nanog mailing list archives
Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP
From: David Lesher <wb8foz () nrk com>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 23:56:50 -0400 (EDT)
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
Here's one vendor: http://www.tonecommander.com/e911/How%20PBX%20ANI-LINK%20Works.htmI think this scheme isn't going to work for VOIP.
Well, yea.. It's not.
I think that VOIP phones will either ultimately be exempted, or required to have GPS (or triangulation or some other scheme)
...that might work....sometimes...
Or maybe we'll just start to see red phones next to the fire-alarm boxes.
Alas, Gamewell fire boxes are all but dead. I don't know of any city still running them. Too bad, because it was a dirt-simple technology that Just Plain Worked. Looks like they were first deployed in the 1850's. Oops; NYC may still have some: http://www.forgotten-ny.com/STREET%20SCENES/Fire%20Alarms%20page/Alarms.html. And if http://plaws.net/fire/list.shtml is accurate, much of Mass. Hmm. OT explantion: There was a loop from the fire alarm office around the city {or fraction thereof}, through each box, and back to the office. One end had +130v {or so}; the other had -130. When you pulled a box, it split the loop in half, and grounded both halves in a sequence set on a spring-driven wheel ("3 2 5 PAUSE 3 2 5"). Think of that as the static IP address... At the office, 2 pen registers recorded the loop current. If two boxes (say 325 and 326) got pulled; 325 showed on the one chart, 326 on the other. We might have them still in wide use today if not for social changes; the false-alarm rate is many times higher than voice calls, and most departments gave up. I think there are NANOG lessons in there. Sometimes, a less than 100% optimal technology is good enough to outlast many a "newer better faster sexier" one... -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz () nrk com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Current thread:
- Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP Jay R. Ashworth (May 01)
- Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP Christopher L. Morrow (May 01)
- Message not available
- Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP Jay R. Ashworth (May 01)
- Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP Christopher L. Morrow (May 01)
- Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP Chris Boyd (May 01)
- Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP Simon Lyall (May 01)
- Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP Sean Donelan (May 01)
- Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP David Lesher (May 01)
- Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP Dean Anderson (May 01)
- Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP David Lesher (May 01)
- Message not available
- Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP Jay R. Ashworth (May 02)
- Message not available
- Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP Christopher L. Morrow (May 01)
- Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP Chris Boyd (May 01)
- Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP Sean Donelan (May 01)
- Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP Niels Bakker (May 01)
- Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP Christopher L. Morrow (May 01)
- Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP JP Velders (May 02)
- Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP Iljitsch van Beijnum (May 02)
- Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP Chris Boyd (May 02)
- Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP Sean Donelan (May 02)
- Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP John Levine (May 02)