rental. Renting is almost always much more
expensive then buying a throwaway prepay phone, and the pre-minute
rate isn't much less than roaming.
By the way, if you ever find yourself visiting Japan, I recommend going
with Vodafone. They're the most gaijin-friendly of the Japanese cell
phone companies, being a foreign-owned company.
Correction to previous message: the two big GSM carriers in the US are
T-Mobile and Cingular.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
------------------------------
Date: 16 May 2005 01:34:18 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Subject: Re: Traveller Seeks Phone Advice
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA
> Hi, I'm planning on traveling to the US and Europe in the near future
> so I'd appreciate some recommendations on which providers I should use
> for cell service and phone/calling cards.
> For the US, I'd like to have service in Hawaii, California, New York,
> and the New England states. I'll pretty much be sticking to major
> cities and the more touristed parts of these states.
In the US, you have to get the phone from whoever sells the prepaid
service. You'd think you could just buy a SIM if you have a GSM
phone, but you can't.
The best known is Tracphone which sells its phones at stores like
K-Mart and Walmart, but they're kind of pricey. I see that Cingular,
one of the big two carriers will sell you a prepaid phone for $30 and
either charge you 25 cents/min or $1/day and 10 cents/min. They have
a very large coverage area these rates should apply. Verizon also has
a prepaid plan called Inpulse with decent rates but all the phones are
expensive. Another possibility is Virgin Wireless which resells
prepaid Sprint service. In the U.S. you pay for incoming as well as
outgoing calls, since unlike in oz the caller doesn't pay extra to
call a mobile.
For a calling card, poke around on the net and look for one with
prices you like. The cards you buy on the net are almost without
exception virtual, i.e., rather than sending you a plastic card, they
just give you the access 800 number and your account number, so you
can buy one before you go. Most cell phones include the whole country
in their local calling area, so you only need the calling card for
international calls, or if you happen to be near a regular phone and
the calling card rate is cheaper. But don't forget the per-call
surcharge of about 50 cents that they all charge if you call from a
payphone.
> For Europe, I'm planning on visiting the continent mainly to EU
> states.
Oh, that's much easier, since Europe is all GSM 900/1800 just like
Australia. Buy yourself an unlocked phone before you go and bring it
along. (I got mine on eBay.) When you get to Europe, just buy a
prepaid SIM. Any SIM you buy in any European country will work all
over Europe, but the rates are higher if you roam into other
countries. A typical prepaid SIM costs E40 and comes with E15 of
credit, so when you go to another country you'll have to figure out
whether it's worth paying the cost for a new SIM to get in-country
rates.
Regards,
John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies,
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
------------------------------
From: Michael D. Sullivan <userid@camsul.example.invalid>
Subject: Re: Traveller Seeks Phone Advice
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 05:44:00 GMT
D. Dude wrote:
> Hi, I'm planning on traveling to the US and Europe in the near future
> so I'd appreciate some recommendations on which providers I should use
> for cell service and phone/calling cards.
You apparently will be coming from Australia. How long are you
planning to be in the U.S. and in Europe? In which European countries
will you be traveling, and for how long? There are different answers
to your questions depending on how long you will be in various places.
Michael D. Sullivan
Bethesda, MD (USA)
(Replace "example.invalid" with "com" in my address.)
------------------------------
From: Justin Time <a_user2000@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Traveller Seeks Phone Advice
Date: 16 May 2005 05:50:24 -0700
Well, a GSM tri or quad band would work in all instances.
------------------------------
From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Traveller Seeks Phone Advice
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 07:13:40 -0700
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com
On Sun, 15 May 2005 11:58:23 GMT, D. Dude
<xzzyxREMOVE@THIShotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, I'm planning on traveling to the US and Europe in the near future
> so I'd appreciate some recommendations on which providers I should use
> for cell service and phone/calling cards.
For US and European travel you'll need a GSM carrier. In the US that
would be either cingular or T-Mobile.
> Pre-paid, since I assume I'm ineligible for credit, but I would
> consider allowing a provider to directly bill a credit card number (if
> they can be trusted). I don't have a SSN, or permanent US/European
> address if that matters.
It's likely that you'll be relegated to prepaid if you cannot qualify
for US credit or you may be asked to plunk down a hefty deposit.
> Services that require a minimum of pre-paid credit or offer wider
> coverage would be better. My calls would be a mix of local and
> long-distance including international.
For the US calling with cingular or T-Mobile prepaid long distance is
included.
International calling while available is likely not an economical way
to call using your mobile phone.
> Having the option of toll-free access for the calling card would
> probably be useful, if that is not a given for US calling cards (it
> is not in Australia but we have larger local call areas). I would
> expect that my cell usage would be fairly low, limited mostly to
> receiving calls.
Toll-free is generally not free with mobile in the US and will use
minutes just like regular calls.
> For the US, I'd like to have service in Hawaii, California, New York,
> and the New England states. I'll pretty much be sticking to major
> cities and the more touristed parts of these states.
Cingular and T-Mobile would both work in major cities in the places
you've named.
> I don't have a phone suitable for the US, so your recommendations for
> a specific technology (CDMA, GSM etc) and a low cost handset (or
> rental) would be welcome. WAP support would be plus if compatible with
> the cheapest plans. A phone suitable for an elderly person with poor
> eye-sight and dexterity, would be another plus, but not essential.
You don't indicate what (if anything) you use for service in your home
country.
> Offers for loaners or purchase of this phone would also be welcome.
Keep in mind that if you are using Cingular or T-Mobile T-Mobile only
uses GSM 1900 while cingular uses both GSM 850 and GSM 1900 (depending
on where you are in the US.)
> For Europe, I'm planning on visiting the continent mainly to EU
> states.
You can also get prepaid for 5 to 20 Euros including a small amount of
calling time.
------------------------------
From: DevilsPGD <spamsucks@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: Vonage Changes 911 to Opt-Out
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 18:28:47 -0600
Organization: Disorganized
In message <telecom24.214.5@telecom-digest.org> TELECOM Digest Editor
noted in response to DevilsPGD <spamsucks@crazyhat.net>:
> [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_ using dialup and needed to call
police, why wouldn't you just disconnect the modem and make your call
to the police instead? And regards all the 'other people' who might
wish to get your physical address, if they need to go through the ISP
(instead of a regular criss-cross directory which is easier) the ISP
would still require the 'other people' to get a court order wouldn't
they? And upon getting the court order and returning with it to the
ISP, then the ISP would give them the same information as now,
matching when possible, traffic records of IP address to real party,
etc. PAT]
In message <telecom24.214.6@telecom-digest.org> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> 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.
------------------------------
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
Subject: Re: Vonage Changes 911 to Opt-Out
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 16:54:29 -0500
Organization: Wizard Information
It was a dark and stormy night when PAT wrote:
> Am I correct in my assumption that most stationary computers with
> broadband stay in the same place.
Probably, mostly, but maybe not forever. Don't forget wireless.
> and they are almost always on the same IP address as well?
That very much depends on the ISP. Mine (DSL) does, but a client's
(DSL through a different ISP) changes IP every few days. Many cable
systems change IP number periodically. Sometimes getting a fixed IP
is an extra-cost option. But you can't count on it as a default.
------------------------------
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Vonage Changes 911 to Opt-Out
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 05:02:15 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.
In article <telecom24.214.5@telecom-digest.org>, TELECOM Digest
Editor noted:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wonder how this scheme would work ...
Executive summary: Not very well.
> any calls to 911 from a VOIP get intercepted by the broadband ISP
> who is handling the connection.
And if there is a VPN/tunnel involved? say, to a head-end halfway
across the country. "OOPS!" applies.
> 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.)
So now, the local ISP, who is *NOT* the VoIP provider, is responsible
for handling the 911 type call? What if they don't have VoIP
equipment? Or are you proposing a 'surcharge' on basic ISP service,
to pay for the extra cost of having VoIP support there, "just in case"
the customer decides to do VoIP at a later date? Or is the ISP just
supposed to 'eat' this 'cost of doing business'?
Are you proposing that each ISP run a "Carnivore"-type tap on all
customer traffic, being prepared to 'transparently' intercept any SIP
session set-up that invokes 911? Or that all existing VoIP "phone"
software be modified to give 'special' handling to 911 calls? If the
latter, how does the phone know _which_ ISP -- as in "what IP address
to use" is handling the connection? How does it pick up that
information? Especially if it is a 'mobile' device? Do we now have
to specify: IP/address, netmask, gateway, *and* '911 VoIP' server when
setting up a network connection?
> 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?
No. The last part is an invalid assumption. Some ISPs that forbid
servers routinely re-assign DHCP addresses. As in "every few hours",
to "every few days". Some even do it based on the amount of inbound
traffic.
Yes, they can track down "who was using what address, when" at any
given point in time in the (relatively recent) past.
*NO*, the information is not necessarily readily available in
real-time. (Sometimes the latency is days, sometimes it is into the
next month.)
The info doesn't _have_ to be delayed, It's a matter of how the
existing infrastructure is designed. And whether the infrastructure is
'theirs', or 'leased' from an infrastructure provider. Where data is
delayed, things could be redesigned so that data was available in
real-time. *BUT* there are costs associated with doing that. In some
cases, _big_ costs. Which "somebody" has to pay for. Whereupon the
question becomes "who pays?"
If a provider is *NOT* offering VoIP services, why should *they* incur
the costs for supporting VoIP 'emergency call' infrastructure?
The "easy" solution is a two-part one.
Part 1: The VoIP 'head end' tracks the 'most recently used' IP
address for each customer. _EVERY_TIME_ the customer IP
address changes, the phone goes *out*of*service* with a
notice that the customer must update their "calling
location".
Possibly with an added hook that if the phone has been 'off
line' for some non-trivial period, that when it goes back
'on line', the customer is queried (in an automated
fashion) to confirm that they are still at "thus and such
location"; where "thus and such" is the previously
specified location for the phone.
Part 2: The VoIP 'head end' maps the various 'calling locations' to the
appropriate PSAP, upon need.
Add an option for the customer to intentionally _not_ specify his
location, but which also totally disables 911 calling. This protects
his 'privacy' at the expense of his safety, but it is the customer's
decision.
The last part of the puzzle is ensuring that the customer is aware
that the "location information" provided is used for "emergency calls"
and that deliberately providing FALSE information can (and probably
_will_) lead to criminal prosecution if emergency services are
directed to an incorrect location as a result of said false
information. There is already existing enforcement mechanism for this
-- "filing a false police report", etc.
> 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]
An ISP knows the physical location where _their_service_ is delivered
to. They have *NO*WAY* of knowing "if", or "how much" of a network
lies behind the point to which they deliver service. For an extreme
case, that customer could have a satellite 'uplink' dish, which is
down-linked half-way around the world.
Now, silly as it sounds, something that "works right" 98% of the time,
but "invisibly" does the _wrong_ thing the other 2% of the time is
*worse* that something that 'almost never' gets it right.
An essential element of a 911 'locator' system it that it either gives
a 'right answer', or it gives *NO* answer. "Wrong answers" are simply
not acceptable -- wrong answers (a) delay the response to the location
where it is needed, *and* (b) tie up resources that may be needed to
respond to a 'real' emergency.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well ... regards your first point, of
a 'tunnel' to some remote place, do you remember when 'Foreign Exchange
Service' (or FX) was quite common? You picked up a phone with FX on it
and got dial tone 'locally' from the distant city? There were two
reasons people got that service: one, they wanted their customers to
have a 'local' (in customer's community) office to deal with for
customer's convenience in reaching them. There is a company here in
Independence now which has an FX line from Tulsa, OK.
When I worked for Amoco in the 1960's, our (admittedly huge) PBX
allowed me to dial various three digit codes and get local dial tone
from those places. I don't know if telco offers those any longer; they
seem to prefer 'virtual' FX now. I know in Amoco's instance, one of the
three digit 'tie-line codes' on the PBX produced dialtone from
_London, England_ and another tie-line brought back dial tone from
somewhere in the middle east, Kuwait I think.
The other reason companies used those FX tie lines was because someone
had calculated the expense involved in long distance calling to those
points, and _despite_ the expenses for 'mileage' and other charges
associated with telco running that wire, they calculated it was still
_cheaper_ for the company to use them instead of the best laid WATS
plans or direct dialing plans. I guess if your business involves
calling London or Kuwait a dozen or more times daily, and talking for
hours on end, it may make better sense economically to have an FX
tie-line, even if the cost of that line is a 'mere' ten-thousand
dollars per month or so from telco.
So, one day in my office, a masked man breaks in, and waving his
gun around, he announces, "I am going to rob all the cashiers and
rape all the men". I say, 'oh no you are not!' and rush to my phone
to call the police. But in my haste I grab up the FX tie-line phone
and dial '911' -- (or as Bonomi would say, ooops) ... -- and wind
up lodging my complaint with the police in Kalamazoo and Timbuck also.
If a _real man_ does not know where his broadband service is out of,
then he has no business calling the police to start with, does he? PAT]
------------------------------
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and
other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the
moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 50
Independence, KS 67301
Phone: 620-402-0134
Fax 1: 775-255-9970
Fax 2: 530-309-7234
Fax 3: 208-692-5145
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org
Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from *
* Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate *
* 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. *
* http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com *
* Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing *
* views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. *
*************************************************************************
ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased.
One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com
Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
************************
DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO
YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST
AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest !
************************
Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your
career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management
(MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35
credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the
skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including
data, video, and voice networks.
The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College
of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has
state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus
offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum. Classes
are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning.
Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at
405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at
http://www.mstm.okstate.edu
************************
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.
End of TELECOM Digest V24 #215
******************************
| |