WASHINGTON-Just days before the Senate Commerce Committee is scheduled to consider the VoIP Regulatory Freedom Act of 2004, public-safety officials were urged Thursday by their national association to tell lawmakers to change the bill or vote it down.
“The absence of any form of regulatory framework would allow Voice over Internet Protocol providers to choose to simply notify their customers that they will not have traditional 911 services. The rapid proliferation of this new technology under these circumstances could create an immeasurable step backward for 911. Public safety’s ability to deal with the needs of the public may indeed diminish proportionately to the rapid expansion of VoIP technology. The Association of Public-safety Communications Officials has taken a strong position against this and has advocated to Congress to authorize the Federal Communications Commission to regulate VoIP enhanced 911,” said APCO.
The VoIP Regulatory Freedom Act, introduced by Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.), is expected to be considered by the Senate Commerce Committee Tuesday.
According to APCO, the VoIP Regulatory Freedom Act calls for only “voluntary” 911 standards. “APCO urges the public-safety communications community to contact their elected officials to let them know that public safety does not support ‘voluntary’ standards for VoIP E911,” reads the call to action.
The biggest 911 concern about VoIP is the same as that for wireless in the early 1990s. When someone uses VoIP on a laptop or other mobile device and calls 911, where does the call go? How does the computer know to send the call to the nearest public-safety answering point? After struggling with the wireless industry to get location technology retrofitted onto an existing system, public-safety wants location built into VoIP at the front end.
As the Senate Commerce Committee prepares to act on the VoIP bill, the telecommunications and high-tech industries have been telling the FCC how-or if-VoIP should be regulated.
“Declaring that VoIP services are interstate services not subject to state jurisdiction would avoid a patchwork of state laws and provide regulatory clarity needed to spur investment,” said the Consumer Electronics Association. “Piecemeal state regulations of this interstate service would stifle the advancement of this new form of communication.”
