The only downside is the emergency 911 service being unavailable over
VOIP, and the problems of getting something to do what E911 does are
tremendous.  When VOIP hits the point where non-technical people are
adopting it the gov't is going to require it, which will then cause
companies to start charging us.

The probability of calling 911 is very low.  The probability of needing
to call 911 and not being able to give location information is lower
Asthma, heart attack, allergic reaction - all can make it difficult to
understand an address if the caller happens to know it in the first
place.  The consequences of not being able to do so when needed are so
large that many people will choose to keep basic phone service on
premise even if they use another method fo normal calls.

I suspect that the two will converge along with IPv6 which will have an
easier location based IP tracking, though still far from pin-point.  Of
course, current addressing relies on IPv4 addressing, so it won't apply
now.  But since there are 4x10^20 addresses per square inch of the
earth's surface (including water, which makes up about 70% of that) then
it should be trivial to tie IP addresses to large geographical areas (A
state or region).  Then a reverse DNS lookup with specific location info
(ISP's location in the coarsest cases, or reference to the ISP's
geo-location server).  Of course, GPS is getting down in price so every
portable voip phone will have that capability.

Still not trivial...

-Adam

Picdude wrote:

>Are there any VoIP providers to date that have decent-quality sound?  So far,
>I've not found it to be so great (example my cousin uses Vonage in FL and
>phone service is frequently choppy).  Any ideas how Packet 8 works?  Any
>others?
>
>I'm considering this since the US supreme court recently overturned the FCCs
>ruling to allow non-Bell companies to compete for local phone service over
>existing (Bell) infrastructure.  If my current carrier (MCI) goes out of the
>local-service business, I'd just drop my telephone line since SBC has really
>poor customer service out here.  Cellphone service (sound quality) is not
>great either, and BPL is just a dream still AFAIK.
>
>Any of you folks have thoughts on this recent decision of the US courts to
>reverse the ruling that allows non-Bell companies to provide local phone
>service?  I think it would be bad for us consumers, not just from a $
>standpoint, but also since we'd be compelled to use a companies that don't
>have to provide decent customer service.
>
>Anyway, I'm surfing for answers on this and thought some of you might have
>ideas on what could happen if this ruling reversal sticks, and what the
>practical options might be.
>
>Cheers,
>-Neil.
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
>email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body
>
>
>
>
>

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body