The Jeff Pulver Blog: FCC Public Notice on VoIP Subscriber Notification Deadlines:

« pulver.com's Karaoke Fridays - A Secret No More: | Main | Phil Zimmermann in the News (Again) »

July 26, 2005

FCC Public Notice on VoIP Subscriber Notification Deadlines:

As anticipated, the FCC's Enforcement Bureau released a Public Notice providing some guidance to Interconnected VoIP Providers concerning the July 29, 2005 Subscriber Notification Deadlines requiring affirmative responses from consumers of the E911 limitations of the VoIP service provider. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2085A1.doc

In the Public Notice, the Bureau announced that it would not seek enforcement, for a 30-day period, of the requirement that providers obtain affirmative acknowledgements, by July 29, 2005, from 100% of their subscribers that they have read and understood an advisory concerning the limitations of their E911 service. To be eligible for this extension, providers must meet certain reporting requirements.

First off, I have to reiterate that the Interconnected VoIP Services Providers, through the mobilizing efforts of the VON Coalition, are working diligently to comply with the terms of the FCC's E911 for VoIP Order.

Second, the shut-off requirement of the E911 for VoIP Order does not have anything to do with whether the Interconnect VoIP Service Provider is providing basic 911 or E911 (a requirement that does not even kick in until November), but only to do with the fact that customers may not have responded within the FCC set time frame (an event over which VoIP Service Providers do not have any actual control).

With these thoughts in mind, a couple things strike me as quite a bit odd with regard to the notification and shut-off requirement:

First of all, telecom providers typically are legally obligated to provide consumers with sufficient notice before shutting off service. The FCC seems to have flipped this concept on its ~~side~~ head -- requiring VoIP providers to shut off service rather than the traditional default of continuing service. I think it would still be better for the consumer to have some service (even if it doesn't provide a cookie-cutter E911 solution) better than no service at all. I think this might be the first time that a regulator has actually ordered a VoIP service to be shut off, even when the service is providing a basic 911 capability.

It is especially interesting to put this Public Notice in context: there are roughly 1.5 million wireline users in the US who lack E911 and the vast majority of wireless providers may continue to provide service without E911. A VoIP provider who today offers full E911 but hasn't been able to gain an acknowledgement from its customers may have to shut off service -- again, isn't some service (even if it doesn't provide a cookie-cutter E911 solution) better than no service at all.

Finally, I've got to point to a few examples of customers who might have their service shut off because of an inability of the service provider to provide a traditional E911 offering. The most obvious example to me is the US Commerce Department, which has migrated its communications service to IP. I don't believe that a Commerce Department employee who takes her VoIP service home would have E911 capability on that phone. The space shuttle launch reminds me that NASA uses IP technology. Certainly, someone on a space station would never expect a localized E911 capability. Even if the station is in orbit above Kansas, I cannot imagine a Wichita ambulance making the emergency response call. Frankly, I would hope that IP technology would afford astronauts so much more. And what about the aircraft carriers in the US Fleet -- in order to comply with the E911 obligations, wouldn't these ships need to report their location? Uh, that might be a problem. ;-(

Share this post:

Posted by jeff on July 26, 2005 09:36 PM | Permalink

Additional resources: Watch PrimeTime TV Shows | Watch the Jeff Pulver Show | Jeff's Qik Videos

Comments

Jeff, you nailed it. Heck, if we are going to assign responsibility like that to VoIP why not short wave radio or CBs or Walkie Talkies while we're at it!

Posted by: Erik Lagerway at July 27, 2005 02:16 PM

It doesn't matter, remember, whether E911 works or not -- only whether every subscriber has been notified, and affirmatively acknowledged, the limitations of the service offering with regard to E911. So in the case of the Commerce Department, the question is whether every "subscriber" has checked the checkbox on the web page of the interconnected VoIP service provider. (The question is whether the "subscriber" is the individual end-user or the GSA. If I were the legal department of an interconnected VoIP service provider, I'd be digging out precedents that "subscriber" = "individual user", showing them to the GSA, putting in place a very agressive program to collect acknowledgements from those users, and carefully telling the GSA purchasing agents that their colleagues at the FCC are going to require me to shut off service to all phone numbers from which I do not get said acknowledgement. Of course, doing so would probably put me in violation of the contract, but I seem to recall from my one undergrad business law class that illegal contracts are unenforceable, and I think that FCC regulations have force of law...)

Posted by: DG Lewis at July 27, 2005 12:50 AM