|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 19:44:20 -0500 From: "Hannigan, Martin" <hannigan@verisign.com> To: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>, "David Barak" <thegameiam@yahoo.com>, <nanog@merit.edu> Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > Owen DeLong > Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 7:08 PM > To: David Barak; nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re: Vonage Hits ISP Resistance >=20 >=20 [ SNIP ] > Email. Why should > it apply to VOIP? Just because it's a voice service? 911=20 > service is not > a standard feature of many voice appliances availble today. =20 It has nothing to do with the appliance.=20 > Various two-way > radios, for example. VOIP is VOIP. It is _NOT_ the PSTN. =20 It's not VoIP either, it's a protocol that is transmitting a voice call in a non-traditional manner and making them any-to-any connections.=20 That doesn't mean that it shouldn't have traditional services. Many State PUC's agree, but they were pre-empted by the FCC Pulver=20 Order. > It may be that > the PSTN loses many of it's customers to VOIP. It may be=20 > that the best > services available are those that integrate the capabilities=20 > of VOIP and > the PSTN, but, in the end, it still remains that they are=20 > different services > and should be subject to different requirements and regulations. 911 is a hot competitive issue. It'll get worked out. -M<
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |