VoIP Pioneer: IP Technology Not Effectively Used in Katrina

Evslin said VoIP providers did make significant contributions. For several days, a Vonage phone was New Orleans Mayor Ray Negin’s sole link to the world outside his temporary hq in a hotel. The technology also saw use by others; FEMA used satellite-based VoIP. “IP was used very well but not nearly as well as had we been organized,” Evslin said.

VoIP could have connected people along the Gulf Coast far more quickly than PSTN simply because of VoIP’s nomadic, flexible Internet-based nature, Evslin said. At the very least, public networks such as BellSouth should have tried gambits such as setting up voice mail hubs where people could leave messages for one other, he said. “We need to get our solutions in order before the next catastrophe,” he said: “I hope next time we can come closer to reaching the potential of our technology.”

Evslin hopes govt. funding won’t go to “rebuilding obsolete networks” for BellSouth rather than using this opportunity to upgrade the region’s facilities, he said. Overall, several things didn’t work in the wake of Katrina, he said: “PSTN-thinking, the FCC, [electric] power and VoIP delivering its potential.”

Evslin spoke at the end of a day-long Communications Policy Summit integrated into the bigger event. Also speaking at the end of the summit was Vonage CEO Jeffrey Citron, who pushed a “Broadband Bill of Rights” guaranteeing users can: (1) Connect any device to the network. (2) Transmit and receive data. (3) Access anything on the Internet. (4) Have privacy. The 5th right, he said: “Always, the right to get high quality broadband of at least 1 megabit of continuous service.” Citron said Vonage and other technology companies such as Google soon will introduce the bill of rights in a white paper.

Will Telephone Numbers Go Away?

In a policy session, a panel concluded that as telephony moves toward IP-based service, traditional telephone numbers will see less use, replaced by Internet-style address systems or “names” as some put it, though it may be a long time before numbers disappear. The trend calls into question the use of numbers for regulatory purposes, such as a proposal to base universal service contributions on telephone numbers, several panelists said.

Average phone users don’t give much thought to debates like these, but they're important in terms of money, time and other factors, said consultant Marilyn Cade. Change is inevitable in industry’s current dependence on numbers and it’s important to “talk about these issues or else policymakers will think they have no alternative but to use numbers for USF and other purposes,” Cade said.

Communications lawyer Todd Daubert said regulators “shouldn’t take steps to artificially keep numbers but shouldn’t do anything to deter the use of numbers, either.” One problem is “people starting to hook things to numbers,” which might have negative results, he said. For example, if the FCC uses numbers as a contribution method, it gives people an incentive not to use numbers. That’s fine for young people who will move to another type of phone system but “it’s the old people who will be hurt.”

On another panel, an FBI official said CALEA doesn’t infringe privacy, but “enhances” it by enabling law enforcement to target interceptions rather than taking broader sweeps. Eric Mason, FBI unit chief for CALEA implementation, said FBI use of electronic surveillance is relatively infrequent due to the time factor and difficulties in getting authorization. He disputed what he called the “myth” that CALEA stifles technological innovation. The FCC recently voted in separate orders to apply CALEA to VoIP service and wireline Internet access, which Joel Margolis, asst. chief counsel at the Drug Enforcement Administration, said isn’t an overreach of Commission authority. “These are the kind of situations Congress intended to apply” to CALEA, he said.

There’s no question the FCC action will be appealed, said John Morris, staff counsel for the Center for Democracy & Technology. “CALEA will be bad for innovation” because it lets the govt. “mandate technology features and architecture,” he said. Wilhelm Wimmreuter of Siemens questioned what would happen if a potential law enforcement target used peer-to-peer systems: “Peer-to-peer SIP is getting interesting. Real P2P systems may not have a service provider so money spent in instrumenting service providers’ systems would not solve the problem” for law enforcement.

Electronic Frontier Foundation Chmn. Brad Templeton said the govt. “is still thinking in terms of a carrier with a network [but] VoIP is just an application.” Noting Mason’s comment that the number of electronic wiretaps is relatively small, Templeton said that must mean law enforcement “is asking us to redesign and spend lots of money to catch the few stupid criminals who don’t use Skype.” - Edie Herman