May 17, 2005

United Online's Netzero to offer VoIP

In a recent FCC comment (WC Docket 04-36) posted by United Online concerning 911/E911 services, the company said it intends to offer VoIP services via its Netzero brand.

The Company intends to offer the following different VoIP product lines: (1) a peer-to-peer VoIP service; (2) an outbound-only service that only allows for the termination of traffic on the PSTN; and (3) a product that will allow for both inbound and outbound calling.

They have concerns on how 911/E911 service will apply to their services since their VoIP customer "will be required to use a general purpose computer and a software program. None of the three products, as planned, will be offered through a terminal adapter, nor will they allow for the attachment of traditional" telephone equipment, as stated in the FCC ex parte letter of notice.

The Company's concern is how the FCC will apply its revised "E911 Scope Order" to its service, whereas its VoIP offering will be computer based software application and not be using an Analogue Telephone Adapter (ATA).

Posted by wbia at 13:56:26 | Permanent Link | Comments (2) |

May 06, 2005

Vonage’s $10-Million 911 Plan

Red Herring reports Vonage will be setting aside $10-million dollars in a campaign to provide 911 services to its customers. The first of such plans will be rolling out over the next six-months with Verizon at the tune of $1-million dollars a month rental fee.

So where is the cash coming from? Om Malik of Business 2.0 offers some insight.

Posted by wbia at 13:52:47 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

May 01, 2005

VoIP E911- Enhanced product vs need

Let me point out that VoIP in my opinion is not a replacement, but an "enhanced telecommunications" product. There are still plenty of people who will not care or even use (need) the enhanced functions of VoIP broadband phone service.

Because VoIP is another product a company has decided to offer for their business model. VoIP use does not have to be a defined business product for a company to use VoIP technology. Nonetheless the current business models for the most part are using price as a market driver instead of the greater functions one can have over a standard PSTN service.

Instead of using those lower costs to provide a enhanced product for a premium price, they have sacrificed those margins in lieu of market share and potential sacrifice of E911 functions because of the added cost.

I also feel that E911 should be in place basically because of its universal use and expectations of being available. For example, if you have visitor come over to your house, are you going to give them information about the use of your VoIP phone system and explain any limitations for emergency calls using 911? No, I don't really think one would. The visitor in case of an emergency would see a phone and pick it up expecting to dial 911 for help.

So in using this example, I would feel the VoIP provider should make every effort to keep existing emergency functions in place, without sacrifice just to provide enhance telecom  functions. Whether they pay the full cost, share the cost or fully paid for by the customer, E911 should be there if such E911 service was already in place.

Posted by wbia at 16:29:59 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

VoIP E911 - Who's responsible?

A comment by Aswath Rao posted on Jeff Pulver's weblog, touched on the responsibilty of who is to provide VoIP E911.

Aswath states that, "More importantly, we should discuss whether access to emergency service is the job of the internet access provider or the application service provider. In other words, when I invoke access to emergency service, the ISP should connect me to the appropriate point of contact and then the end points can decide on the set of application(s) to use for that session. Focusing on VoIP service providers is also another instance of applying old thinking to the new system."
 
As for the ISP, we are talking about broadband service providers and by far the largest providers of US broadband Internet access are the BOCs and MSOs. Never mind the fact that most dialup providers have no competitive options (of which is another topic of its own) to provide broadband unless they pay wholesale (loop) costs that are higher than most retail pricing and or flip to wireless, but unlikely for the majority.
 
I feel the burden of providing E911 at this time should fall on the provider of the application, albeit the BOC, MSO, unaffiliated ISPs and or VoIP service provider, (e.g. Vonage). E911 has become a standard and expected "charged for" feature of the "traditional" PSTN network. Until VoIP is completely emancipated from the PSTN, it may need to compromise and deal with the "old system" and the tens of millions still using PSTN.
 
Nonetheless, VoIP is the future for enhanced telecommunications and while I do not feel the copper wired PSTN will completely fade to black, for now, it is still the most widely used network. What does not make sense is the wasted resources battled by the Telco's, VoIP providers, State and Federal governments and agencies. We are seeing the lessor VoIP users over the many still PSTN users create anticompetitve behavior and regulatory friction wasting resources.
 
The Telcom industries need to grow up and stop the petty selfishness that only hurts them if they keep it up. They by far have done enough to slow down the expansion of broadband and that they have almost but eliminated competitive service providers from using their networks, are grabbing at all 4 IP based services of voice, data, mobile and TV while asking not to be tethered to regulatory restraints. That to me is enough to cause greater concern in enabling more competitive choices for the consumers and businesses alike.
Posted by wbia at 14:06:40 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |