On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 13:20 -0400, Bruce N wrote: > Interesting again. CRTC doesn't require location info as long as you > have a Caller ID being passed?! Does this mean, no updates to psap are > required by law?
PSAPs don't have CallerID in the way you are thinking. They have a completely separate system which shows calling number and address information. No address updates are required to PSAPs (from VOIP providers). Or put more accurately, PSAPs do not accept updates from VOIP providers. They way VOIP 911 works is this; VOIP customer dials 911. Call is routed to an operator (usually in a 3rd party 911 call center like Northern911) who asks the nature of the emergency and the callers location. Based on the information provided, the call is then sent to the correct PSAP (if the area is served by 911) or directly to fire/ambulance/police if no PSAP serves that area. As far as regulation goes; that is where it stops (Note there is no mention of callerid, or anything else). However, most 3rd party 911 providers offer a type of "enhanced" 911 where they will accept callerid as a key and lookup the callers address in a database. That address information is only used if the caller does not verbally provide address information. ---- Now straying slightly off topic; this created an interesting situation a few years back when the family of Elija Luck (the young boy in Calgary) called 911, the comwave operator could not verbally verify their address information (for reasons that were never revealed). Comwave dispatched emergency crews to the address on file which was still listed as a Mississauga (Ontario) address. Despite the fact that there was absolutely no obligation on Comwave's part to dispatch to an address on file based on callerid, the CRTC never the less blamed Comwave for failing to live up to the regulations. This is where it becomes obvious that the CRTC is only interested in protecting their own ass. When it started to look like lack of proper regulation would be blamed, they actually re-wrote the rules on the fly and said something to the effect of Comwave didn't live up to the spirit of the regulation. Comwave just wanted the whole thing to go away so they wisely paid a undisclosed settlement to the family and accepted the CRTC ruling (there was no penalty). Regards, -- John Lange http://www.johnlange.ca --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
