Landline phone or VOIP phone?

[AlecWest]

I used to be a Vonage customer but have since terminated my account. And at first, I was looking for another VOIP provider. But lately, I've been thinking about going back to landline phone usage ... until VOIP providers get their acts together regarding 911 service.

As the old joke about academia goes, we all know what "B.S." means. "M.S." means more of the same. And "Ph.D." means piled higher and deeper. But a real-life situation that involved "BSing" on the part of my broadband telephone company escalated to something altogether worse.

If you don't know what a broadband phone is, here's a brief explanation. Except for those people who rely primarily on cellphone service, most people have "landline" service through one of the "Baby-Bell" companies like QWest, Verizon, BellSouth, etc., etc. But a growing percentage of the population has chosen to experiment with VOIP (short for "Voice Over Internet Protocol"). I decided to join that percentage in December, 2003, and signed up for telephone service through Vonage.com, a company in Edison, NJ. Here's how it worked.

Vonage sent me a Motorola "converter" box. I plugged my ordinary telephone into one input and plugged the converter into my router ... connected directly to my Comcast cable-internet service. When I picked up the phone, I heard a dialtone (just like everybody else). I dialed a number (just like everybody else). And I connected with people on cellphones, landline phones, and all other kinds of phones. And, if they wanted to contact me, they'd merely dial my Vonage phone number (just like any other phone number) and my phone would ring (just like everybody else's phone rings).

From December, 2003 until mid-July, 2005, I couldn't have been happier with the service. For $27.24 (includes taxes) a month, I could make free calls anywhere in the United States and Canada. That's a lot better than most rates charged by "Baby Bell" companies. Sure, if your cable went out, you couldn't make calls ... or if you had a power failure, you couldn't make calls. But I expected that and bought myself a cheap TracFone cellphone for backup purposes in case of an emergency. With TracFone, you don't pay any kind of monthly fee nor do you have to sign contracts. You simply "buy minutes," code some info into the cellphone, and bingo - you're good to go ... and are charged only by minutes of usage. When you run low on minutes, you just buy more minutes. But back to my VOIP service.

VOIP phones have one distinct disadvantage. Due to the nature of the technology (and Federal laws), VOIP numbers are exempt from "DO-NOT-CALL-LIST" enforcement. Fortunately, VOIP numbers are all unlisted numbers ... and no VOIP provider sells customer info to third parties. But, during everyday life, we all give out our phone numbers to various people. If you put the number on your checks, every check you write reveals it. And some businesses you might deal with are more than happy to make a buck by selling your phone number to a direct-marketing entity. Sadly, that's what happened to me.

I started getting aggressive telemarketing calls ... lots of them. It got so bad that I finally just routed all calls to my voicemail queue ... answering back to only those people I knew later. But, clever me, I decided on a plan of action. I'd change my phone number with Vonage (cost, $10). And since I have a cellphone for emergencies anyway, decided to disable the ringer and cellphone voicemail. Then, I'd list my cellphone number on my checks ... as well as give it out to people in the course of doing business. But, when I started the process of changing my number with Vonage, a darker side to them (and potentially other VOIP providers) emerged.

As soon as my new number was active, I went online to my Vonage control panel and activated their 911 service on July 14, 2005 (you have to "activate" it for it to work). In theory, they're supposed to send out an email letting you know when the activation process is completed. The last time I did this with my old number, it took less than a day. This time, I waited, and waited, and waited, and finally got an email back on July 23rd telling me, "Sorry, we cannot activate 911 service because your address failed our address matching test." I sent a polite but firm email to their customer service department, reminding them that 911 service is part of what I'm paying for and asked what had to be done to activate it. Then I waited, and waited, and waited. Finally on July 29th, I got tired of waiting and called Vonage ... trying to ascertain a solution to the problem. Their rep, Anthony, told me it was an "internal" matter ... that Vonage would have to "force activate" the service for me. When I asked how long this would take, he said 48-72 hours. That sounded reasonable to me.

But shortly afterward, I started getting a flurry of emails from Vonage, all saying the same thing -- "Sorry, we cannot activate 911 service because your address failed our address matching test." On August 1st, I sent an email to Vonage customer service asking them what all those emails meant. Their rep, Xaviel, responded. She said they were attempting to force-activate the service ... to just be patient ... and got the same 48-72 hours promise. So, I replied to her saying that Vonage was in breach of their contract with me starting on July 14th ... charging me, in part, for a service they were not providing. But, I told her I was willing to give Vonage the benefit of the doubt. I told her I'd give Vonage 120 hours to activate the service. If they did, fine. If not, I'd terminate my account. And, a little over 120 hours later, that's just what I did. And, I started shopping around for another VOIP provider (there are several).

But, this is where the plot thickens. All this time I was a Vonage customer, I naturally assumed I had working 911 service. In 2003 when I initially activated my service, 911 activation completed successfully less than a day later (or so they told me). However, in a brief web-search to see if others had a 911 activation problem with Vonage, I found something very disturbing. Vonage was being sued under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by the Texas Attorney General. Why? Rather than explain, and if you ever plan to consider VOIP service, I cannot urge you strongly enough to take nine minutes of your time to watch the short RealVideo excerpt from a news conference where the Texas A.G. announces his lawsuit to the press. Click here if you only have a modem connection ... or here if you have a high-speed broadband connection. In that video, you'll hear what happens when you call 911 on a Vonage phone ... and see the principals in an incident that sparked the lawsuit.

In short, I may have been paying for a service I never had at all ... ever. Vonage urges customers "not to test" their 911 service (since it supposed to be used ONLY for emergent calls). Other VOIP carriers urge the same thing. But in light of the call you'll hear in that video, I wonder if their urgings aren't motivated by a reason other than the obvious one. Imagine going to a store to buy some pepper-spray for personal defense, only to have the store clerk hand you a closed bag, saying, "Whatever you do, don't open this bag until you need to use the spray." Then later, imagine needing to use the pepper-spray, opening the bag, and finding it empty.

[lumis]

wow, that is pretty sick of vonage to do.. who knows if they've actually caused people to lose their lives by their negligence.. were they saving a few bucks by not providing the service, while still charging you for it? it shouldnt even be an optional service, it should be required..

i still dont like the idea of internet/electricity required telephones.. i know there has been many times my internet and/or power has gone out, but my phone was still working.. the only way i would use vonage or another VOIP company was if i were a business or person who needed to make a lot of long distance calls..

still though, vonage has blood on their hands and shouldnt be let off.

[AlecWest]

There is possible relief in sight. In May, the FCC mandated all VOIP carriers to be e911 compliant no later than the end of November. But currently, a few VOIP providers are crying foul ... claiming the FCC isn't giving them enough time. I find it odd since, in Canada, a similar deadline passed one week ago today ... and according to an article in the Globe & Mail:

“So far we've not heard from any of those companies that they will not be able to provide those services,” said Paul Godin, a spokesman for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

The funny thing is (or perhaps not so funny) is that a lot of the VOIP providers in Canada are the same VOIP providers in the US who are cyring foul. And to my knowledge, there is no significant difference between 911 calling in Canada and 911 calling in the US.

FWIW, here's an interesting article published just yesterday:

http://digitalhomecanada.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=590&Itemid=51

Primus Canada has announced the rollout of e911 service. The difference? "Basic" 911 (or "b911" service) allows the person to dial 911 and reach a "public safety access point" ... kind of like a receptionist who later transfers your call to a specific call center once your address is verified. With "Enhanced" 911 (or "e911" service), you dial 911 ... and your calls go to the exact same operator a landline phone user would reach ... direct into your neighborhood 911 call center.

The reason I found the article interesting is because one of the VOIP providers I was considering is Lingo:

http://www.lingo.com

They are a subsidiary of Primus Communications ... and if they've got e911 nailed down in Canada, it's quite possible they'll be rolling it out in the US soon. I can always hope. FWIW, with Lingo, you pay $19.95 a month and can call free anywhere in the USA, Canada, the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Ireland, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Luxembourg, Vatican City, Norway, Portugal, and Spain.

[reboot]

I've been looking a Primus in Canada, but like all the others (Vonage included), they don't have service directly in my area, and I'd have to have a phone number in some other city that's miles away.

[AlecWest]

FWIW, I think I know what one of the problems is in the United States. In three words:

THE PATRIOT ACT

VOIP phones are "portable" ... even those where e911 is enabled. All you have to do is plug it into a live ethernet port and you can make calls. So, if you called up a government office, told them you were a terrorist threatening to set off a bomb somewhere, the FBI would promptly send out agents to your location ... only to find an empty house (because you were plugged into an ethernet port 2,000 miles away).

[MeDiCo_BrUjO]

You can buy a Tracfone in walmart for $20 and do the exactly same thing, so, what's their point?

It's not like its the only way to do that and get away with it.

[jackal70058]

I've never hear mch complain about Vonage. But I never have it so I don't really know.

I know that, if making much long distance call, it is cheap. But if you not, is no big deal. Call to Canada, and United States is included, but calling to Mexico is not. That sucks.

Use the calling card with your home-phone if you wanted to, it just like the Track Fone but with the land line.

Most security system require land base phone line, except if use the AlarmNet. I use AlarmNet and I suggest everyone do.

AT&T has broadband phone service. You might give it a shot.

[AlecWest]

You can buy a Tracfone in walmart for $20 and do the exactly same thing, so, what's their point?

The point is that Vonage customers (and possibly other VOIP customers) are paying for a service that they're not getting ... and a vital service at that. Why is it that when this happens with other companies (paying for something you don't get), everybody understands why people complain ... but when it comes to this company, the complaints are dismissed as trivial?

At least one state Attorney General doesn't think it's trivial. Others may jump on board later if the FCC's mandated November deadline for e911 compliance is pushed back (or ignored). Vonage is just the first VOIP provider to be sued. They may not be the last.

[AlecWest]

still though, vonage has blood on their hands and shouldnt be let off.

Possibly including the blood of a dead baby:

http://www.wesh.com/print/4461222/detail.html

FWIW, the only reason the Texas lawsuit made national news is because it was filed by the Attorney General. But according to the article above, Vonage is the defendant in several lawsuits in several states. Makes me wonder which other VOIP providers are defendants in lawsuits. One note on that article, though. It was published before the FCC's mandates came down later in May. Also, the website mentioned in that article (the one put up by the dead baby's mother) was also published before the FCC mandates. So, they're both a bit dated.

But, there was one interesting point in that article that refers to the e911 compliance deadline. Originally, the FCC wanted to make the deadline in late September. But, they extended that deadline to late November. So, the VOIP companies that are cyring foul ... asking for more time ... have already been given more time. And not one of those companies has bothered to answer the $64,000 question. Namely:

"OK, then, how much more time DO you need ... specifically?"

[MeDiCo_BrUjO]

You can buy a Tracfone in walmart for $20 and do the exactly same thing, so, what's their point?

The point is that Vonage customers (and possibly other VOIP customers) are paying for a service that they're not getting ... and a vital service at that. Why is it that when this happens with other companies (paying for something you don't get), everybody understands why people complain ... but when it comes to this company, the complaints are dismissed as trivial?

At least one state Attorney General doesn't think it's trivial. Others may jump on board later if the FCC's mandated November deadline for e911 compliance is pushed back (or ignored). Vonage is just the first VOIP provider to be sued. They may not be the last.

I was talking about the patriot act; about what you were saying regarding plugging a VOIP phone in ahother place and call a public building to do a bomb threat.

You can buy a tracphone for $20 at Walmart and do the same bomb threat!.

For the rest I agree completely with you, you were paying for a service you didn't get and that should be reimbursed for that (to say the least).

[MeDiCo_BrUjO]

And the companies are to be blamed and held responsible for the deaths due to the lack of 911 service when it was needed.

[jackal70058]

911 never works here. Don't know what complaing about.

[AlecWest]

911 never works here. Don't know what complaing about.

Actually, you've raised a very good point. QWest (my local landline carrier) recently had an "outage" that denied people access to 911 for nearly a half hour. A lot of sh*t can happen in 30 minutes in a large metro area like Portland, Oregon.

After the e911 mandate deadline passes ... and, in theory, everyone can dial 911 and get directly routed to the emergency response center ... I'd like to see the FCC do routine unannounced inspections of landline, cell, and VOIP companies to make sure they're towing the line (and fine them if they're not, as well as threatening to take away their business licence and let competitors who CAN do the job take over).

I was talking about the patriot act; about what you were saying regarding plugging a VOIP phone in ahother place and call a public building to do a bomb threat.

You can buy a tracphone for $20 at Walmart and do the same bomb threat!.

Oh, sorry I guess I misunderstood. FWIW, shortly after the dead baby incident, Vonage went into damage control mode ... releasing a statement that the mother was lying ... that they had proof she'd contacted the police twice on her Vonage phone.

Ahem ... you know what those 2 contacts were? They were the two calls she made to 911 that were answered ... each time by a "recording" ... and each time on a sheriff's non-emergency line. When a TV station pointed out that the two calls were handled in that manner, Vonage very contritely did a backstep and said, "we're working on the problem."

[lumis]

vonage deserves some stiff penalties & their CEO's should do some jail time.. not providing an essential service like 911 should not be allowed..

one thing i have noticed in states outside my own is if you phone gets disconnected, you can still dial 911 and reach emergency personel (and also call 1-800 numbers).. but in my state, once your phone is disconnected you cant call anyone.. you just get a busy signal tone on the telephone for a few weeks, after that the phone is dead.. complete silence.

i think at the least a phone, even if the bill has not been paid, should have access to 911 service.. now i'm not saying that every single disconnected phone should have 911 service.. that would have a bunch of phones in abonded houses available for prank calls.. rather you should have to register with the phone company and/or local authorities telling them that you dont want a phone or cant afford to have one, but would still like access to 911 service.. just because you're poor or dont want your phone ringing off the hook all day doesnt mean you shouldnt have access to 911 service.. it's a lifeline that should be accessible to anyone regardless of income.

[AlecWest]

vonage deserves some stiff penalties & their CEO's should do some jail time.. not providing an essential service like 911 should not be allowed..

FWIW, Cheryl Waller (the dead baby's mom) was interviewed on CNN's Anderson Cooper show just 2 weeks ago (August 12th). If having a dead baby isn't bad enough, read this transcript excerpt from the show:

COOPER: Cheryl, did you try to call Vonage -- I mean, the next day, I understand you called them. What did they say to you?

WALLER: They actually laughed and said that they could not revive a baby.

COOPER: Wait a minute. The person you called at that company laughed?

WALLER: Yes. It was a woman named Marcia. She was laughing at me. She says, "I can't revive a baby." And then she thought she put me on hold, and she went in the background for another five minutes and laughed about it, joked about it.

COOPER: We spoke to a representative of Vonage who refused to address specifically the question of whether the death of your daughter had to do with the service, but they did say this. They said, quote, "Our hearts go out to the Waller family, and we're doing everything in our power to make sure that this never happens again. In the meantime, we're sending calls to live, manned emergency service centers. In the event we cannot send the calls to a live, manned emergency service center, we're sending the calls to a live, manned phone line at a local law enforcement agency." Cheryl, is this enough?

WALLER: No. Because that live, manned phone they say is at a police station could be the front desk where an operator went home for the day. That is not enough. Stop advertising you have 911. You don't have it. Stop advertising it.

COOPER: Well, Cheryl Waller, again, I appreciate you being on. I think a lot of people didn't realize this, don't realize it, and I know you want to educate the public about it. So we appreciate you taking the time to do it, as painful as it is for you, Cheryl. Thank you.

It's enough to turn my stomach. One sad thing about this whole situation is that a lot of people have chastised Waller ... saying she's just out to get money from Vonage. The truth is that she hasn't sued them and doesn't plan to sue them. She's not looking for money, she's looking for change.

i think at the least a phone, even if the bill has not been paid, should have access to 911 service.

A few years ago it wouldn't have been possible. But now, the technology to do that exists. Just as there are "addressable" cable boxes, there are "addressable" phone lines that can switch on or switch off a given optional service. Another thought.

Rather than an actual phone, how about a box that plugs into a phone outlet. The box would have only one button on it. Just press the button, 911 is called. The button could also be covered perhaps by a thin piece of swingaway plastic to prevent accidental "bump" calls to 911. The box would communicate with a wireless headset/mike. The reason I suggest that is after having listened to several 911 calls on various TV shows ... where you hear people being asked to check something ... and running back and forth between the emergency victim and the phone. A headset scenario would allow the person calling to stay with the victim while talking to the emergency operator ... saving valuable lifesaving seconds. And, the caller would have both hands free to check the victim out.

Heck, come to think of it (once I'm reconnected to a phone service), I think I'll buy a headset for that specific purpose myself.

P.S. Here's one final thought. In that article I linked to earlier at WESH-TV, Waller mentioned something that needs to be pointed out. While it's easy to blame Vonage for this (God knows they made it easy), the fact remains that the FCC should have anticipated these problems a long time ago and acted immediately to require e911 compliancy from the get-go. Out of all the balls dropped in this scenario, the government dropped the first one.

[SquirrelDip]

For the Canadians out there - keep an eye on http://www.cia.com. Currently only available in Calgary but will be moving to other larger Canadian cities soon.

I've just signed up and will try it out for a month or so... May keep it beyond that as basically it works out to having the phone for free.

$39.95 per month and includes 7Mb cable internet, unlimited local, 3 cents / min North America anytime, call display and *69... You have to pay $100 for the Motorola ATA but they give you a $100 long distance credit. They also include a small UPS with their kit.

$39.95 is also only a couple of bucks more than their the 7Mb cable alone - basically upgraded my internet from 5Mb to 7Mb and get the phone for free...

[Doramius]

Internet phones are actually easier to trace. Just like phones, there's a tacking method. Very handy, but has always been there. If you connect to an ethernet port in NJ when your service is from CA, the IP address your phone is connected to still passes. Even Tracfones can be triangulated, and quickly too. Only way to not give away where you are is to turn it off and move into another grid area.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,52396,00.html
Even when you turn off your cell, if you placed a call you can find out which cell towers the signal hit last. They'll have a pretty good idea of where you are.

It's still no excuse for the 911 service to not be working or not provided for people paying for it. It is an emergency line people conted on for SERIOUS EMERGENCIES. A recording to a sherriff is not going to help when you have a large bleeding wound and need urgent attention. Even 30 seconds has saved people's lives. You can't afford an extra 5 minuntes running to a neighbors house leaving a child victim alone and suffocating. Honestly, I'd sue the VOIP company for involuntary or neglegent manslaughter due to impedence of emergent services. It's just uncalled for.