RE: Ofcom VoIP Public Forum
- Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:00:27 -0000
As Jim suggests it is not easy to establish location services at Layer 3 and above. Indeed quite a lot of effort has gone into privacy extensions for instance in IPv6 to try to protect against device traceability through embedded MAC addresses in an autoconfigured IP address.
Some work is ongoing with wifi location services at a local (lower) level. I got a note this morning from http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/columns/article.php/3324801
"Boston-based Newbury Networks holds the patent to technology for managing and securing wireless networks. Used in its Wi-Fi Watchdog product, Newbury's patent says this technology "detects the real-time position and tracks the location of any 802.11 device over a wireless LAN."
This looks very localised and difficult to know how it might scale so is a very different scenario to those envisaged within PATS (even for mobile operators)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: enum-trials-admin@localhost [
> Behalf Of Stastny Richard
> Sent: 15 March 2004 23:37
> To: Christian de Larrinaga; Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP); Kennedy, Steve
> Subject: AW: Ofcom VoIP Public Forum
> Just coming back from the next public forum in Brussels, I consider
> this whole dicussion very curious. Caused by a circular
> definition in the Universal
> Service Directive (John Horrocks said this is trap laywers
> normally learn to avoid in the
> first year of university), now whole Europe is going round in circles.
> What is is even more funny is the fact, that numbers ar normally
> used to be called, and not to
> call somebody (except for CLI). Now one can say ok, to call an
> emergency service you have to
> display a CLI to be called back and also for identification (how
> many anonymous pre-paid cards
> are out there? 200 million?)
> So from the number you also get the location - aha that is the
> reason. So you get a location
> on mobile calls - since when? Nobody cared 10 years ago.
> But you could make emergancy calls from mobile phone from the
> beginning. Nobody
> came up with the idea to say: You MUST NOT make emergency calls
> from mobile
> phone until you can provide the exact location, identification
> and number to call back
> on a mobile phone.
> BTW, with mobile phones it is a REQUIREMENT to be able to make
> emergency calls
> to 112 without a SIM card, which means without identification and
> also without number.
> So what is a requirement in mobile phone is prohibited in VoIP.
> Only because a in a piece of paper is logically flawed..
> Thats legistic logic.
> IMHO we should really try to find ways to allow emergency services
> for VoIP in whatever way proves possible.
> I do not like babies to burn because of a piece of legal crap.
> -----Ursprngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Christian de Larrinaga 
> Gesendet: Mo 15.03.2004 19:11
> An: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP); Kennedy, Steve
> Betreff: RE: Ofcom VoIP Public Forum
> > Hi Folks,
> > note the amusing bit - must NOT provide Emergency service, ...
> > i.e. one can't provide even a partial outgoing service - VoIP
> > users MUST be left to drown/burn/... without informing anyone,
> > if incoming calls to them are provided via a number in
> the 056x range.
> > I wasn't at the meeting, and looking at the discussion document
> > I hadn't realised that this was the intention of the Regulator.
> > If that *was* stated at the meeting, then does this mean that,
> > were it possible to connect to the emergency services centre
> > by dialling out to 999 via a PSTN gateway (albeit without the
> > emergency services knowing the correct geo-loc of the caller
> > *automatically*), doing so would break the rules?
> Ofcom is essentially asking for INPUT as to whether what
> they call voice
> over broadband services (VoB) can be PATS compliant (they
> think NOT but have
> said they are OPEN to being told different).
> Actually the problem is the old one of the Regulator
> thinking about an
> Internet service in terms of a telephone service and so are
> fixated on the
> Public Access Telephony Provisions as applied to a narrow
> range of IP voice
> services which they define as VoB. (typically a steam phone
> connected to an
> ATA box into DSL).
> It is clear that PATS provisions are regarded as inflexible
> and you take on
> *ALL* of PATS (including those bits which are clearly
> specific to telecoms
> QoS issues and so not a good fit for Internet services) or none.
> So just setting up a number plan to route 999 to an
> emergency number call
> centre is not enough to comply with PAT. It is not clear
> for instance that
> provisioning 18.104.22.168.4.e164.arpa would answer the PAT's
> question even if it
> answered a significant part of the issue of access to
> emergency services.
> Ofcom has got very concerned for the UK's babysitters.
> They have described a scenario where a babysitter discovers
> a fire, picks up
> VoB phone dials 999, nobody answers and so the unfortunate
> babies burn and
> Ofcom have to deal with tabloids screaming "Ofcom Internet
> phones kill
> family ..."
> So the afternoon session at Ofcom concentrated entirely on
> taking input from
> delegates how to inform consumers reliably that a phone
> that looks like a
> phone, behaves like a phone may NOT fully behave like a
> phone and offer
> emergency services etc.
> One of the things that came out on the day is the very
> significant pressure
> being applied on Ofcom to not only provide non geographic
> 056 numbers to IP
> users but also full geographic numbers.
> It seems that Ofcom have been approached by a significant
> number of telecoms
> dealers trying to sign up estate agencies to VoB who apparently are
> demanding they are given local telephone numbers
> irrespective of whether
> they are using IP or PSTN devices because they wish to be
> known as "local"!
> This issue also plays a significant part in Ofcom's
> consultation. So we
> should expect to see a number of consultation demands for
> the full UK e164
> geographic number range to be used for VoB numbers and not
> just 056 as Ofcom
> > Was it also stated that a non-PACS provider must NOT provide
> > any of the other services under the normal obligations?
> > Gosh!
> > I had thought that the original intention was that customers
> > should KNOW that they were getting a service that MIGHT not
> > provide all of the good things under the obligations *as they
> > are normally defined*; not that partial provision was barred.
> see above.
> > I do so love Regulations.
> In which case you will be very pleased to learn that OFcom
> regard the PATS
> provisions as untouchable because they form part of an EU Directive.
> So it's the EU's fault :-)