[VOIPSEC] VOIP for free??
Tom Leh
tleh at voipinc.com
Fri Apr 15 11:15:42 CDT 2005
From a policy perspective, this recommendation is both sensible and
compelling. While there has been 911 litigation on the cellular side
(car passenger drowning in swamp near interstate while emergency rescue
is unable to triangulate location and send help for 60 minutes),
residential litigation for landline IPT has much more notoriety.
For 911 specifically, mobility applications are generally not exposed to
the same level of expectation in terms of location as are fixed line
environments. To go beyond 'secondary line status' perception heighten
mainstream adoption (a good thing for the industry in general), solving
location trumps solving security. A phased approach is not a bad thing.
Sincerely,
Tom
Alex Vishnev wrote:
> One of the difficulties of providing 911 service in the IP environment is
> the mobility of the device. However, if we would exclude mobility from the
> requirement on the first pass, then the problem becomes easier to solve. For
> example, if I have an IP phone at my house, and I am not planning to move
> this to any other place, then by dialing 911 from the phone allows my
> provider to say 100% where I am without the use of GPS and alternative
> devices. The issue will then become more security oriented then location
> oriented. Why can't we start with something simple and progress from that
> point, rather then trying to solve both security and location in a single
> step.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Alex Vishnev
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Voipsec-bounces at voipsa.org [mailto:Voipsec-bounces at voipsa.org] On
> Behalf Of Bob Williamson
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 7:27 PM
> To: Brian Rosen
> Cc: Voipsec-bounces at voipsa.org; voipsec at voipsa.org
> Subject: RE: [VOIPSEC] VOIP for free??
>
>
>
>
>
> I am aware that a NENA standard is due out soon but have not seen the
> draft. I am also aware that the IETF ECRIT group (transport) is working on
> emergency services but have not checked to see if the April 5 RFC actually
> came out on that date. Yes those are some of the "real" standards that must
> be completed before "real"solutions can be completed. The new standards
> must take into account the existing 911 protocol and interconnection
> standards. Sadly many of those new standards could already have been
> resolved in the early days when many in the IP community hid their heads in
> the sand under the pretext that the Internet would never have to deal with
> 911.
>
> I use Skype often (England, Whales, Afghanistan, and even D.C., the best
> codecs around with incredible clarity except to Afghanistan) computer to
> computer as well as Skype out, and I have never expected the ability to
> reach 911. The danger, as I'm sure you are aware, is that whatever device
> you use for telephony will be used by your baby sitter who may not be aware
> that it isn't 911 capable. I doubt a baby sitter will logon to a computer
> to dial 911. Just as in the case of Vonage vs Texas it will be the courts
> not the sanity of standards groups who may drive the direction of IP
> telephony. Very sad it didn't need to be that way.
>
> The PSAPs are badly in need of a complete redesign around IP. The cost as
> usual is the rub. Changes, redesigns, standards will only be only applied
> if there is money to accomplish them.
>
> I tire of hearing some IP providers say that they pay for 911. I can verify
> that some do (CLEC IP providers like AT&T, MCI, Level3 and others) and many
> don't (Vonage, 8X8, and others). In most states (including mine Washington)
> it is difficult to remit 911 fees because a provider must deal with each
> county as well as the state. We have offered to help negotiate with our
> state office and those providers to, even if temporarily, soften that
> stance and receive funds at the state level that would then be given to the
> correct county. So far we have had no takers.
>
> Yes there is good evidence for applying charges to access. That is one of
> many theories being discussed. Whatever is decided, regulation by
> technology will always be a loser. Legislating for IP may not allow for the
> next better nascent technology to bloom. An even, light regulatory touch
> for all (wireline, wireless, IP, etc) seems to be the most fare. Just some
> light protection from monopoly behavior no matter what the flavor.
>
> Federal pre-emption may not be the boon that many hope for. It was Jeff
> Pulver who recently stated that state agencies may be you next best friend
> since they have always been the protector of competitive local access. Even
> though the FCC stopped Vonage from being port blocked they may not in the
> future depending on the court decision in the Brand X case. Access may be
> the next pinch point, telephone companies must provide common carriage and
> equal access, cable companies don't. Because of changes by the FCC, access
> at reasonable prices may be an issue too.
>
> The technical issues are much more fun and more readily attainable! Solve
> the technical piece and the regulatory piece will follow. Keep up the good
> dialogue! Notice I didn't mention inter-carrer compensation, the universal
> service fund, etc. Even I have a threshold of pain.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
> "Brian Rosen"
> <br at brianrosen.ne
> t> To
> "'Bob Williamson'"
> 04/13/2005 01:09 <BWilliam at wutc.wa.gov>
> PM cc
> "'Alexander'"
> <aldem-voipsec at aldem.net>,
> <voipsec at voipsa.org>,
> <Voipsec-bounces at voipsa.org>
> Subject
> RE: [VOIPSEC] VOIP for free??
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There is a standard for how to do this, just about ready for publication
> from NENA. It's an interim (migration) standard that doesn't require
> changes at the PSAP, but costs the VoIP carriers what I expect will be an
> exhorbitent cost.
>
> We're working on the "real" standards at the IETF and NENA. That will, I
> hope, meet the parameters we are discussing.
>
> We are discussing the funding issue. It's complex, and this is not the
> right venue, but...
>
> 9-1-1 funding is a combination of general revenue from local jurisdictions,
> various fees on service providers, and surcharges on phone bills.
> The latter 2 will probably fade away. The non-local characteristic of the
> service providers means you can't effectively get them to handle a
> surcharge. Folks like Skype don't even bill.
>
> So, I have proposed that we shift the fees and surcharges on communications
> service providers to a surcharge on access. It's applied uniformly to ALL
> access providers. We use some really simplistic metric like bandwidth or
> percentage of bill to apply some level of fairness. It applies to ALL
> access networks which includes broadband, wireline, and wireless, and all
> flavors of each (so including cable, DSL, WiMax, ...)
>
> You will note that these are exactly the same folks who have to supply
> location.
>
> There is precedent to allow carriers who are given some kind of obligation
> like location determination to offset a portion of their costs against the
> surcharge. We do that; we impose an obligation to provide location, and we
> defray some part of the cost out of the surcharge.
>
> Access providers are always there, and always local (and thus always
> subject
> to local regulation). In this case, I expect we will actually get federal
> regulation that preempts state and local regulation, but we'll see.
>
> Brian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Williamson [mailto:BWilliam at wutc.wa.gov]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 2:51 PM
> To: Brian Rosen
> Cc: 'Alexander'; voipsec at voipsa.org; Voipsec-bounces at voipsa.org
> Subject: RE: [VOIPSEC] VOIP for free??
>
>
>
>
>
> Interesting string dealing with difficult issues. I for one, after watching
> the market place in the last few years (WorldCom, Qwest, etc), am concerned
> that business will always be for making money not taking care of societal
> needs. Some form of light touch, but effective, regulation may be the best
> way to control that drive for profit at all cost. Maybe I just getting a
> bit older and a bit jaded. If it is still a social imperative to make sure
> that all American's have access to reasonably priced voice communications,
> which includes access to emergency services, then it must be paid for by
> subsidies, no ones favorite subject.
>
> VoIP, location, and 911 is a mix of cost, tax, and technical issues. IP
> addresses don't provide location particularly if the IP device is behind a
> NAT and firewall. Smart LAN jacks for business have been discussed but not
> finalized. Triangulation hasn't worked with WIFI/WIMAX (unlike cellular)
> and may never be possible. GPS is not always accurate within buildings. I
> am confident however that the technical issues can be resolved and are
> actually now getting the attention they disserve. Accurate location isn't
> just important for 911 but also provides good business opportunities so it
> will be solved. A technical VoIP trial was just successfully completed in
> King County (greater Seattle area) in cooperation with the local 911 PSAP,
> a number of companies (VoIP provider, RBOC, 911 database providers, etc.),
> and a little help from the state utilities commission. It was successful by
> providing accurate call back information and address to the correct 911
> operator (just deciding which 911 operator location requires major data
> base work). The method was not standard and has been forwarded to the
> appropriate standards organizations for their approval. The test required
> the consumer to update their address information on the company website any
> time they moved. The address information was updated in the appropriate
> data bases within 15 minutes (instead of the week it takes now). If nothing
> else making the consumer update address info. every time they unplug and
> replug their IP device would be a temporary simple solution (of course the
> consumer could spoof the system by inputting any location).
>
> No matter how you feel about it the solution and/or regulation continued
> open dialog is the best path to resolution. Keep it up!
>
> Security is of course a bigger problem.
>
> Bob Williamson
> Senior Member Technical Staff
> Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
> Olympia, WA.
> 360-664-1288 office
> 253-227-0279 mobile
> bwilliam Skype
>
>
>
> "Brian Rosen"
> <br at brianrosen.ne
> t> To
> Sent by: "'Alexander'"
> Voipsec-bounces at v <aldem-voipsec at aldem.net>,
> oipsa.org <voipsec at voipsa.org>
> cc
>
> 04/13/2005 05:17 Subject
> AM RE: [VOIPSEC] VOIP for free??
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> While I expect that we will see some very "light touch" regulations on U.S.
> VoIP service providers, I don't think that we can count on that to get the
> kind of service we want. We have to make it so easy and inexpensive to
> handle an emergency call that they all do it because they have a very small
> liability if they don't, but the cost of complying is smaller than the "net
> present value" of the liability. If it takes a couple hundred lines of
> code, and nothing else but an Internet connection, I think that would do
> it.
> The fundamental problem with regulation is that you can't regulate non-U.S.
> suppliers, and yet they can offer the same services to U.S. customers.
>
> I have reason to believe if we do make it that easy and that inexpensive,
> then systems like Skype (your example) would implement what is necessary.
> That's the plan. Of course, Skype has PSTN connections now.
>
> You are very wrong about devices that look like a phone and don't offer
> emergency call services. There are very few such devices except VoIP
> devices that look like phones and don't work for emergency calls today.
> Many, many people care, especially the authorities. Sometimes the
> authorities are misled by incorrect assumptions made by service providers
> on
> their costs of complying, or by vested interests whose business is better
> served by high costs and low compliance rates.
>
> Let me ask it to you this way:
>
> If it costs a service provider an average of $.0001 per month per
> subscriber
> to support emergency call services, and one person per year per service
> provider loses their life because they couldn't get help from the service,
> is that a good tradeoff?
>
> Suppose it was $.001 per sub per month? $.01? $.1?
>
> Suppose one person sues the service provider because they didn't provide
> the
> service? Would that be a good tradeoff?
>
> Now, if it costs $1 a month a subscriber to provide the service, and you
> have 10M subscribers, then you can decide if its worth it. Maybe it would
> be to you. Probably not to me, but at least we're in a range where you can
> make the argument with a straight face.
>
> I'd like the cost of compliance to be a couple hundred lines of open source
> code, and access to a public routing database.
>
> Now, this does NOT include the issue of location determination, which is a
> more substantial cost, born by the Access Infrastructure Provider. That's
> a
> bigger deal, and more difficult, and probably subject to more regulation,
> and a more level playing field for the regulation (the AIP is always
> local).
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Voipsec-bounces at voipsa.org [mailto:Voipsec-bounces at voipsa.org] On
> Behalf Of Alexander
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 7:24 PM
> To: voipsec at voipsa.org
> Subject: Re: [VOIPSEC] VOIP for free??
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 09:14:50AM -0400, stuart jacobs wrote:
>
>
>>Unfortunately, in the USA, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
>>does care about 911 and mandates support by any supplier of
>>telecommunications services currently over the PSTN but will eventually
>>apply to non-PSTN Local communications system as well.
>
>
> What about closed services like Skype? There might be community with
> computer-only network (i.e. no access to/from PSTN at all) - will this
> be considered as "telecommunication services"? If yes, what about 911
> routing, if there are (say) no phone numbers involved?
>
> To be honest, I don't really understand why anyone who is offering voice
> services (whatever it is - VoIP, Skype or like) must provide 911
> routing... No, "looks like phone" is not an argument here - there are
> many devices which looks like phone and are not capable to provide 911
> or equivalent service, and nobody (including authorities) cares.
>
> Regards,
> /Al
>
> _______________________________________________
> Voipsec mailing list
> Voipsec at voipsa.org
> http://voipsa.org/mailman/listinfo/voipsec_voipsa.org
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Voipsec mailing list
> Voipsec at voipsa.org
> http://voipsa.org/mailman/listinfo/voipsec_voipsa.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Voipsec mailing list
> Voipsec at voipsa.org
> http://voipsa.org/mailman/listinfo/voipsec_voipsa.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Voipsec mailing list
> Voipsec at voipsa.org
> http://voipsa.org/mailman/listinfo/voipsec_voipsa.org
>
>
More information about the Voipsec
mailing list