[IP] more on E911 with no Opt Out?
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ed Biebel <edward@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 6, 2005 2:17:41 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [IP] E911 with no Opt Out?
I think there are two issues here that are intertwined that should be
separated.
1. Is E911 a good thing?
2. Is the approach the FCC is taking to implementing E911 for
telecommunications other traditional hard-wired telephone services
correct?
With respect to #1, as Emergency Services provider, I think E911 is a
very
good thing. E911 solved for us a critical problem, the fact that in an
emergency, people do not think clearly and frequently provide incorrect
information which results in people getting hurt or dying. These
situations
run the gamut from a child calling and giving their home address to a
dispatcher instead of grandma's house (who is watching them) to
motorists
who are lost and could not even give the town from which they are
calling
let alone a precise location.
As any emergency provider will tell you, with wireless phones replacing
landlines this problem has again been increasing. I can tell you
that even
on interstates that provide easy references points (markers every
tenth of a
mile with only two directions of travel) that I have been dispatched to
locations that are *miles* from where the actual incident is located. .
You can't rely on the dispatchers to know the addresses in their area
because of 911 routing. When our PSAP becomes overwhelmed, the calls
bounce
to the PSAP in the next county. This puts the lives of crews and the
public
in danger. The public receives a delay in care and the emergency
responders
jeopardize their lives responding to non-existent calls because of poor
location information.
Yes we do sacrifice some privacy but there is a great good from the
sacrifice. As well, many agencies provide an "opt-out" in the form of a
7-digit traditional number which can be caller-id blocked but still
allow
you to contact help.
In terms of #2, I think the implementation of E911 for the new
technologies
is what is lacking. The FCC has not caught up with the concept of a
telephone not having a fixed physical location any more. GPS has helped
this somewhat with wireless (GPS does not work indoors where it is
used by
many as the primary telephone) but is not a panacea. In order to
keep the
public and our emergency responders safe a method of determining a good
"right now" location that reflects "locationless-ness" of new
technologies
has to be developed. The industry owes it to the public to help
accomplish
this.
-Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of
David Farber
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 12:32 PM
To: Ip ip
Subject: [IP] E911 with no Opt Out?
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bob Frankston <Bob19-0501@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 6, 2005 12:14:41 PM EDT
To: David Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: E911 with no Opt Out?
According to the latest FCC release
"Begin maintaining a "Registered Location" for every customer - no
opt-out allowed -that may be modified by consumers by multiple means,
including use of the telephone;"
I wonder what this means. Also what does it mean to attempt to impose
E911 on Skype-Out. All of this assumes there is a physical device
called a "telephone". It's as if we attempted to regulate email by
requiring stickers on "e-mail-boxes".
Perhaps it's like the attempts to pass laws requiring having someone
walk along with every automobile warning horses to get out of the way.
Bob Frankston http://www.frankston.com
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as edward@xxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/