When You Dial 911, Can Help Find You?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.telecom.tech (More info?)

On Fri, 20 May 2005 19:10:31 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:

>> Good advice, except that the context of this thread was VoIP, and most
>> VoIP services do NOT have "operator"! (This is how they lower costs.)
>
>
>Another revelation! Is it available as an pay-extra feature?

It could be if it was there to offer - but the VoIP services don't
have one to sell.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.telecom.tech (More info?)

avoidspam@invalid.com wrote:
>It could be if it was there to offer - but the VoIP services don't
>have one to sell.

I'm not sure there would be any purpose to having a VoIP operator.

As far as I can remember, the only times I've called the operator in the last
25 years was to ask for information that I was too lazy to figure out from
the phone book: whether a certain number would be a toll call, how to dial a
certain foreign country, or how to do a conference call.

I just checked: my Vonage help page does have all that info, accessible
reasonably easily.

I'm interested to hear that operators can provide "remote" emergency help.
But I wonder whether the regular 911 people will do that too - and perhaps
more efficiently.

You sure there's still a use for an operator? The old traditional use of an
operator was to plug the cord with your call on it into the right socket.
Those days are long gone.

Garry

 

[Jer]

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,misc.emerg-services (More info?)

Carey Gregory wrote:
> Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm also now wondering who's going to take the hit for hotels when a
>>tenant plugs their internet phone into the wall jack. The hi-speed
>>internet service at some hotels requires the tenant to occasionally
>>re-certify their in-room internet service via an auth code provided by
>>the front desk when necessary. And it's not always free.
>
>
> So what? The technical issues of mapping a hotel connection to the hotel
> and room number are trivial compared to, say, determining a cell phone's
> location. Internet cafes, libraries, and all sorts of public access points
> will have the same issue. I guess they'll either have to figure it out or
> quit providing VoIP to those locations.
>
> VoIP providers got into the business of providing public telephone service,
> but they didn't bother providing the whole package and you see the results.
> It's easy to undercut the other guys when you're allowed to skip the hard
> parts. Well, now they can't, and it's about time. All the FCC is saying is
> they have to quit being half-baked telephone companies and become real ones.
>


Again, please don't misunderstand, I'm all for inovation, but can open,
worms everywhere.

One worm is when a VoIP client is in a hotel with in-room hi-speed
internet. Plugging in a VoIP adapter is easy enough, and in some cases
that's all that's necessary. However, in others, the hotel tenant is
required to re-certify their continued expectation of use by negotiating
a webpage that requires a code be manually typed in from a connected PC
- the code is happily provided by the front desk upon check-in, and for
subsequent days. I was in one a few weeks ago where each certification
period was only good for 12 hours before a new code was required from
the front desk. If my cert period expired in the middle of a session -
it died regardless of activity level - and curiously there was no
in-room info placard that carried a clue. VoIP clients who aren't aware
of this shouldn't expect their VoIP service to always be available under
these situations. If one is expecting to make or receive important VoIP
calls when out-of-pocket, one should be aware of these issues.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.telecom.tech (More info?)

FCC Orders 911 Service for VoIP
As expected, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued an order
Thursday requiring Internet phone service companies to provide enhanced 911
(E911) emergency calling capabilities to their customers and delivered a
120-day deadline for compliance.

VoIP providers must, by default, deliver all 911 calls to the customer's
local emergency operator. Interconnected VoIP providers also must provide
emergency operators with the call back number and location information of
their customers where the emergency operator is capable of receiving it.

The new demands must be met within 120 days of the official publication of
the order, which is expected by the end of this month.

Regulatory Process Proceeds

The ruling is a response to the rapidly expanding VoIP customer base and
directly impacts providers such as Vonage and EarthLink, as well as cable
companies. It also reflects the FCC's earlier decision to take regulatory
control of Internet-based calling rather than grant that control to states.

Calling the IP-enabled services marketplace "the latest new frontier of our
nation's communications landscape," the FCC cited horror stories brought to
its attention in which VoIP customers dialed 911 but were unable to reach
emergency operators.

"The sad fact is that we have spent so much time splitting hairs about what
is a telecommunications service and what is an information service that we
have endangered public safety," said commissioner Michael Copps in a
statement. "At some point the semantic debates must end and reality must
assert itself -- when customers sign up for a telephone they expect it to
deliver like a telephone."

Cooperation from Carriers Required

Most providers, in anticipation of the decision, have been adding E911
capabilities to their systems and support the FCC. The mandate could spell
trouble, though, for smaller operations without the resources to add
emergency services capabilities.

"EarthLink and other VoIP providers are committed to providing 911 services.
We therefore support FCC and Congressional efforts to ensure public safety
by requiring that VoIP subscribers have prompt access to E911," said Dave
Baker, vice president of law and public policy at EarthLink.

Baker also noted that to meet this objective, the FCC must ensure that
incumbent phone companies provide access to the interfaces needed to deliver
and complete emergency calls.

"We have been given a big obligation to meet in a short time, so it's up to
the Bells to meet their requirements as well," he said.

Action Was Overdue

"The low-end VoIP providers will probably struggle with another regulatory
hurdle to clear, and there could be a shakeup in the industry that may be a
good thing," said IDC analyst Will Stofega. "But this has to be done because
most customers did not realize there was no support for E911 with their
service."

Still, said Stofega, the FCC has been dragging its feet on VoIP regulations
despite determining that it is an interstate communications service.

"They have been talking about this since 1999, but until now have not
offered any rules for operating next-generation phone services," he said.

Vonage announced an agreement Thursday to purchase wireless and wireline
E911 services from SBC and BellSouth (NYSE: BLS - news). And Verizon (NYSE:
VZ - news) recently announced that it will provide E911 calling system to
VoIP service providers and vendors, enabling them to connect their
customers' emergency calls to Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs).

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nf/20050520/bs_nf/35336



<avoidspam@invalid.com> wrote in message
newst4v8116an3cgm0jn2rrkkr6aiu7gp4kmb@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 May 2005 19:10:31 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
>>> Good advice, except that the context of this thread was VoIP, and most
>>> VoIP services do NOT have "operator"! (This is how they lower costs.)
>>
>>
>>Another revelation! Is it available as an pay-extra feature?
>
> It could be if it was there to offer - but the VoIP services don't
> have one to sell.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,alt.cellular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,misc.emerg-services (More info?)

>I'm also now wondering who's going to take the hit for hotels when a
>tenant plugs their internet phone into the wall jack. The hi-speed
>internet service at some hotels requires the tenant to occasionally
>re-certify their in-room internet service via an auth code provided by
>the front desk when necessary. And it's not always free.

I think that if I were the hotel, I would put a sticker on the real
phone next to the Ethernet jack saying "in case of emergency, dial 911
on this phone."

The goal here is to provide working 911 to people who need it. I have
never seen a hotel room with an ethernet jack but no phone, and I
doubt that anyone else has, either.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.telecom.tech (More info?)

Garry W wrote:

[snip]

> You sure there's still a use for an operator? The old traditional
> use of an operator was to plug the cord with your call on it into
> the right socket. Those days are long gone.

There are many occasions when an operator is useful, although I can't
think of one for a VoIP service.

An operator can set up a personal call, whereby you are only charged when
the person you want comes to the phone. Probably not much use for this
nowadays, with mobile and similar services, but some business users might
still find it useful.

Also reverse charge calls require operator assistance. There is an
automatic version around here in the UK now but it incurs a hefty
additional charge so is best avoided.

I'm sure someone else can find a few more uses for the poor old operator
before she's put out to pasture ;-)

Ivor

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.telecom.tech (More info?)

Ivor Jones wrote:
> Garry W wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>You sure there's still a use for an operator? The old traditional
>>use of an operator was to plug the cord with your call on it into
>>the right socket. Those days are long gone.
>
>
> There are many occasions when an operator is useful, although I can't
> think of one for a VoIP service.
>
> An operator can set up a personal call, whereby you are only charged when
> the person you want comes to the phone. Probably not much use for this
> nowadays, with mobile and similar services, but some business users might
> still find it useful.
>
> Also reverse charge calls require operator assistance. There is an
> automatic version around here in the UK now but it incurs a hefty
> additional charge so is best avoided.
>
> I'm sure someone else can find a few more uses for the poor old operator
> before she's put out to pasture ;-)
>
> Ivor
>
>

You have put your finger(s) on another issue with VoIP: you cannot place
person-to-person NOR collect-calls nor ANY other type of
operator-assisted call. That's one reason costs can stay low.

Actually, I don't even know if I can receive on a VoIP line a collect
call. (Happily, all my kids are grown, flown and on their own.)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.telecom.tech (More info?)

In message <3f9m12F6nl91U1@individual.net> "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:

>Garry W wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> You sure there's still a use for an operator? The old traditional
>> use of an operator was to plug the cord with your call on it into
>> the right socket. Those days are long gone.
>
>There are many occasions when an operator is useful, although I can't
>think of one for a VoIP service.
>
>An operator can set up a personal call, whereby you are only charged when
>the person you want comes to the phone. Probably not much use for this
>nowadays, with mobile and similar services, but some business users might
>still find it useful.

Sure, but the per-minute charge for a person-to-person call, billed over
the entire call is often 10x-50x a direct dialed call. As a result,
unless you're calling 10-50 times to reach the person AND only talk for
one minute, it's almost always cheaper to make the call yourself.

If you are calling frequently enough for it to be worth the money, it
will very quickly become cheaper to hire a secretary to make the calls
for you.


--
It's always darkest before dawn. So if you're going to
steal your neighbor's newspaper, that's the time to do it.

 

[Joseph]

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.telecom.tech (More info?)

On Sat, 21 May 2005 22:03:28 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:

>Also reverse charge calls require operator assistance. There is an
>automatic version around here in the UK now but it incurs a hefty
>additional charge so is best avoided.

There are automated "operator" services in the US and Canada as well.
Instead of dialling 1 before an area code you dial 01 and when you are
through dialling you get a menu with prompts. Depending on the
service some have you key 12 for collect (reverse charges) or for
third number or calling/credit card it's all automated.

Since they started to charge for directory assistance (enquiries) here
in the states I can count on one hand the number of times I've used it
in the last 26 years. Heck most of the time even if you do use
directory assistance they have got it wrong!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.telecom.tech (More info?)

Rick Merrill <jaynehm@comcast.net> wrote:
>You have put your finger(s) on another issue with VoIP: you cannot place
>person-to-person NOR collect-calls nor ANY other type of
>operator-assisted call. That's one reason costs can stay low.

I'm afraid those are things of the past, too. The original purpose of
person-to-person, as I recall, was to avoid having to pay the long-distance
charge if the person you wanted to talk to wasn't even there. This was of
interest when long distance cost an arm and a leg. Nowadays when the
surcharge for the operator is a hundred times greater than the charge for the
long distance call itself, person-to-person just doesn't make much sense.

Collect calls are useful from a pay phone. Or, rather, they =used= to be
useful -- back when pay phones were still plentiful. Back when pay phones
didn't have built-in "dial anywhere" deals. Back before calling cards were
available really cheap in every convenience store. Back before you could talk
to your automobile directly.

Only people I've heard of who still call collect are the prison inmates.

>Actually, I don't even know if I can receive on a VoIP line a collect
>call. (Happily, all my kids are grown, flown and on their own.)

The kids I know that are anywhere near grown seem to have all acquired their
own cell phones...

Garry

 

[Joseph]

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.telecom.tech (More info?)

On Sat, 21 May 2005 17:25:20 -0700, Garry W
<YahooMail@extremelyserious.org> wrote:

>Collect calls are useful from a pay phone. Or, rather, they =used= to be
>useful -- back when pay phones were still plentiful. Back when pay phones
>didn't have built-in "dial anywhere" deals. Back before calling cards were
>available really cheap in every convenience store. Back before you could talk
>to your automobile directly.

Well, the person you call collect pays a hefty premium so you can call
them. Many people even have collect call blocks on their lines in
addition to third party billing block.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.telecom.tech (More info?)

In article <qprv81dgaac0i45iah3j09khcocvetkjcc@4ax.com>,
JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com says...
> On Sat, 21 May 2005 22:03:28 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Also reverse charge calls require operator assistance. There is an
> >automatic version around here in the UK now but it incurs a hefty
> >additional charge so is best avoided.
>
> There are automated "operator" services in the US and Canada as well.
> Instead of dialling 1 before an area code you dial 01 and when you are
> through dialling you get a menu with prompts. Depending on the
> service some have you key 12 for collect (reverse charges) or for
> third number or calling/credit card it's all automated.
>
> Since they started to charge for directory assistance (enquiries) here
> in the states I can count on one hand the number of times I've used it
> in the last 26 years. Heck most of the time even if you do use
> directory assistance they have got it wrong!

Which is precisely why I block 411 with my Mitel SMART-1 controller. It
just wasn't worth Vonage's buck a pop to get an incorrect listing.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.telecom.tech (More info?)

Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net> wrote:
>Which is precisely why I block 411 with my Mitel SMART-1 controller. It
>just wasn't worth Vonage's buck a pop to get an incorrect listing.

Just connect it to Infone instead. The regular directory assistance around
here is pitiful/horrible/usually wrong (I'm thinking especially of Verizon.)

But Infone is great.

It's that same buck a pop (well, 89 cents now), but sometimes you're talking
to an operator who's actually =been= to "that diner on Broadway" you can't
quite remember the name of (did that), and always you can ask things like "I
know there's a Target store around here somewhere, but I can't quite find it
-- can you guide me in?" (been there, done that too.)

Sign up at www.infone.com, then put 888-411-1111 on your VoIP speed-dial.

shamelessly shilling,
Garry

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,misc.emerg-services (More info?)

On Fri, 20 May 2005 11:58:42 GMT, DonS@InSee.rr.com (Don S) wrote:

>Typically, the nominal -48Vdc power for the MTSO/CO is provided by a power
>system that converts AC to DC. The batteries are only used in the event of a
>power outage. They are connected via busbar so there is no transfer time.
>Most critical sites also have one or more backup gen-sets to provide power
>beyond the battery capacity.
>
>You also need this in the remote/DLC cabinets and cell sites that may be
>serving the end user. If the cell site or DLC dies, the end sub has no
>service, regardless of the condition of the upstream MTSO or CO.

The problem with wireless sites are connectivity and keeping systems
within tolerance. If something along the route from the MTSO is
disrupted, the site is isolated. As far as battery power, if HVAC is
not continued, the equipment will fail out even if the batteries have
remaining capacity.

Some of the sites out here have generator connections and manual
transfer switches. The batteries float volatile settings, but when the
power is out, so is the system.

As an emergency manager, my perennial question to wireless providers -
especially to those who purport to be "interoperability solutions" is:
Since the sites have a jack and a manual transfer switch, when a
technological emergency happens and there is no power, who gets the
resources??? What guarantee is there that they will support my
operation and not run with their resources to the "big" city 45 miles
away?

From my side of the fence, every site is a critical site, particularly
when a company is marketing itself to be of service to public safety
providers.

Steve

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.telecom.tech (More info?)

Rick Merrill <jaynehm@comcast.net> writes:
> You have put your finger(s) on another issue with VoIP: you cannot
> place person-to-person NOR collect-calls nor ANY other type of
> operator-assisted call. That's one reason costs can stay low.

When you are calling for 2cents or less per minute do you really care
if you get the wrong person or of the call is collect? The whole idea
of operator-assisted calls only made sense when the calls had
substantial per minute fees.

-wolfgang
--
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht http://www.wsrcc.com/wolfgang/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.telecom.tech (More info?)

In message <x77jhsrsc7.fsf@bonnet.wsrcc.com> "Wolfgang S. Rupprecht"
<wolfgang+gnus20050521T175301@dailyplanet.dontspam.wsrcc.com> wrote:

>
>Rick Merrill <jaynehm@comcast.net> writes:
>> You have put your finger(s) on another issue with VoIP: you cannot
>> place person-to-person NOR collect-calls nor ANY other type of
>> operator-assisted call. That's one reason costs can stay low.
>
>When you are calling for 2cents or less per minute do you really care
>if you get the wrong person or of the call is collect? The whole idea
>of operator-assisted calls only made sense when the calls had
>substantial per minute fees.

Collect calls will not be billed at 2c/minute, they are billed at the
operator rate of the dialing telco (IIRC this is regulated in the states
-- I know for sure that the CRTC regulates the operator or base rate in
Canada)


--
A cheap shot is a terrible thing to waste.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,misc.emerg-services (More info?)

In article <kpev81959dpfk6i91vpbuokm2hhidv8fvp@4ax.com>, tiredofspam123
@comcast.net says...
> Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
> >I'm also now wondering who's going to take the hit for hotels when a
> >tenant plugs their internet phone into the wall jack. The hi-speed
> >internet service at some hotels requires the tenant to occasionally
> >re-certify their in-room internet service via an auth code provided by
> >the front desk when necessary. And it's not always free.
>
> So what? The technical issues of mapping a hotel connection to the hotel
> and room number are trivial compared to, say, determining a cell phone's
> location.

First of all, the notion that the location of a cell phone caller can be
determined quickly and reliably (without the use of GPS enabled
handsets) is a MYTH. Yes, triangulation can narrow down the general
vicinity (depending greatly on the density of sites within the area) but
that's a far cry from "1234 Main Street, Apt. 3-G". So let us set aside
the argument that cell phones provide E911 functionality. Clearly, they
do not.

> Internet cafes, libraries, and all sorts of public access points
> will have the same issue. I guess they'll either have to figure it out or
> quit providing VoIP to those locations.

Or... the FCC could adopt a realistic position with respect to the
technical issues involved in providing E911 services via VOIP.

> VoIP providers got into the business of providing public telephone service,
> but they didn't bother providing the whole package and you see the results.
> It's easy to undercut the other guys when you're allowed to skip the hard
> parts.

It is not that simple. Access to the PSAPs is available ONLY via the
ILEC's. Heretofore, those companies have made it virtually impossible
for most VOIP providers to gain that access. If the FCC is serious about
having the VOIP providers deliver E911, they are going to have to ensure
that the playing field is level.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,alt.cellular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,misc.emerg-services (More info?)

In article <d6on08$29a$1@xuxa.iecc.com>, johnl@iecc.com (John R.
Levine) wrote:
>>I'm also now wondering who's going to take the hit for hotels when a
>>tenant plugs their internet phone into the wall jack. The hi-speed
>>internet service at some hotels requires the tenant to occasionally
>>re-certify their in-room internet service via an auth code provided by
>>the front desk when necessary. And it's not always free.
>
>I think that if I were the hotel, I would put a sticker on the real
>phone next to the Ethernet jack saying "in case of emergency, dial 911
>on this phone."
>
>The goal here is to provide working 911 to people who need it. I have
>never seen a hotel room with an ethernet jack but no phone, and I
>doubt that anyone else has, either.
>
And it would also seem MUCH quicker in an emergency to use the
land line. I would also be willing to bet that there is a "regular"
land line (if not a few cell phones) in most of the Internet cafes.
the VoIP 911 problem would be mainly in home and (and possibly
businesses).

----
Ideologue: noun. Someone who disagrees with the writer on
an issue and is insufficiently apologetic about it.
Stolen from Billo in misc.writing

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,alt.cellular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,misc.emerg-services (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 12:04:04 GMT, kurtullman@yahoo.com (Kurt Ullman)
wrote:

> And it would also seem MUCH quicker in an emergency to use the
>land line. I would also be willing to bet that there is a "regular"
>land line (if not a few cell phones) in most of the Internet cafes.
>the VoIP 911 problem would be mainly in home and (and possibly
>businesses).

While it may be much quicker and has obvious benefits, our stats show
that people use whatever they are conditioned to use. Our system stats
indicate about 57% of system-wide 9-1-1 access being wireless (VoIP is
pointed to a POTS line, so we can't even collect numbers on that). The
primary PSAP actually is closer to 65% wireless (there are eight PSAPs
in the system). I've heard from other 9-1-1 coordinators that their
wireline calls account for only about 32% of total system usage now.

One of the 9-1-1 coordinators who has a greater disposable income than
mine brought a new toy to a meeting: a PDA with a wi-fi card and a
VoIP telephony application. There are some people out there who want
to make wi-fi VoIP a cellular competitive system.

Steve

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,misc.emerg-services (More info?)

In article <cb3091hs237l5u0hanqs1lhmfojns83uke@4ax.com>, moc.enilepip@ykkams wrote:
> As far as battery power, if HVAC is
>not continued, the equipment will fail out even if the batteries have
>remaining capacity.

Depends upon location and time of year. Also, some companies are taking a
serious look at using DC HVAC systems, which will run off of the batteries.

>Some of the sites out here have generator connections and manual
>transfer switches.

This makes sense only in manned locations.

The batteries float volatile settings, but when the
>power is out, so is the system.

Can you elaborate on this ? Nominal float voltage from the DC power system is
-54Vdc. Wet cell or VRLA battery systems are composed of 24 * 2V cells. For
those with Low Voltage Disconnect (LVDs), the setting is usually -42Vdc.

>As an emergency manager, my perennial question to wireless providers -
>especially to those who purport to be "interoperability solutions" is:
>Since the sites have a jack and a manual transfer switch, when a
>technological emergency happens and there is no power, who gets the
>resources??? What guarantee is there that they will support my
>operation and not run with their resources to the "big" city 45 miles
>away?

The good thing about the wireless network is that there is usually another
cell site that can provide service, in the event a closer site goes down.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,misc.emerg-services (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 12:23:41 GMT, DonS@InSee.rr.com (Don S) wrote:

>In article <cb3091hs237l5u0hanqs1lhmfojns83uke@4ax.com>, moc.enilepip@ykkams wrote:
>> As far as battery power, if HVAC is
>>not continued, the equipment will fail out even if the batteries have
>>remaining capacity.
>
>Depends upon location and time of year. Also, some companies are taking a
>serious look at using DC HVAC systems, which will run off of the batteries.

Most of the sites here (I am in a rapidly urbanizing suburb which
borders on rural areas) are served by sites which have slab-mounted
enclosures which are weathertight without having a full pre-fab
housing. These seem to have their own HVAC internally, but do not have
anything more than the manual transfer switch and generator jack.

I'm not sure if there are batteries in there, as there doesn't seem to
be much room. Even if there are, this couldn't run very long given the
typical powe failure duration in these parts.

>>Some of the sites out here have generator connections and manual
>>transfer switches.
>
>This makes sense only in manned locations.

None of these locations are manned. Most of them are in remote
locations.

>The batteries float volatile settings, but when the
>>power is out, so is the system.
>
>Can you elaborate on this ?

I'll do my best. It's been a while since I was in the industry.

>Nominal float voltage from the DC power system is
>-54Vdc. Wet cell or VRLA battery systems are composed of 24 * 2V cells. For
>those with Low Voltage Disconnect (LVDs), the setting is usually -42Vdc.

In the late 80's/ early 90's I did work in the AMPS cellular industry.
This was a time when PCS was called "CT2." I understand things have
changed. Back then, I was with a "B carrier" whose sites mostly AT&T
equipment which had banks of glass jar batteries along one side of the
wall. My impression is that these sites were built to remain up for
several days. One iDEN site I was in had a battery rack that seemed to
be gel cells which had significantly less capacity. The equipment may
be more efficient, i.e., more power may be directed toward actual RF
transmission and not toward signal processing or receiving, but I
doubt that with the volume of usage that follows during a high-impact
incident that this site would function very long (perhaps in
comparison to one with a bank of Exide jars) following power
disruption.

>>As an emergency manager, my perennial question to wireless providers -
>>especially to those who purport to be "interoperability solutions" is:
>>Since the sites have a jack and a manual transfer switch, when a
>>technological emergency happens and there is no power, who gets the
>>resources??? What guarantee is there that they will support my
>>operation and not run with their resources to the "big" city 45 miles
>>away?
>
>The good thing about the wireless network is that there is usually another
>cell site that can provide service, in the event a closer site goes down.

Sure, in most places but not out here. Building redundancy and
overlapping coverage is not considered in the business model for an
area such as this. We generally have high-site coverage of Interstates
and coverage falls off between 3 - 10 miles off the path of the
highway.

I have been getting the hard sell for "partnering" with carriers, one
in particular, to apportion public funds for diverse routing and
emergency power solutions, as well as development of wireless
facilities at publicly funded tower-sites for their infrastructure.
The promise is that "we" can ride on their fortified system. The
unseen is that their system is making money and there is no discussion
of revenue sharing up on the table. The danger is that other carriers
will claim exception and we will be forced to encrust each of the
public sites with each of the 800 MHz and PCS carriers, which would
increase wind loading and preclude our own ability to put up antennas
for our own internal use. But, gee, at least one carrier says if their
system is fortified I don't need anything else ) LOL!

Steve

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,misc.emerg-services (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 10:38:58 -0700, John Nelson
<DieSpammerDie@njabl.org> wrote:

>It is not that simple. Access to the PSAPs is available ONLY via the
>ILEC's. Heretofore, those companies have made it virtually impossible
>for most VOIP providers to gain that access. If the FCC is serious about
>having the VOIP providers deliver E911, they are going to have to ensure
>that the playing field is level.

The 9-1-1 "industry" and the regulatory environment that 9-1-1 exists
in is a nasty business where there are constantly ways of finding
nickles and dimes for business partnerships which are transparent to
PSAPs. It's also hung together like Post-it notes layered on top of
each other. Technology which was put aside in the 70's for telephony
(enhanced MF, like the tones at the end of Pink Floyd's "Young Lust")
is still widely used in 9-1-1. That's layered on top of database
providers, which is layered on top of other database providers, which
is layered on top of... and so on... and so on... . I'd rather see
innovation, but one that moves in an all digital direction which
provides end-to-end digital. ILECs see this as a threat because in a
completely digital environment, they are less necessary (if at all).

In one situation, an ILEC which we retain for selective routing and
database services proposed a tariff for wireless services that would
charge US (the 9-1-1 system... in my case, I operate six primary
PSAPs, one secondary and one disaster recovery) for each wireless
Phase 1 or Phase 2 9-1-1 call we receive. We are not cost-recovered.
We would - hypothetically - have to either fund 9-1-1 from the general
revenue fund, or take the impolitic course of turning off all wireless
access and make 9-1-1 a service provided to taxpayers. Either way, we
lose. The Commission has done NOTHING to aid the several states which
could not develop cost recovery mechanisms, yet the carriers charge a
"Federal Universal Access" fee which, when you pin them down, is
ostensibly for "complying" with 9-1-1 mandates, which in some cases is
not being offered in that area, which some carriers will refuse to
comply with locally until they get their cut from other funding
sources.

Despite these issues, the public sector end of this is constantly
forced to live up to a perceived standard of care that is established
by external factors, such as marketing.

I concur that the playing field has to be narrowed to a common
denominator, however, the FCC is as much a political animal as local
legislatures are. I don't see anything meaningful coming from the
Commission other than another unfunded mandate that is ultimately
passed on to us local 9-1-1 systems.

Steve

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,misc.emerg-services (More info?)

In article <rni191hogoj58flupakt8ij7adoocp3fmg@4ax.com>, smakky@spam.com
says...

> Despite these issues, the public sector end of this is constantly
> forced to live up to a perceived standard of care that is established
> by external factors, such as marketing.

> I concur that the playing field has to be narrowed to a common
> denominator, however, the FCC is as much a political animal as local
> legislatures are.

And as such, they are subject to the "influences" present in the
political process. For the FCC this means telco lobbyists, and the
politicians who have been bought and paid for by the telco's (ILEC's).

> I don't see anything meaningful coming from the
> Commission other than another unfunded mandate that is ultimately
> passed on to us local 9-1-1 systems.

I disagree. For the hundreds of start-up VOIP providers who will NOT be
able to gain the mandated access, the implications are meaningful
indeed.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,misc.emerg-services (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 10:38:58 -0700, John Nelson
<DieSpammerDie@njabl.org> wrote:

>First of all, the notion that the location of a cell phone caller can be
>determined quickly and reliably (without the use of GPS enabled
>handsets) is a MYTH.

Even WITH GPS, there are severe limitations to cellular ALI. One that
is consistantly ignored is the location of an iindividual inside a
shopping mall or highrise building where there is attenuation of
signal preventing the use of the GPS constellation. Or, for that
matter a situation which requires a Z coordinate.

>Yes, triangulation can narrow down the general
>vicinity (depending greatly on the density of sites within the area) but
>that's a far cry from "1234 Main Street, Apt. 3-G". So let us set aside
>the argument that cell phones provide E911 functionality. Clearly, they
>do not.

Agreed. The figure of accuracy was another ambitious goal from the FCC
where the technology was not quite as reliable as the lawyers expected
(just like the migration of land mobile services to 6.25 kHz occupied
bandwidth when they aren't even ready to go to 12.5 kHz). Perhaps they
should have asked the one or two engineers in their organization that
have not attritioned out just yet. Positioning by means of RF can be
slewed by a number of factors no one has control over, such as
multipath in an urban environment, propagation over large bodies of
water, ground conductivity, relative humidity, etc.

I sell the idea by the notion of "aiming low." When the lofty goals
are set aside, knowing "something" about where a caller is located is
better than knowing "nothing."

Now, all I and other 9-1-1 coordinators who are not fortunate to be
leaders in the field working in well-funded/ high profile environments
need (besides a better regulatory environment and politicians who take
9-1-1 more seriously) is more than one site in our outlying wireless
coverage so that there can be another point to triangulate from.

Steve

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,misc.emerg-services (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 12:26:13 -0700, John Nelson
<DieSpammerDie@njabl.org> wrote:

>In article <rni191hogoj58flupakt8ij7adoocp3fmg@4ax.com>, smakky@spam.com
>says...
>> I don't see anything meaningful coming from the
>> Commission other than another unfunded mandate that is ultimately
>> passed on to us local 9-1-1 systems.
>
>I disagree. For the hundreds of start-up VOIP providers who will NOT be
>able to gain the mandated access, the implications are meaningful
>indeed.

Yes, this is of consequence to the VoIP providers. But the competitive
telephone industry is so fluid that it seems to run in cycles. Back in
the CLEC craze of about 1999 - 2000, we were barraged with
interconnection agreements (we require a contractual relationship to
send into the selective router). Nearly all of these have gone
bankrupt simply due to the competitive nature of their own industry.
Only a few remain.

We'll see how this endures - and what will happen once the ILECs feel
that piping broadband into everyone's home and replacing tip and ring
with a line-powered modem and POTS interface better meets long term
business. If that ever comes to fruition I've got to wonder what will
come of the smaller VoIP companies.

Don't get me wrong - I do appreciate the requirement to provide ANI/
ALI information, however Congress should have assessed the impact to
local governments in certain operating situations prior to turning
loose another free rider.

Steve