That's pretty close to accurate Matt. When we first started working on Kari's 
Law, the main priority was to remove the necessity of dialing any trunk access 
code in order to get to 911. That all started due to the death of Kari Hunt in 
Texas when she was being stabbed by her soon to be ex husband and Kari's 9 year 
old daughter was trying to dial 911 from the hotel phone and did not know she 
needed to dial 9 first to get out. She tried 4 times and finally grabbed her 
siblings and ran for help.

The onsite notification piece was written so that if someone in a hotel dialed 
911, the call would go directly to 911, but alert the front desk that "hey, 
room 301 just dialed 911" type of events. A lot of hotels used to tell people 
to dial something internally instead of dialing 911 and that call would go to 
theo hotel operator or the front desk instead of 911. Problem was, smaller 
hotels, middle of the night, one guy working the front desk and steps away from 
the desk. This requirement obviously extended to any MLTS system to provide on 
site notification.

And the third point of the law was basically to avoid that similar front desk 
experience. If someone dials 911, the calls should go to a fully trained and 
certified 911 call handler, not the dude at the front desk.

My company spent quite a bit of time working on and promoting Kari's law. The 
Hunt family are now very dear personal friends of ours.

Since we are on this topic of 911, if anyone would like to have a discussion 
with me on what some of the other vendors are trying to get into law that would 
end up costing every customer out there TONS of money to support, please reach 
out to me. I think it is important that everyone understand what some of these 
guys are trying to do that is only going to end up costing the customers a TON 
of money to implement.



Tim Kenyon, ENP
Conveyant Systems, Inc.
Suwanee, GA 30043

This Email and any documents accompanying this Email contain information from 
Conveyant Systems, Inc. which is confidential and/or privileged. The 
information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named on 
this Email. If you are not the intended recipient; you are hereby notified that 
any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance 
on the contents of this Email information is strictly prohibited.

From: cisco-voip <> on behalf of Matthew 
Loraditch <>
Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 4:37 PM
To: Bill Talley; Ryan Huff
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] e911

It refers to just subsection a which is the part that requires Cisco and other 
manufacturers and resellers to not build or sell a system unless it’s 
preconfigured to allow this when setup properly.

At least that’s how I read it.

Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer

p: 443.541.1518<tel:443.541.1518>

w:<>        |      





 From: cisco-voip [] On Behalf Of Bill 
Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 4:32 PM
To: Ryan Huff <>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] e911

Digging further, does this mean the law doesn't go into affect until Feb, 2020?

(b) Effective Date.—The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply with 
respect to a multi-line telephone system that is manufactured, imported, 
offered for first sale or lease, first sold or leased, or installed after the 
date that is 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Ryan Huff 
<<>> wrote:

I wonder how cloud-based phone system like Cisco spark will answer this?

Sent from my iPhone

cisco-voip mailing list<>

cisco-voip mailing list

Reply via email to