Comments for Information and Communications Technology

Comment on Telepathy Over IP Invented! by intellectual property, patents, infrigments

intellectual property, patents, infrigments — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:21:59 +0000

[...] and protect dying business models (MPAA & RIAA come to mind) I wrote this satirical post on this same topic several years ago. Seems that these issues are not going away any time [...]

Comment on QoS and Admission Control are IPT Requirements – Even for OCS by Richard

Richard — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:58:24 +0000

nice article Rick, i figured OCS would not do CAC… and RTAudio sounds good in theory, but you took the words out of my mouth (well mind) when you described how it can fail. Cheers, Richard.

Comment on Telus Mobility Switching to GSM? by Rick McCharles

Rick McCharles — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:14:21 +0000

Perhaps never apparently their CTO has stated that they will skip GSM in favour of LTE. http://www.ric.ca/blog/2008/06/telus-to-skip-gsm-next-stop-lt.html

Comment on Telus Mobility Switching to GSM? by Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:01:38 +0000

When will TELUS switch to GSM? It’s been 1/2 year since the rumour.

Comment on The VoIP E911 Problem – Solution Needed by julie kivell

julie kivell — Mon, 05 May 2008 15:06:37 +0000

Thanks Rick – you’ve provided better info and coverage than most of the media outlets!
I’m guilty of having an old home address on file with my VoIP provider (just fixed it today after 2 years) – - and I tend to agree that it’s a matter of public education and awareness. VoIP certainly isn’t *grandma’s type of phone service*….
There’s got to be an easier way for the VoIP provider to stay current with address changes. The geek in me suggests that in the next few years, all phones, regardless of use – wireless or wireline, VoIP or traditional TDM technology could have a GPS chip that could rely on wifi or wireless networks to transfer accurate address information to the e911 operator to validate location……
Cheers,
Jules

Comment on The VoIP E911 Problem – Solution Needed by Rick McCharles

Rick McCharles — Mon, 05 May 2008 11:59:41 +0000

Thanks for both of your comments on the MLTS aspects of E911.
My final comment in the article was intended to make a distinction between what I commonly refer to as “enterprise class telephony”: a professionally designed, configured and installed telephony system in a business environment vs. residential VoIP services.
The note said “all of the E911 concerns can, and are routinely addressed satisfactorily.” The keyword is “can”. I did not say that they necessarily are.
The important point is that within enterprise class telephony, E911 can be completely addressed. In fact, IP Telephony permits E911 enhancements not possible with traditional technology.
IP Telephony systems can accurately locate and report the location of a 911 caller within an enterprise’s limited geographic and administrative boundaries.
How do you handle IP Phones that move outside of those administrative and geographic boundaries? Detect the condition and do not allow the phone to activate.
Bottom line is that when it comes to enterprise telephony, there are no technological barriers limiting full E911 functionality. It is the business owners’ ethical responsibility to ensure that the telephony systems are properly installed, configured and maintained. It is the same ethical responsibility that would apply to a building’s fire detection and suppression systems.
With respect to residential VoIP services there is no practical technology-based solution to adequately address the nomadic aspects with respect to 911. In the absence of a technology solution the industry leaders, service providers, emergency operators and regulators should bear the ethical responsibility to educate consumers and to remove all processes (like call centres) that can limit the efficacy of 911 call and its response.
Rick McCharles

Comment on The VoIP E911 Problem – Solution Needed by Mark Fletcher

Mark Fletcher — Mon, 05 May 2008 10:43:37 +0000

Rick-
I agree 100% with the previous comments. MLTS E911 is a problem in many environments, however it is one that can be solved. Education is the key here. Most folks do not understand how E911 works, and therefore have no idea what that they even should or can do anything to improve their situation.
NENA (the National Emergency Number Association) has just completed the final drafts of new model legislation as well as a Technical Information Document outlining what can be done in different environments as well as some recommended best practices. These documents will go out for public review shortly, and once adopted will be available to all.
The comments made about only 14 states in the US having legislation on the books is a sad, but true fact. NENA published a model legislation document back in 2000, however there have been tremendous changes in technical capabilities over the past 8 years. Although VoIP does introduce new challenges, it is one of location discovery, very much the same issues you highlighted in your article. It is important to remember it is not the technology of VoIP that makes E911 problematic, it is the ability for a user to move themselves without administrative intervention.
The problem herein is that the FCC in the US delegated this down to the state level, and there is no over arching control point for uniform rules, regulations and requirements. Many legal experts will argue this may even be an OSHA issue, and that can carry stiff penalties in itself.
In any case, businesses need to take steps to protect themselves, and their employees, and the best first step is public education. People do not know the issue exists, or assume that the fix is in place when it is in fact not even addressed. A great podcast that I recorded with Guy Clinch from Avaya for the Voice Report is available to those interested at http://thevoicereport.com/TelecomJunkiesArchive-E911.
This is an excellent overview on the problem at hand, as well as some simple explanations and suggestions of what to do.
MLTS operators need to understand E911, and their risk. Lives are at stake, and ignoring the problem will in no way make it go away. Many of this will be fixed with NextGen E911, but that is a whole other topic for another time.
Mark Fletcher, ENP
Nortel E911 Product Manager
NENA MLTS Technical Committee Chairperson

Comment on The VoIP E911 Problem – Solution Needed by Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 04 May 2008 20:52:07 +0000

Rick,
I agree with 99% of your article, and kudos for raising the public concern. The part that I don’t agree with is your last note, “The 911 challenges discussed above relate to nomadic and residential VoIP or Internet Telephony services. When it comes to IP Telephony services for business, all of the E911 concerns can, and are routinely addressed satisfactorily.”
Although it is entirely true that just about all of the mobility concerns with business IP Telephony CAN be addressed, the fact that they ARE addressed is far from correct. Not only does nomadic IP Telephony challenge most business Multi Line Telephone System (MLTS) operators, traditional telephony is also not being addressed by managers as well.
Businesses quite often forget about this crucial part of the implementation of any MLTS communications system, and improper Caller ID (the trigger for proper E911 resolution) is commonly sent on 9-1-1 calls.
The fact that only 14 states in the US actually have any laws on the books dealing with MLTS E911 requirements is a shocking testimony of the failure of legislation to recognize this tragedy waiting to happen. It is only when someone looses a life is the problem even discussed, and that is unfortunately too late for many. Families are left with out fathers and mothers from a simple configuration mistake or lack of planning.
in the US it is estimated that over 60,000,000 people spend their workday being serviced by an MLTS. I would estimate that 70% of those systems do not have E911 properly or efficiently provisioned. It’s time for government to wake up and take notice before more lives are lost.

Comment on QoS and Admission Control are IPT Requirements – Even for OCS by Julian Galley

Julian Galley — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 07:40:43 +0000

Great summary Rick. Have been doing research on this as well for presentations on “competing” UC solutions. Came across this feature comparison between Cisco Unity and Microsoft Exchange 2007 Unified Messaging. Thought you might be interested.
http://blogs.pointbridge.com/Blogs/mcgillen_matt/Pages/Post.aspx?_ID=5
I think you summarized it best when you said that “when a vendor can’t do something you tend to hear an awful lot about why you don’t need it”.

Comment on TELUS Enhances Short Messaging Service with Innovative Cisco IP NGN Technology by David H. Deans

David H. Deans — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:58:25 +0000

FYI, you can Find a Managed Service Provider via the Cisco Powered program that offers IP NGN benefits globally