[80433] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Sun May 1 12:40:16 2005
Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 16:38:10 +0000
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20050501123416.R21726@cgi.jachomes.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 12:34:16PM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 06:12:25PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > I submit that I don't necessarily want my communications device or my
> > location tracked at all times by the government. My point is not the
> > need for location, but, that it is impractical to reliably implement
> > the traditional 911 model for VOIP.
> >
> > The traditional 911 model depends on being able to make determination
> > of at least a roughly correct 911 service provider based on connection
> > point. (Cell site, telco central office, service location, etc.).
> >
> > None of these are available for many VOIP services. I think that if
> > the focus were on delivering 911 service for fixed-location VOIP
> > systems, it would make much more sense. However, the FCC, so far,
> > does not seem to understand that this distinction is possible or
> > relevant.
>
> How about an anycast address implement(ed|able) by every network
> provider that would return a zipcode?
>
> $ telnet 10.255.255.254
> Connected
> 33709
> Disconnected.
> $
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com
> Designer Baylink RFC 2100
> Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24
> St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274
>
> If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
are you -REALLY- arguing for the return of "finger" ??
--bill
