Comments for FCC just doesn't understand your Lingo

FCC just doesn't understand your Lingo

2005-11-29T15:26:23Z

I was notified by a VoIP affiliate program that they are no longer carrying Lingo within their VoIP affiliate portfolio due to e911 requirements by the FCC. Lingo does not currently conform to e911 requirements and therefore they are restricting their marketing efforts. As you probably were aware, the FCC order specifically prohibits marketing and acquiring new customers for any VoIP provider that is not e911 compliant. So does this mean the end for Lingo or any similar VoIP provider? Sure they could add e911, but that will take time and money. Considering cellular companies are not e911 compliant and they've had 10 years to work on the problem it is odd that the FCC is coming down so hard on VoIP.

Also, the FCC order is extremely vague as to what constitutes "marketing" or acquiring new customers. For instance, I still see Vonage commercials on TV and I don't think Vonage is completely e911-compliant in every region in the U.S. yet. But Vonage could argue their TV commercials are not designed to acquire new customers but rather it's a "brand awareness" campaign designed to show market leadership and to RETAIN existing customers. After all, a VoIP provider that spends millions on TV ads must have strong financials, right? (and please don't bring up the millions of dollars of marketing Genuity spent on their Black Rocket campaign and which is now defunct ;) )

Point being, the FCC should not have a right to restrict VoIP companies from retaining their existing customers through brand awareness campaigns. Considering the FCC board members are appointed by a Republican Administration and Republicans are known for being pro-business, the FCC's stance on this issue is quite surprising. It also just seems un-American to prevent a business from keeping their existing customers. In fact, an argument could be made that the FCC order is stifling VoIP companies from freedom of expression and indeed freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.

VoIP providers should be allowed to start their brand awareness through marketing regardless of the status of meeting the e911 requirements. They can simply turn away customers and not sign them up until they meet the FCC requirements or be fined by the FCC. And speaking of fines, what the heck are the fines for violating the FCC e911 order? Is it a flat-rate fine per violation? Is there an incremental increase for repeated offenses? What if a customer is in an area where e911 is served then moved to a rural area where their is no e911 - does the VoIP provider have to terminate the service or face a fine? How many offenses before the FCC removes your right to do business in the U.S.? The FCC has been very vague in this area which is leading to a lot of confusion in the industry. Besides the e911 requirement, the issue of "what is the punishment?" may be one reason why Lingo has decided to pull back on their marketing.

On a related note, Packet8 announced today that they are e911 compliant for all of their Packet8 subscribers and which was developed in partnership with Level 3.

Comment from Dennis on 2005-12-01

2005-12-01T13:45:27Z

Quit your whining about poor old Vonage. If Packet8 can meet the FCC mandate, then every other VoIP company should be required to do so - or accept their punishment.

Comment from Tom Keating on 2005-12-01

2005-12-01T15:03:43Z

Actually as far as I know Packet8 has NOT met the FCC mandate for e911. Even using Level3 which has the largest e911 footprint, they only cover 70% of the U.S. That still leaves 30% unserved.

Packet8 used some carefully crafted words in their press releases to make it "seem" like they are e911 compliant.

But the truth is another story. I'm going to post a map of Packet8's e911 coverage map in 5 minutes. It will be located here:
http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/packet8/packet8-e911-coverage-map.asp

So sorry, but I will continue to whine and bitch over the FCC's impossible e911 timetable & mandate.

Comment from Jim John on 2005-12-04

2005-12-05T03:28:55Z

Tom, when will you apologize to Packet8 CEO? Here is his response to your WMD map evidence. Ha Ha...

http://community.packet8.net/public_journal.php?m=c4ca4238a0b923820dcc509a6f75849b

Comment from Tom Keating on 2005-12-05

2005-12-05T15:34:55Z

I read the complete FCC filing. Look at these three quotes below from Packet8's FCC filing.

1) "Based on currently assigned rate centers, approximately 85% of the Company’s existing subscribers are in an area where Level3 maintains physical interconnectivity with the PSAP covering that area."

I already knew that Packet8 is using Level3, which gives Packet8 an 85% footprint. I did not read much in the FCC filing that clarified how Packet8 was reaching 100% compliance for the remaining 15%.

However, there was this quote that suggested a workaround, but it doesn't appear to be "true e911" solution that routes DIRECTLY to the proper PSAP:
2) "Using a straight distribution across the 85% of the Company’s subscribers in interconnected areas, approximately 7.9% of the Company’s subscribers are currently certified by the PSAPs to access nomadic E911 services that transmit all 911 calls to the appropriate PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority utilizing the Selective Router, the trunk line(s) between the Selective Router and the PSAP, and such other elements of the Wireline E911 Network as are necessary in those areas where Selective Routers are utilized. The Company is temporarily employing a third party call center staffed with Association of Public-safety Communications Officials ("APCO")-certified agents to assist in routing the 911 calls to PSAPs or first responders for the remainder of the Company’s subscribers."

This last sentence really caught my eye. Packet8 is using the third-party call center to "assist in routing the 911 calls to PSAPs"? This is a human-based workaround. When every second counts in an emergency, it just strikes me as odd that a human-based routing e911 algorithm gives Packet8 full compliance with the FCC's e911 mandate.

3) "The Company has ceased accepting new orders or provisioning new VoIP services to customers who are unable to enter an initial Registered Location that is accepted by the address verification tools and PSAP boundary information of our current nomadic E911 solution. Additionally, the Company is suspending service for existing customers with a properly provisioned initial Registered Location who notify the Company via telephone or our web portals that their Registered Location has changed to an address that is not accepted by the address verification tools and PSAP boundary information of our current nomadic E911 solution.

This last quote to me makes it quite clear that Packet8 has "ceased accepting new orders or provisioning new VoIP services to customers who are unable to enter an initial Registered Location that is accepted by the address verification tools and PSAP boundary information of our current nomadic E911 solution." If Packet8 is 100% e911-compliant and has 100% nationwide coverage, then why are they telling the FCC that they will "cease acquiring customers" with certain disqualifiers? The FCC stated VoIP providers cannot acquire new customers where e911 could not be provisioned. This last quote was the clearest indication to me that Packet8 does not have a complete e911 nationwide solution.

If I am misreading their filing, please chime in. It's located here if you want to see for yourself:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518184145