To put it simply: Due to how VoIP works, it's difficult to connect customers to local 911 call centers. So in an emergency, 911 might not be as quick and easy (or at all) as it is with standard phone service. The FCC wants to make sure that all customers understand this issue. So if customers do not acknowledge that they understand this, the VoIP provider must terminate their service.
How is this supposed to make sense? What happens if one of these customers needs to call the police or the fire department? Not only will they not be able to dial (a limited) 911, but they won't be able to call anybody else! This just seems like government policy stepping on it's own toes to me.
This entry brought to you by Contessa, the common sense critter.
4 comments:
well it can probably boil down to the fact of money. I don't know if VoIP services pay telcom taxes or not. I imagine they do, and the goverment see's it as another form of tax revenue since VoIP is becomeing more popular and a viable alternative. So it's probably another way for them to get thier hands in the money bag.
What does that have to do with them wanting to completely terminate service to a customer, simply because they haven't officially said "I understand that 911 may not work well for me"?
The burden to set up 911 to work properly is on the VoIP providers. The FCC is just trying to make sure that customers know about the limitations. I just think they're doing it in a really dumb way.
Well, I didnt mean for you to get all upset about it. All I really meant was that it seems kinda odd that the FCC would do something so counterintuitive to the problem at the same time that they are trying to figure out whether VoIP's fall under Federal regulations or not. It's more or less the cynical side of me that makes me suspect the reason behind the stupidity is either contol or money...thats all.
:) especially when you consider that it would be more productive to mandate a upgrade to the outdated E911 service to be compatible with current technology since that seems to be the issue at hand.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not upset about your opinion. I just couldn't figure out what it had to do with what I was talking about. Now I understand. Either way, it seems silly to go about it the way that they are.
Post a Comment