Interesting People mailing list archives
more on E911 with no Opt Out?
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 09:26:14 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: Ed Biebel <edward () biebel net> Date: June 7, 2005 1:30:24 AM EDTTo: 'Bob Frankston' <Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com>, 'Bob Frankston' <Bob2-19-0501 () bobf frankston com>, dave () farber net, 'Ip ip' <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: RE: [IP] more on E911 with no Opt Out?My argument is not about how it is funded or the rigid protocols surrounding E911. Those have to do with specifics of delivery which I acknowledge need
improvement. The central theme of my message is that non-wired communications have a difficulty in providing precise location information to emergency responders. This information is no longer an optional piece of data in delivery of emergency service. The reality of the situation is thatnon-traditional communications services must solve this problem and time is
running out for them to do so. Beyond the regulations that may be enacted to require it, other marketpressures will force them to solve it. In Philadelphia, a lawsuit was filed challenging that a slow response time to a patient resulted in their death. Those of us in EMS have been expecting a lawsuit such as this for some time. As medical field care has improved, more and more illness can treated with
fast response. Some strokes which years ago were simply observed can betreated if a person reaches a medical facility within the first three hours. Slow response is moving into the realm of malpractice. Similar issues have developed for police and fire. Emergency services have responded by doing what we do well: documenting. Several years ago, we started noting on our patient care reports "factors affecting care". Poor location information is
a common culprit and is being well-documented.So to me, the need to solve the location issue with wireless communications
is inevitable. If the regulators don't solve it and the companies themselves don't solve it, it will only be a matter of time before the courts will. Someone will file a lawsuit challenging Skpe's failure toprovide a good location lead to a treatable medical problem going untreated.
E911 may not be the answer but it is a liability to wireless because itexists and has set that bar such that location information is a requirement.
-----Original Message----- From: Bob Frankston [mailto:Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 6:37 PM To: 'Ed Biebel'; 'Bob Frankston'; dave () farber net; 'Ip ip' Subject: RE: [IP] more on E911 with no Opt Out? I wrote a series of essays on this with http://www.frankston.com/public/writing.asp?name=vvt being an intro so I don't want to repeat all the points.E911 is rigidly defined. A set of protocols and interfaces could do far more and deliver a better service. If people care about E911 then marketing the
capability would give an advantage. Funding it through phone calls, as I keep pointing out, is strange. It's just a public utility and should be independent of the use of legacy technologies. You're arguments amounts to saying that email should be charged 35ยข amessage in order to fund the postal system. What is the path of "reasoning"
that leads from saving me from heart attacks to making VoIP immoral? -----Original Message----- From: Ed Biebel [mailto:edward () biebel net] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 18:05 To: 'Bob Frankston'; dave () farber net; 'Ip ip' Subject: RE: [IP] more on E911 with no Opt Out?I think there is a certain amount of truth in the fact that our government policy holders have difficulty wrapping their hands around new technology
and how to implement it.However, I still think that the two separate issues are intertwined. The
government is involved because it has responsibility for providing theemergency services or at least the front-end call taking for the dispatch
process. They have set the standard of what data is needed to do that properly. To streamline the access and delivery of those services, they provide access to a common gateway called E911. There are other ways toaccess the system (local numbers, a telephone company operator, etc.) but if your device claims to allow users the ability to access the E911 gateway,
you agree to provide a common set of data as part of the package -- in addition to the call, you have to provide accurate location information.The problem with the wireless and other technologies, is that they want to tell their users (or their users expect it because the device they use looks just like a wired phone and behaves just like a wired phone) that they can access the E911 system but they don't want to bear any responsibility for providing the agreed upon set of data to the gateway (E911). The RBOCs have to provide location information and undoubtedly had to modify their system
to do so. I maintain a single inexpensive landline in my home because I know thatreliable access to E911 is not a feature on my wireless service (despite the
fact my provider markets their phones in part by showing their value insummoning help) and that feature is important to me. Adding the ability to
access E911 may add cost to these non-traditional systems or make themnon-viable. But if we truly allow a market-driven approach, is it fair to
allow one system to bear the cost of providing a full data set to the emergency gateway and another system to be exempt from the cost? Other companies have worked around this obstacle successfully. My alarmcompany, because of where they choose to locate their office, cannot contact
my local PSAP via 9-1-1. They negotiated a system of accessing the PSAPthrough a 7 digit number and provide a human operator to provide accurate
location information to the PSAP.As technology expands, the concept of what constitutes a telephone will give way to a broader understanding of a communications device. But that doesn't
mean that concepts such as E911 go away because a precise and accurate location is a fundamental part of the required data set in providing emergency service. Perhaps E911 will evolve into an emergency accessgateway that you can access with any manner of communications device. This "emergency access gateway" will always require that devices sending messages
to that gateway will have to provide a current location in the data set because without location, you cannot provide the service. -Ed -----Original Message----- From: Bob Frankston [mailto:Bob2-19-0501 () bobf frankston com] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 4:25 PM To: dave () farber net; 'Ip ip' Cc: 'Ed Biebel' Subject: RE: [IP] more on E911 with no Opt Out?E911 is a good example of the problems we face in policy. It's a wonderful sound bite -- saving lives and great TV. But the implementation model shows
an inability to understand the concepts that define the Internet and the marketplace processes that drive it (and evolution). I've already written about how we could do far better by recognizing supporting a process that allows technology and services to evolve. I focused on the no-opt-out aspect to emphasize the price of stiflingpaternalism. It's akin to banning FedEx because it disrupts a funding model
used to hide subsidies to the postal system.It's not about privacy -- being able to choose to do better and to trust me
-- must all phones be E911 phones? What does that even mean? Again, we have politics trumping reality. Robert Laughlin's A DifferentUniverse goes far further in demonstrating the fallaciousness of this way of thinking -- not just in politics but within the scientific community itself.
While I don't agree with all his comments about business it should be on your required reading list. I'm trying to list such books at http://www.frankston.com/?Name=Books though it's only a start. -----Original Message-----From: owner-ip () v2 listbox com [mailto:owner-ip () v2 listbox com] On Behalf Of
David Farber Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 14:34 To: Ip ip Subject: [IP] more on E911 with no Opt Out? Begin forwarded message: From: Ed Biebel <edward () biebel net> Date: June 6, 2005 2:17:41 PM EDT To: dave () farber net Subject: RE: [IP] E911 with no Opt Out? I think there are two issues here that are intertwined that should be separated. 1. Is E911 a good thing? 2. Is the approach the FCC is taking to implementing E911 for telecommunications other traditional hard-wired telephone services correct? With respect to #1, as Emergency Services provider, I think E911 is a very good thing. E911 solved for us a critical problem, the fact that in an emergency, people do not think clearly and frequently provide incorrect information which results in people getting hurt or dying. These situations run the gamut from a child calling and giving their home address to a dispatcher instead of grandma's house (who is watching them) to motorists who are lost and could not even give the town from which they are calling let alone a precise location. As any emergency provider will tell you, with wireless phones replacing landlines this problem has again been increasing. I can tell you that even on interstates that provide easy references points (markers every tenth of a mile with only two directions of travel) that I have been dispatched to locations that are *miles* from where the actual incident is located. . You can't rely on the dispatchers to know the addresses in their area because of 911 routing. When our PSAP becomes overwhelmed, the calls bounce to the PSAP in the next county. This puts the lives of crews and the public in danger. The public receives a delay in care and the emergency responders jeopardize their lives responding to non-existent calls because of poor location information. Yes we do sacrifice some privacy but there is a great good from the sacrifice. As well, many agencies provide an "opt-out" in the form of a 7-digit traditional number which can be caller-id blocked but still allow you to contact help. In terms of #2, I think the implementation of E911 for the new technologies is what is lacking. The FCC has not caught up with the concept of a telephone not having a fixed physical location any more. GPS has helped this somewhat with wireless (GPS does not work indoors where it is used by many as the primary telephone) but is not a panacea. In order to keep the public and our emergency responders safe a method of determining a good "right now" location that reflects "locationless-ness" of new technologies has to be developed. The industry owes it to the public to help accomplish this. -Ed -----Original Message----- From: owner-ip () v2 listbox com [mailto:owner-ip () v2 listbox com] On Behalf Of David Farber Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 12:32 PM To: Ip ip Subject: [IP] E911 with no Opt Out? Begin forwarded message: From: Bob Frankston <Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com> Date: June 6, 2005 12:14:41 PM EDT To: David Farber <dave () farber net> Subject: E911 with no Opt Out? According to the latest FCC release "Begin maintaining a "Registered Location" for every customer - no opt-out allowed -that may be modified by consumers by multiple means, including use of the telephone;" I wonder what this means. Also what does it mean to attempt to impose E911 on Skype-Out. All of this assumes there is a physical device called a "telephone". It's as if we attempted to regulate email by requiring stickers on "e-mail-boxes". Perhaps it's like the attempts to pass laws requiring having someone walk along with every automobile warning horses to get out of the way. Bob Frankston http://www.frankston.com ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as edward () biebel net To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/ ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as BobIP () Bobf Frankston com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ipArchives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/
------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on E911 with no Opt Out? David Farber (Jun 07)