Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)
Remember, you could still have the costs of defending that position in a court. - Original Message - From: "Sam Tetherow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 2:27 PM Subject: Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype,Yahoo, MS) My personal opinion is that if the customer signs a waiver that they understand you are not providing 911 support and that if they dial 911 they get a message that says that 911 is not available from this device then you should be covered. I KNOW that this is contrary to the law, I'm just stating my opinion, and obviously the government has decided that I need protected from myself... Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)
My personal opinion is that if the customer signs a waiver that they understand you are not providing 911 support and that if they dial 911 they get a message that says that 911 is not available from this device then you should be covered. I KNOW that this is contrary to the law, I'm just stating my opinion, and obviously the government has decided that I need protected from myself... Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Blair Davis wrote: Actually, this is a real good question. Who would be liable when the customer picks up the phone and dials 911 and nothing happens? Sam Tetherow wrote: One interesting question would be what happens if the POTS line is down, but Matt's wonderful wireless network is up? ;) The customer would have voice service but no 911... Sorry, I just couldn't resist. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)
Actually, this is a real good question. Who would be liable when the customer picks up the phone and dials 911 and nothing happens? Sam Tetherow wrote: One interesting question would be what happens if the POTS line is down, but Matt's wonderful wireless network is up? ;) The customer would have voice service but no 911... Sorry, I just couldn't resist. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Lets take a step back... I never wrote anything about offering VOIP or 911 or E911 - I merely mentioned selling an Asterisk based phone system that is capable of redirecting long distance calls over VOIP. The customer that I mentioned is not getting their long distance through my VOIP system, they are getting it through another ITSP. The customer has four POTS lines and the 911 dialplan goes through those four lines for 911, and those lines are the responsibility of the ILEC to take care of 911 - e911 or otherwise. I have no more responsibility than any other PBX vendor who installs a system that uses POTS lines. Who is really at a lot of risk? The VOIP providers that are promising virtual PBX services over the Internet. A local PBX unit with at least one local line is going to always be able to get out, whether the Internet is working or not. The virtual PBX services are heavily dependent on the Internet connection working (and working solidly) and are toast if the connection is running poorly or completely out. FWIW, I will have the same e911 functionality on my VOIP offering that the CLECs and several major VOIP carriers are using. Turns out it isn't that hard to get setup, it just costs a fair amount to get setup the first time around. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Matt Liotta wrote: On Jun 24, 2006, at 10:15 PM, Butch Evans wrote: If you look at what Matt Larsen posted, you will see that (as I have stated twice and he stated originally) that his PBX SUPPORTS E911. You are either forgetting that or ignoring it. Here is his post again: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/2006-June/026359.html Actually, he never wrote E911 and instead wrote just 911, which is not the same thing. A POTS line may or may not support E911 depending on the area one is in. Interestingly, VoIP providers are required to support E911 even in areas that E911 is not supported by POTS lines. Some areas even have both POTS and VoIP lines that are E911 compliant, but the PSAP is not E911 capable. One might argue successfully that the VoIP provider is not compliant if they sell service in such an area. Unfortunately, the closest thing to a fact I have seen in this regard is an FCC comment stating that VoIP providers are not allowed to market services in areas that are not E911 capable. The reason for the POTS line is so that 911 calls FROM THAT BUSINESS (BUILDING) can be directed that way. The system Matt described does support E911. Not sure how you are not seeing that. The only way it does not support E911 is if the building is over a certain number of square feet (I don't care to look up the number), in which case, he will require a POTS line for the other part of the building, or get the POTS provider to accept his ANI/ALI information. You still have not made a case that what he is doing is not compliant. It just looks like arguing to me. :-) I've written specifically that it doesn't matter if you have a POTS line if there is VoIP service involved. If there is a VoIP phone line that is capable of making calls to the PSTN then that line MUST support E911. No where has the FCC stated that having a separate POTS line that does support E911 along side the VoIP line(s) is compliant. I agree that providing a POTS line to a business for the purpose of 911 follows the spirit of the regulation, but unfortunately hasn't been shown to actually be legal. BTW, I am not saying you are wrong here, but you have not convinced me (or apparently some others) that Matt is wrong. You are obviously very informed here, so please explain exactly HOW the system Matt described is NOT compliant. See above. -Matt --WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Blair Davis AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 A division of: Camp Communication Services, INC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)
You may be able to hold them to it later but you are still ultimately responsible. If a CPA screws up your taxes, you are still liable for that filing. You may have a case against them that you may or may not win in court. But you will still have to pay back taxes, and interest at best when your CPA screws up, and fines as well at worst. The same holds true for lawyers. If the legal advice is bad enough you may have a case for negligence and you may get some damages, but ultimately you are responsible for your actions and you are not going to be able to just pass the buck and say, "My lawyer said so." At best it will help mitigate intent. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Peter R. wrote: Tom, I have to go with Matt on this. I am on a lot of lists, so they get confused, but I have seen way too many people ask for advice on listservs that should have gone to either a CPA, state revenue department, or an attorney. You have no real idea who is replying. He could be giving you advice he just thought up. Telecom, especially voice, has specific legal requirements - E911, taxes and CALEA being just a few. It varies in each state. It varies in each situation (when VoIP is concerned, because what is "inter-connected"). Laws about leases and right of way also vary by jurisdiction. If you advice from a CPA or lawyer, you can hold them to it later. Not so much the list poster, cuz how do you find [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Although I am sure a lawsuit will someday be filed because someone took crazy @$$ advice from a list member). - Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)
One interesting question would be what happens if the POTS line is down, but Matt's wonderful wireless network is up? ;) The customer would have voice service but no 911... Sorry, I just couldn't resist. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Lets take a step back... I never wrote anything about offering VOIP or 911 or E911 - I merely mentioned selling an Asterisk based phone system that is capable of redirecting long distance calls over VOIP. The customer that I mentioned is not getting their long distance through my VOIP system, they are getting it through another ITSP. The customer has four POTS lines and the 911 dialplan goes through those four lines for 911, and those lines are the responsibility of the ILEC to take care of 911 - e911 or otherwise. I have no more responsibility than any other PBX vendor who installs a system that uses POTS lines. Who is really at a lot of risk? The VOIP providers that are promising virtual PBX services over the Internet. A local PBX unit with at least one local line is going to always be able to get out, whether the Internet is working or not. The virtual PBX services are heavily dependent on the Internet connection working (and working solidly) and are toast if the connection is running poorly or completely out. FWIW, I will have the same e911 functionality on my VOIP offering that the CLECs and several major VOIP carriers are using. Turns out it isn't that hard to get setup, it just costs a fair amount to get setup the first time around. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Matt Liotta wrote: On Jun 24, 2006, at 10:15 PM, Butch Evans wrote: If you look at what Matt Larsen posted, you will see that (as I have stated twice and he stated originally) that his PBX SUPPORTS E911. You are either forgetting that or ignoring it. Here is his post again: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/2006-June/026359.html Actually, he never wrote E911 and instead wrote just 911, which is not the same thing. A POTS line may or may not support E911 depending on the area one is in. Interestingly, VoIP providers are required to support E911 even in areas that E911 is not supported by POTS lines. Some areas even have both POTS and VoIP lines that are E911 compliant, but the PSAP is not E911 capable. One might argue successfully that the VoIP provider is not compliant if they sell service in such an area. Unfortunately, the closest thing to a fact I have seen in this regard is an FCC comment stating that VoIP providers are not allowed to market services in areas that are not E911 capable. The reason for the POTS line is so that 911 calls FROM THAT BUSINESS (BUILDING) can be directed that way. The system Matt described does support E911. Not sure how you are not seeing that. The only way it does not support E911 is if the building is over a certain number of square feet (I don't care to look up the number), in which case, he will require a POTS line for the other part of the building, or get the POTS provider to accept his ANI/ALI information. You still have not made a case that what he is doing is not compliant. It just looks like arguing to me. :-) I've written specifically that it doesn't matter if you have a POTS line if there is VoIP service involved. If there is a VoIP phone line that is capable of making calls to the PSTN then that line MUST support E911. No where has the FCC stated that having a separate POTS line that does support E911 along side the VoIP line(s) is compliant. I agree that providing a POTS line to a business for the purpose of 911 follows the spirit of the regulation, but unfortunately hasn't been shown to actually be legal. BTW, I am not saying you are wrong here, but you have not convinced me (or apparently some others) that Matt is wrong. You are obviously very informed here, so please explain exactly HOW the system Matt described is NOT compliant. See above. -Matt --WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)
Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Lets take a step back... I never wrote anything about offering VOIP or 911 or E911 - I merely mentioned selling an Asterisk based phone system that is capable of redirecting long distance calls over VOIP. The customer that I mentioned is not getting their long distance through my VOIP system, they are getting it through another ITSP. The customer has four POTS lines and the 911 dialplan goes through those four lines for 911, and those lines are the responsibility of the ILEC to take care of 911 - e911 or otherwise. I have no more responsibility than any other PBX vendor who installs a system that uses POTS lines. Who is really at a lot of risk? The VOIP providers that are promising virtual PBX services over the Internet. A local PBX unit with at least one local line is going to always be able to get out, whether the Internet is working or not. The virtual PBX services are heavily dependent on the Internet connection working (and working solidly) and are toast if the connection is running poorly or completely out. FWIW, I will have the same e911 functionality on my VOIP offering that the CLECs and several major VOIP carriers are using. Turns out it isn't that hard to get setup, it just costs a fair amount to get setup the first time around. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)
Lets take a step back... I never wrote anything about offering VOIP or 911 or E911 - I merely mentioned selling an Asterisk based phone system that is capable of redirecting long distance calls over VOIP. The customer that I mentioned is not getting their long distance through my VOIP system, they are getting it through another ITSP. The customer has four POTS lines and the 911 dialplan goes through those four lines for 911, and those lines are the responsibility of the ILEC to take care of 911 - e911 or otherwise. I have no more responsibility than any other PBX vendor who installs a system that uses POTS lines. Who is really at a lot of risk? The VOIP providers that are promising virtual PBX services over the Internet. A local PBX unit with at least one local line is going to always be able to get out, whether the Internet is working or not. The virtual PBX services are heavily dependent on the Internet connection working (and working solidly) and are toast if the connection is running poorly or completely out. FWIW, I will have the same e911 functionality on my VOIP offering that the CLECs and several major VOIP carriers are using. Turns out it isn't that hard to get setup, it just costs a fair amount to get setup the first time around. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Matt Liotta wrote: On Jun 24, 2006, at 10:15 PM, Butch Evans wrote: If you look at what Matt Larsen posted, you will see that (as I have stated twice and he stated originally) that his PBX SUPPORTS E911. You are either forgetting that or ignoring it. Here is his post again: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/2006-June/026359.html Actually, he never wrote E911 and instead wrote just 911, which is not the same thing. A POTS line may or may not support E911 depending on the area one is in. Interestingly, VoIP providers are required to support E911 even in areas that E911 is not supported by POTS lines. Some areas even have both POTS and VoIP lines that are E911 compliant, but the PSAP is not E911 capable. One might argue successfully that the VoIP provider is not compliant if they sell service in such an area. Unfortunately, the closest thing to a fact I have seen in this regard is an FCC comment stating that VoIP providers are not allowed to market services in areas that are not E911 capable. The reason for the POTS line is so that 911 calls FROM THAT BUSINESS (BUILDING) can be directed that way. The system Matt described does support E911. Not sure how you are not seeing that. The only way it does not support E911 is if the building is over a certain number of square feet (I don't care to look up the number), in which case, he will require a POTS line for the other part of the building, or get the POTS provider to accept his ANI/ALI information. You still have not made a case that what he is doing is not compliant. It just looks like arguing to me. :-) I've written specifically that it doesn't matter if you have a POTS line if there is VoIP service involved. If there is a VoIP phone line that is capable of making calls to the PSTN then that line MUST support E911. No where has the FCC stated that having a separate POTS line that does support E911 along side the VoIP line(s) is compliant. I agree that providing a POTS line to a business for the purpose of 911 follows the spirit of the regulation, but unfortunately hasn't been shown to actually be legal. BTW, I am not saying you are wrong here, but you have not convinced me (or apparently some others) that Matt is wrong. You are obviously very informed here, so please explain exactly HOW the system Matt described is NOT compliant. See above. -Matt --WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)
Mac, Well said. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Mac Dearman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 11:31 PM Subject: RE: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype,Yahoo, MS) If you are looking for some specialty advice (like VoIP)- you better pay for it! If you are taking the advice you get off ANY list to heart and trying to take it to the bank - you are in trouble. I agree with Tom in that his (Matt's) post was disrespectful and I agree with Larsen in his belief that as long as there is a POTS line into the business ALONG with the VoIP and * server - then the 911 issue has been met/fulfilled. Once again - this is how you and your attorney would read this and interpret the language. I have a corporate attorney who owns 20% of Maximum Access (my wireless company)and he agrees with mine and Larsen's interpretation of the language. No one said we were lighting up MTU's as that language is plainly spelled out not to mention the scenario that Matt L. pointed out. One more thing - - If Larsen posts on list that there are great demon Chicken Hawks from hell raiding the Chicken Coops all over West and they are headed our way - - - you better put the Chickens in your bed room or be prepared to suffer loss!! There are a handful of men on this list that have my utmost respect and complete trust. Larsen is one of these men as well as Scriv, Harnish and Butch boy Evans who have earned a place in the wireless society that have proven themselves to anyone and everyone that has taken the time to sit down and get to know them. I know there are more on this list and other lists, but these guys have a Carte Blanche in my book because I do know them - I know their hearts and minds, I know their intent is always for the betterment of Wireless and whomever it may be that they are speaking to on whatever the subject may be - period. These guys are the guys who would eat dirt before they intentionally steered one man astray in any avenue in life - period. Keep in mind they are NOT beyond making a mistake! - :-) Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 4:43 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype,Yahoo, MS) Tom, I have to go with Matt on this. I am on a lot of lists, so they get confused, but I have seen way too many people ask for advice on listservs that should have gone to either a CPA, state revenue department, or an attorney. You have no real idea who is replying. He could be giving you advice he just thought up. Telecom, especially voice, has specific legal requirements - E911, taxes and CALEA being just a few. It varies in each state. It varies in each situation (when VoIP is concerned, because what is "inter-connected"). Laws about leases and right of way also vary by jurisdiction. If you advice from a CPA or lawyer, you can hold them to it later. Not so much the list poster, cuz how do you find [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Although I am sure a lawsuit will someday be filed because someone took crazy @$$ advice from a list member). - Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)
Matt, Do you really believe that? I know the comments you made in regard to 911 compliance I countered with facts I can backup. Therefore, your ideas on 911 compliance were either just made up or worse, your lawyer agreed with you on them. You are making a gross misunderstanding. I did not make up anything. I simply stated an idea. I never claimed to have any backup for that idea, thats why it was an idea, and I was inquiring this lsit full of experts. I never gave advise on the topic, nor did I ever say what I was suggesting was right. I am very new on this topic (VOIP E911 Compliant) and by no way represented myself as the expert in the debate. However, I dod recognize myself as an inteligent person who is capable of bringing up thought that other WISP might also think about when considering how they plan to offer VOIP. I hadn't been that worried about compliance. My plan had always been to use you for my VOIP, because you were compliant. However, I as well need to consider how I will be able to be compliant when using your services as well. Its an area I need to learn about and understand. If you didn't check your ideas against the FCC's order, asked an FCC staffer for an opinion, or verified them with a lawyer then my statement above --no matter how disrespectful you may find it-- would seemingly be correct. I didn't think you were directing the "making things up" at me specifically, but maybe you were based on your responses. Just because I question you, does not mean that I think you are wrong. If anything you should feel honored, as I a mrespecting you as an individual that may have the answers to the question or situations that I bring up. I'm all for people thinking for themselves, looking, and sharing ways to deal with regulations as they come up. However, when one's contributions to such a discussion is not informed then I don't think it helps anyone survive, save money, or stay competitive. Another one of your annoying responses Are you saying you are better than others on this list (such as me), and only a select few have the right to have an opinion worthy to discuss with you? I'd argue that your comments on this thread had pretty much been worthless until certain people challenged your point of view, and forced you to disclose in more detail the reasons to backup your statements. Your backup explanations WERE VERY VALUABLE to the readers. But you didn't get that information out all by yourself. It required people proding you and challenging you to challenge yourself to disclose the answers. I'd argue that an open list to all members of any level for discussion is more valueable for everyone. If you don't agree with that, I'm not sure why you are discussing VOIP on an open WISP list, instead you should set up a list for the ELITE VOIP operator. Again, in order to use a lawyer in such a manner then you must be informed. How can you suggest possibilities to your lawyer if you haven't read the order? I agree, I as well as any otehr WISP considering VOIP should probably read the order. Thirdly, regulation is not just a legal issue, it is also a technical issue. I don't care how much council you get and how good they are, Lawyers rarely understand the minute details that differentiate technical issues. Historically, even the best lawyers, tend to be technically challenged. I know I service them daily. Why, because their time is more valuable, so they pay others to learn the technical stuff for them. I don't trust a lawyer any more than a congressman to understand detailed technical issues of our industry, that we have trouble understanding ourselves as the experts in it everyday full time. (no disrepect meant to the legal profession, and there are some legal council that are technically savy of course, some that have even advised on this list). I think you have just made a gross generalization about an entire industry. For example, patent attorneys are required to have a technical background and often possess a Phd in their field of specialization. Additionally, I know for a fact that several of our attorneys are more knowledgeable about the PSTN and 911 both legally and technically than I am. Good for you, if you found them (attorney that is both technical and legal expertised), and can afford them. Fourthly, Why should everyone pay for legal council and replicate costs, when we can share knowledge learned. There are many places to learn other than jsut legal council. Studying FCC comments, learning at trade shows, or reading common publications. I don't see much "Making it up". Although I do see a lot of "IDEAS". Please point me to FCC comments, trade show presentations, or publications that you used for your ideas. Certainly, without those sources then those ideas must be made up. My idea was made up, that is the definition of an idea. Someone having original tho
Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)
Peter, I agree, one should probably not trust list advise without running it by their attorney to double check. However, that does not change my point that most list members do not generally just make things up, they instead share their experiences and ideas. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 5:43 PM Subject: Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype,Yahoo, MS) Tom, I have to go with Matt on this. I am on a lot of lists, so they get confused, but I have seen way too many people ask for advice on listservs that should have gone to either a CPA, state revenue department, or an attorney. You have no real idea who is replying. He could be giving you advice he just thought up. Telecom, especially voice, has specific legal requirements - E911, taxes and CALEA being just a few. It varies in each state. It varies in each situation (when VoIP is concerned, because what is "inter-connected"). Laws about leases and right of way also vary by jurisdiction. If you advice from a CPA or lawyer, you can hold them to it later. Not so much the list poster, cuz how do you find [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Although I am sure a lawsuit will someday be filed because someone took crazy @$$ advice from a list member). - Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)
On Jun 24, 2006, at 10:15 PM, Butch Evans wrote: If you look at what Matt Larsen posted, you will see that (as I have stated twice and he stated originally) that his PBX SUPPORTS E911. You are either forgetting that or ignoring it. Here is his post again: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/2006-June/026359.html Actually, he never wrote E911 and instead wrote just 911, which is not the same thing. A POTS line may or may not support E911 depending on the area one is in. Interestingly, VoIP providers are required to support E911 even in areas that E911 is not supported by POTS lines. Some areas even have both POTS and VoIP lines that are E911 compliant, but the PSAP is not E911 capable. One might argue successfully that the VoIP provider is not compliant if they sell service in such an area. Unfortunately, the closest thing to a fact I have seen in this regard is an FCC comment stating that VoIP providers are not allowed to market services in areas that are not E911 capable. The reason for the POTS line is so that 911 calls FROM THAT BUSINESS (BUILDING) can be directed that way. The system Matt described does support E911. Not sure how you are not seeing that. The only way it does not support E911 is if the building is over a certain number of square feet (I don't care to look up the number), in which case, he will require a POTS line for the other part of the building, or get the POTS provider to accept his ANI/ ALI information. You still have not made a case that what he is doing is not compliant. It just looks like arguing to me. :-) I've written specifically that it doesn't matter if you have a POTS line if there is VoIP service involved. If there is a VoIP phone line that is capable of making calls to the PSTN then that line MUST support E911. No where has the FCC stated that having a separate POTS line that does support E911 along side the VoIP line(s) is compliant. I agree that providing a POTS line to a business for the purpose of 911 follows the spirit of the regulation, but unfortunately hasn't been shown to actually be legal. BTW, I am not saying you are wrong here, but you have not convinced me (or apparently some others) that Matt is wrong. You are obviously very informed here, so please explain exactly HOW the system Matt described is NOT compliant. See above. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006, Matt Liotta wrote: Your agree with Larsen for what reason? Did you know that currently five states require PBXs of all varieties to support E911? In fact, only three states specifically state that PBX vendors If you look at what Matt Larsen posted, you will see that (as I have stated twice and he stated originally) that his PBX SUPPORTS E911. You are either forgetting that or ignoring it. Here is his post again: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/2006-June/026359.html In that post, he said: "One way to cherry pick on VOIP is to specialize in the phone systems and make sure that they keep at least one POTS line." The reason for the POTS line is so that 911 calls FROM THAT BUSINESS (BUILDING) can be directed that way. The system Matt described does support E911. Not sure how you are not seeing that. The only way it does not support E911 is if the building is over a certain number of square feet (I don't care to look up the number), in which case, he will require a POTS line for the other part of the building, or get the POTS provider to accept his ANI/ALI information. You still have not made a case that what he is doing is not compliant. It just looks like arguing to me. :-) BTW, I am not saying you are wrong here, but you have not convinced me (or apparently some others) that Matt is wrong. You are obviously very informed here, so please explain exactly HOW the system Matt described is NOT compliant. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting http://www.butchevans.com/ Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)
Your agree with Larsen for what reason? Did you know that currently five states require PBXs of all varieties to support E911? In fact, only three states specifically state that PBX vendors are not required to support E911. That leaves forty-two states in a legal grey area. Of course, the FCC issued a NPRM last year giving all states one year to pass legislation on this issue and warned that if they don't, the FCC will introduce national rules. Finally, I'd like to point out that my wife is a lawyer, but I don't seek her advice on telecom law. Why? Because that isn't her speciality. I hope your corporate attorney is a telecom specialist or you may want to seek the advice of someone in your field of law. -Matt On Jun 23, 2006, at 11:31 PM, Mac Dearman wrote: If you are looking for some specialty advice (like VoIP)- you better pay for it! If you are taking the advice you get off ANY list to heart and trying to take it to the bank - you are in trouble. I agree with Tom in that his (Matt's) post was disrespectful and I agree with Larsen in his belief that as long as there is a POTS line into the business ALONG with the VoIP and * server - then the 911 issue has been met/fulfilled. Once again - this is how you and your attorney would read this and interpret the language. I have a corporate attorney who owns 20% of Maximum Access (my wireless company)and he agrees with mine and Larsen's interpretation of the language. No one said we were lighting up MTU's as that language is plainly spelled out not to mention the scenario that Matt L. pointed out. One more thing - - If Larsen posts on list that there are great demon Chicken Hawks from hell raiding the Chicken Coops all over West and they are headed our way - - - you better put the Chickens in your bed room or be prepared to suffer loss!! There are a handful of men on this list that have my utmost respect and complete trust. Larsen is one of these men as well as Scriv, Harnish and Butch boy Evans who have earned a place in the wireless society that have proven themselves to anyone and everyone that has taken the time to sit down and get to know them. I know there are more on this list and other lists, but these guys have a Carte Blanche in my book because I do know them - I know their hearts and minds, I know their intent is always for the betterment of Wireless and whomever it may be that they are speaking to on whatever the subject may be - period. These guys are the guys who would eat dirt before they intentionally steered one man astray in any avenue in life - period. Keep in mind they are NOT beyond making a mistake! - :-) Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wireless- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 4:43 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype,Yahoo, MS) Tom, I have to go with Matt on this. I am on a lot of lists, so they get confused, but I have seen way too many people ask for advice on listservs that should have gone to either a CPA, state revenue department, or an attorney. You have no real idea who is replying. He could be giving you advice he just thought up. Telecom, especially voice, has specific legal requirements - E911, taxes and CALEA being just a few. It varies in each state. It varies in each situation (when VoIP is concerned, because what is "inter-connected"). Laws about leases and right of way also vary by jurisdiction. If you advice from a CPA or lawyer, you can hold them to it later. Not so much the list poster, cuz how do you find [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Although I am sure a lawsuit will someday be filed because someone took crazy @$$ advice from a list member). - Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)
On Jun 23, 2006, at 4:28 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Many on this list like to just make things up as opposed to getting an actual legal opinion from a practicing attorney that specializes in this field. I'm not aware of that going on much at all on this list, its just not true. Do you really believe that? I know the comments you made in regard to 911 compliance I countered with facts I can backup. Therefore, your ideas on 911 compliance were either just made up or worse, your lawyer agreed with you on them. If you didn't check your ideas against the FCC's order, asked an FCC staffer for an opinion, or verified them with a lawyer then my statement above --no matter how disrespectful you may find it-- would seemingly be correct. Instead what people on this list do is THINK for themselves. They look for possible ways to get around the rules, and debate the validity of those possibilities. Why, because its how small independant providers survive, save money, stay competitive, and have the oportunity to deploy services in this industry, that so many want to see prevented or to over incumber the small provider so they go away. I'm all for people thinking for themselves, looking, and sharing ways to deal with regulations as they come up. However, when one's contributions to such a discussion is not informed then I don't think it helps anyone survive, save money, or stay competitive. Secondly, a Lawyer is like an Accountant, in the sense that they are liable for the advice that they give, and their job is not to advise you how to get around the law, but instead how to comply to it with certainty, in a way that they will not be liable if they are wrong, instead stretching the rules for everything they can get out of it. Its up to the client to push the limits, based on the advise legal council has made them aware of and risk involved walking the line close. Again, in order to use a lawyer in such a manner then you must be informed. How can you suggest possibilities to your lawyer if you haven't read the order? Thirdly, regulation is not just a legal issue, it is also a technical issue. I don't care how much council you get and how good they are, Lawyers rarely understand the minute details that differentiate technical issues. Historically, even the best lawyers, tend to be technically challenged. I know I service them daily. Why, because their time is more valuable, so they pay others to learn the technical stuff for them. I don't trust a lawyer any more than a congressman to understand detailed technical issues of our industry, that we have trouble understanding ourselves as the experts in it everyday full time. (no disrepect meant to the legal profession, and there are some legal council that are technically savy of course, some that have even advised on this list). I think you have just made a gross generalization about an entire industry. For example, patent attorneys are required to have a technical background and often possess a Phd in their field of specialization. Additionally, I know for a fact that several of our attorneys are more knowledgeable about the PSTN and 911 both legally and technically than I am. Fourthly, Why should everyone pay for legal council and replicate costs, when we can share knowledge learned. There are many places to learn other than jsut legal council. Studying FCC comments, learning at trade shows, or reading common publications. I don't see much "Making it up". Although I do see a lot of "IDEAS". Please point me to FCC comments, trade show presentations, or publications that you used for your ideas. Certainly, without those sources then those ideas must be made up. Fifthly, Sometimes people don't pay legal council because its just not cost effective during the idea phase. I'm sure most people do consult council, just like you, at the appropriate time. What is the appropriate time? Before or after one has stated publicly on a mailing list their position. You don't think that if someone has a serious injury due to the failure of a 911 call that public archives might be searched to see if the offending organization was negligent. If you think paying council, is discovering the complete undisputable answer, you are fooling yourself. Thats why they have judges. To determine which point of view is correct, when the point of view between two legal teams on a toipic differ. Your legal council, is just one preception of the law. And I'm interested in hearing your perceptions as well, as the perceptions of the others on this list. The correct answer isn't as important as a legally defendable answer. If I am advised by counsel that I am complying with the law and am later found not to be by a judge then my lawyer is at fault. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman
RE: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)
If you are looking for some specialty advice (like VoIP)- you better pay for it! If you are taking the advice you get off ANY list to heart and trying to take it to the bank - you are in trouble. I agree with Tom in that his (Matt's) post was disrespectful and I agree with Larsen in his belief that as long as there is a POTS line into the business ALONG with the VoIP and * server - then the 911 issue has been met/fulfilled. Once again - this is how you and your attorney would read this and interpret the language. I have a corporate attorney who owns 20% of Maximum Access (my wireless company)and he agrees with mine and Larsen's interpretation of the language. No one said we were lighting up MTU's as that language is plainly spelled out not to mention the scenario that Matt L. pointed out. One more thing - - If Larsen posts on list that there are great demon Chicken Hawks from hell raiding the Chicken Coops all over West and they are headed our way - - - you better put the Chickens in your bed room or be prepared to suffer loss!! There are a handful of men on this list that have my utmost respect and complete trust. Larsen is one of these men as well as Scriv, Harnish and Butch boy Evans who have earned a place in the wireless society that have proven themselves to anyone and everyone that has taken the time to sit down and get to know them. I know there are more on this list and other lists, but these guys have a Carte Blanche in my book because I do know them - I know their hearts and minds, I know their intent is always for the betterment of Wireless and whomever it may be that they are speaking to on whatever the subject may be - period. These guys are the guys who would eat dirt before they intentionally steered one man astray in any avenue in life - period. Keep in mind they are NOT beyond making a mistake! - :-) Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 4:43 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype,Yahoo, MS) Tom, I have to go with Matt on this. I am on a lot of lists, so they get confused, but I have seen way too many people ask for advice on listservs that should have gone to either a CPA, state revenue department, or an attorney. You have no real idea who is replying. He could be giving you advice he just thought up. Telecom, especially voice, has specific legal requirements - E911, taxes and CALEA being just a few. It varies in each state. It varies in each situation (when VoIP is concerned, because what is "inter-connected"). Laws about leases and right of way also vary by jurisdiction. If you advice from a CPA or lawyer, you can hold them to it later. Not so much the list poster, cuz how do you find [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Although I am sure a lawsuit will someday be filed because someone took crazy @$$ advice from a list member). - Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)
Tom, I have to go with Matt on this. I am on a lot of lists, so they get confused, but I have seen way too many people ask for advice on listservs that should have gone to either a CPA, state revenue department, or an attorney. You have no real idea who is replying. He could be giving you advice he just thought up. Telecom, especially voice, has specific legal requirements - E911, taxes and CALEA being just a few. It varies in each state. It varies in each situation (when VoIP is concerned, because what is "inter-connected"). Laws about leases and right of way also vary by jurisdiction. If you advice from a CPA or lawyer, you can hold them to it later. Not so much the list poster, cuz how do you find [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Although I am sure a lawsuit will someday be filed because someone took crazy @$$ advice from a list member). - Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)
Matt, I really appreciate your advice given on this list, as it is usually good credable advice, it helps direct people (including myself) in the right direction, and prevents replicating the wheel, by you sharing your knowledge learned. However, somethings you say, are just disrespectful and irritate me (no disrespect meant). For example: Many on this list like to just make things up as opposed to getting an actual legal opinion from a practicing attorney that specializes in this field. I'm not aware of that going on much at all on this list, its just not true. Instead what people on this list do is THINK for themselves. They look for possible ways to get around the rules, and debate the validity of those possibilities. Why, because its how small independant providers survive, save money, stay competitive, and have the oportunity to deploy services in this industry, that so many want to see prevented or to over incumber the small provider so they go away. Secondly, a Lawyer is like an Accountant, in the sense that they are liable for the advice that they give, and their job is not to advise you how to get around the law, but instead how to comply to it with certainty, in a way that they will not be liable if they are wrong, instead stretching the rules for everything they can get out of it. Its up to the client to push the limits, based on the advise legal council has made them aware of and risk involved walking the line close. Thirdly, regulation is not just a legal issue, it is also a technical issue. I don't care how much council you get and how good they are, Lawyers rarely understand the minute details that differentiate technical issues. Historically, even the best lawyers, tend to be technically challenged. I know I service them daily. Why, because their time is more valuable, so they pay others to learn the technical stuff for them. I don't trust a lawyer any more than a congressman to understand detailed technical issues of our industry, that we have trouble understanding ourselves as the experts in it everyday full time. (no disrepect meant to the legal profession, and there are some legal council that are technically savy of course, some that have even advised on this list). Fourthly, Why should everyone pay for legal council and replicate costs, when we can share knowledge learned. There are many places to learn other than jsut legal council. Studying FCC comments, learning at trade shows, or reading common publications. I don't see much "Making it up". Although I do see a lot of "IDEAS". Fifthly, Sometimes people don't pay legal council because its just not cost effective during the idea phase. I'm sure most people do consult council, just like you, at the appropriate time. If you think paying council, is discovering the complete undisputable answer, you are fooling yourself. Thats why they have judges. To determine which point of view is correct, when the point of view between two legal teams on a toipic differ. Your legal council, is just one preception of the law. And I'm interested in hearing your perceptions as well, as the perceptions of the others on this list. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 6:56 AM Subject: Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS) On Jun 23, 2006, at 12:20 AM, Butch Evans wrote: The example Matt listed was a business that purchased a phone system. This phone system happens to be an Asterisk system that has a POTS line terminated in it. Some traffic is routed via VoIP offerings available on the net, while other traffic is routed to the POTs line. The ANI/ALI would be the business location, since that is where it is installed. I'd say (though IANAL), this would be no different from installing a "normal" PBX in a building with some POTs lines and a T1 to another office (which may or may not have it's own POTs lines). You're not suggesting THOSE are illegal are you? I am not suggesting anything is illegal. I am informing the list of what is compliant based on research I conducted, comments made by the FCC, legal advise received from council, etc. Many on this list like to just make things up as opposed to getting an actual legal opinion from a practicing attorney that specializes in this field. Anyway, the test is whether your provide a VoIP service that is connected to the PSTN and that VoIP service is capable of E911. Your customer could be the PSAP and still not be compliant if your VoIP service isn't capable of E911. Further, there are 911 compliance issues for PBX vendors as well. If your customer is in an MTU and the 911 operator
Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS)
On Jun 23, 2006, at 12:20 AM, Butch Evans wrote: The example Matt listed was a business that purchased a phone system. This phone system happens to be an Asterisk system that has a POTS line terminated in it. Some traffic is routed via VoIP offerings available on the net, while other traffic is routed to the POTs line. The ANI/ALI would be the business location, since that is where it is installed. I'd say (though IANAL), this would be no different from installing a "normal" PBX in a building with some POTs lines and a T1 to another office (which may or may not have it's own POTs lines). You're not suggesting THOSE are illegal are you? I am not suggesting anything is illegal. I am informing the list of what is compliant based on research I conducted, comments made by the FCC, legal advise received from council, etc. Many on this list like to just make things up as opposed to getting an actual legal opinion from a practicing attorney that specializes in this field. Anyway, the test is whether your provide a VoIP service that is connected to the PSTN and that VoIP service is capable of E911. Your customer could be the PSAP and still not be compliant if your VoIP service isn't capable of E911. Further, there are 911 compliance issues for PBX vendors as well. If your customer is in an MTU and the 911 operator only has the address of a building how is someone going to be directed to the correct floor or the correct room? That information is now supposed to be provided as well. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS)
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, Matt Liotta wrote: That is incorrect. A POTS line will only be able to provide ANI/ALI information as configured by the LEC providing the POTS line, which will not match the subscriber's call that you are routing through it. However, according to what Matt Larsen described this ANI info will point to the business (and building) that the POTS line is installed in. Matt is not so much "intercepting" 911 traffic as he is "directing" 911 traffic. The example Matt listed was a business that purchased a phone system. This phone system happens to be an Asterisk system that has a POTS line terminated in it. Some traffic is routed via VoIP offerings available on the net, while other traffic is routed to the POTs line. The ANI/ALI would be the business location, since that is where it is installed. I'd say (though IANAL), this would be no different from installing a "normal" PBX in a building with some POTs lines and a T1 to another office (which may or may not have it's own POTs lines). You're not suggesting THOSE are illegal are you? -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting http://www.butchevans.com/ Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)
Thanks Matt. That clears up my confusion. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:13 PM Subject: Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype,Yahoo, MS) Tom DeReggi wrote: Why can't I write a script in Linux/Asterix that says, if Source phone number equals my client, and destiantion phone number equalls 911, move this call to POTS Line A, a POTS line with an area code/phone xxx-xxx appropriaite for the region where that customer resides. Stop right there. The LEC providing that POTS line will send the phone number of the POTS line and the address where they delivered it to the PSAP. The phone number and address assigned to that POTS line will not match your customer's. The only way to make it match is to have the POTS line delivered to the customer premise. Even if you are willing to do that you still won't comply since the POTS line has nothing to do with your VoIP service. The bottom line is that the only way to comply is to have a connection to every PSAP or selective router serving your customers and the ability to make changes to the address database. The only way to have that is to be a CLEC, buy E911 service, or buy VoIP termination service that includes E911. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)
Tom DeReggi wrote: Why can't I write a script in Linux/Asterix that says, if Source phone number equals my client, and destiantion phone number equalls 911, move this call to POTS Line A, a POTS line with an area code/phone xxx-xxx appropriaite for the region where that customer resides. Stop right there. The LEC providing that POTS line will send the phone number of the POTS line and the address where they delivered it to the PSAP. The phone number and address assigned to that POTS line will not match your customer's. The only way to make it match is to have the POTS line delivered to the customer premise. Even if you are willing to do that you still won't comply since the POTS line has nothing to do with your VoIP service. The bottom line is that the only way to comply is to have a connection to every PSAP or selective router serving your customers and the ability to make changes to the address database. The only way to have that is to be a CLEC, buy E911 service, or buy VoIP termination service that includes E911. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)
That is incorrect. What gives you that impression? listening to others' conversations, but I am not knowledgeable on the subject yet, and I take your word for it. That is incorrect. A POTS line will only be able to provide ANI/ALI information as configured by the LEC providing the POTS line, which will not match the subscriber's call that you are routing through it. Understand I am not a phone guy, and just learning Asterix. This is what I don't understand. If I provision my customers to my switch I know my customer's source phone numbers. Why can't I write a script in Linux/Asterix that says, if Source phone number equals my client, and destiantion phone number equalls 911, move this call to POTS Line A, a POTS line with an area code/phone xxx-xxx appropriaite for the region where that customer resides. I match this up a tthe time I initially provision the customer. Then I have multiple POTs lines A,B,C with each of the unique area code/phone yyy-yyy of the unique regions that we serve. When customer 2 in region B makes a call, my script says if call comes from customer B and destination =911 switch to source POTS line B. Again programmed into our switch at time of provisioning based on the customer's address or typcial phone number for their area. Whay can't that happen? Why wouldn't that comply? Is it that there is not enough 911 lines to match the number of potential callers? Or is it that that type of scripting is not possible based on designs of Asterix and PBXes. OR is it that you are saying that its not possible to get a variety of custom unique numbers yyy-yyy to a single location? Would it jsut mean that you need to have a switch in each region yyy-yyy? Isn't that how my Cell site is already designed? I have a cell site every 5 miles radius apart. I see no problem in putting a Asterix switch and a few 911 capable pots line at each cell site location, and terminate calls at the first hop. I may redirect/transport calls using VOIP to a remote gateway after I check that the destination is NOT a 911 call. But as long as teh checking happens at the first hop (within 5 miles) why would it not work. This could be a problem for people that buy into Broadcom and have to buy a $30,000-$100,000 switch software, or name brand MetaSwitch ($150,000 hardware), but not a problem for the Asterix VOIP provider with a hard cost of under $1000 per gateway plus POTs line costs. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 11:07 AM Subject: Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS) Tom DeReggi wrote: However, I believe it is allowed, that if at the provider's switch, they intercept 911 calls, and redirect to a pots line connected to the providers switch, it complies. That is incorrect. What gives you that impression? So if you ahve a local regional switch and terminate local regional offices to that switch, the Pots line at the providers switch would give an appropriate location for the subscriber to 911. Is that correct? That is incorrect. A POTS line will only be able to provide ANI/ALI information as configured by the LEC providing the POTS line, which will not match the subscriber's call that you are routing through it. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS)
Horsecrap. All I am selling is the phone system. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Matt Liotta wrote: Anyone who thinks that providing a POTS line along with VoIP service for 911 compliance either has read the order and/or has checked with council. If you provide any VoIP service your VOIP must be 911 compliant as per the order. Any other services you may or others may provide to the customer are not considered when testing your specific service for compliance. -Matt On Jun 19, 2006, at 6:27 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: One way to cherry pick on VOIP is to specialize in the phone systems and make sure that they keep at least one POTS line. Then, even with a dead internet connection, they will still have (albeit limited) capabilitity to get out and receive phone calls, and also to handle 911. I recently sold an 11 extension, four POTS line Asterisk phone system to a small business for around $2500, phones included. There was a considerable amount of profit margin in that amount, and it beat the nearest local competitor by $3000. The customer picked up my 1meg Internet service for $49.95 a month and is paying $50/month for 3000 minutes of long distance and a toll free line. I also get at least $35 every time they need a change made to their phone service (new phones, reconfiguration, etc).Because the 911 and local dial tone is all on the POTS lines, you clevely sidestep that risk. This beats the heck out of trying to do the "outsourced PBX" service, because they have hardware onsite and flexibility to go with multiple providers for dial tone, including land line ones. Just another way to look at the picture. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peter R. wrote: Marlon, He did say he was selling to SMB, not Resi. Very few small businesses are going to use Yahoo, AIM, or MS as a dial-tone replacement. Skype is free within the US now, so some will try that, but there are security concerns (growing daily) about VoIP, especially with the mandatory CALEA compliance. (http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,19495174%5E24170%5E%5Enbv%5E24169,00.html) Weekly, ISPs come to me to offer VoIP. After the CommPartners mess, I stopped referring clients to anyone. You just don't know what the Wizard of Oz is really doing. Doing it yourself is difficult. When you take over the dial-tone of a business, you better make sure that you have 5 Nines of reliability with redundancy built-in, because if the phones are working, they are losing customers. And, Marlon, you are correct - most VoIP Providers are NOT making any money. 4Q05 delta3 did $9.1M in revenue and kept $25k in income. MSOs are probably making $$ on VoIP because they own the network, charge a higher rate, and have fixed modems that mitigate the 911 issue. The top 7 MSOs now have 10M VoIP users. When you consider that many CLECs like USLEC, FDN, ITC only have 25k customers and can barely eek out a living using wireline, you have to consider that VoIP may be difficult to profit on, too. Many will tell me that they are killing it - profitably - but these same companies have less than 1000 broadband subscribers. At a 15% take rate, that is 150 VoIP users. That is manageble and using Asterisk and a CLEC PRI in a small region could be profitable, before scale, growth, and scope start to weigh you down. Regards, Peter Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: I still believe that there's no money in voip for the service provider. Not in the long term. The money will be in the ability to offer good voip capacity but not the voip it's self. Yeah, I know, there are people making money with voip. I heard that song and dance about hot spots too. IF you are one of the few out that with just the right model, capabilities, market etc. good for you. For the rest of the WISP market, there's far more money to be made over the years offering transport. Especially if the trend for DSL and cable companies to mess up other people's voip continues. Here's the real nail in the coffin of voip: http://im.yahoo.com/feat_voice.php;_ylt=AlRactYLuOa7.Wxwqq5epPBwMMIF And that's just ONE provider. More are bound to come. Marlon --WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS)
Tom DeReggi wrote: However, I believe it is allowed, that if at the provider's switch, they intercept 911 calls, and redirect to a pots line connected to the providers switch, it complies. That is incorrect. What gives you that impression? So if you ahve a local regional switch and terminate local regional offices to that switch, the Pots line at the providers switch would give an appropriate location for the subscriber to 911. Is that correct? That is incorrect. A POTS line will only be able to provide ANI/ALI information as configured by the LEC providing the POTS line, which will not match the subscriber's call that you are routing through it. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS)
Matt, I believe that means that the VOIP line to the customer must be able to dial 911. However, I believe it is allowed, that if at the provider's switch, they intercept 911 calls, and redirect to a pots line connected to the providers switch, it complies. So if you ahve a local regional switch and terminate local regional offices to that switch, the Pots line at the providers switch would give an appropriate location for the subscriber to 911. Is that correct? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:55 AM Subject: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype,Yahoo, MS) Anyone who thinks that providing a POTS line along with VoIP service for 911 compliance either has read the order and/or has checked with council. If you provide any VoIP service your VOIP must be 911 compliant as per the order. Any other services you may or others may provide to the customer are not considered when testing your specific service for compliance. -Matt On Jun 19, 2006, at 6:27 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: One way to cherry pick on VOIP is to specialize in the phone systems and make sure that they keep at least one POTS line. Then, even with a dead internet connection, they will still have (albeit limited) capabilitity to get out and receive phone calls, and also to handle 911. I recently sold an 11 extension, four POTS line Asterisk phone system to a small business for around $2500, phones included. There was a considerable amount of profit margin in that amount, and it beat the nearest local competitor by $3000. The customer picked up my 1meg Internet service for $49.95 a month and is paying $50/month for 3000 minutes of long distance and a toll free line. I also get at least $35 every time they need a change made to their phone service (new phones, reconfiguration, etc).Because the 911 and local dial tone is all on the POTS lines, you clevely sidestep that risk. This beats the heck out of trying to do the "outsourced PBX" service, because they have hardware onsite and flexibility to go with multiple providers for dial tone, including land line ones. Just another way to look at the picture. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peter R. wrote: Marlon, He did say he was selling to SMB, not Resi. Very few small businesses are going to use Yahoo, AIM, or MS as a dial-tone replacement. Skype is free within the US now, so some will try that, but there are security concerns (growing daily) about VoIP, especially with the mandatory CALEA compliance. (http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,19495174%5E24170% 5E%5Enbv%5E24169,00.html) Weekly, ISPs come to me to offer VoIP. After the CommPartners mess, I stopped referring clients to anyone. You just don't know what the Wizard of Oz is really doing. Doing it yourself is difficult. When you take over the dial-tone of a business, you better make sure that you have 5 Nines of reliability with redundancy built-in, because if the phones are working, they are losing customers. And, Marlon, you are correct - most VoIP Providers are NOT making any money. 4Q05 delta3 did $9.1M in revenue and kept $25k in income. MSOs are probably making $$ on VoIP because they own the network, charge a higher rate, and have fixed modems that mitigate the 911 issue. The top 7 MSOs now have 10M VoIP users. When you consider that many CLECs like USLEC, FDN, ITC only have 25k customers and can barely eek out a living using wireline, you have to consider that VoIP may be difficult to profit on, too. Many will tell me that they are killing it - profitably - but these same companies have less than 1000 broadband subscribers. At a 15% take rate, that is 150 VoIP users. That is manageble and using Asterisk and a CLEC PRI in a small region could be profitable, before scale, growth, and scope start to weigh you down. Regards, Peter Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: I still believe that there's no money in voip for the service provider. Not in the long term. The money will be in the ability to offer good voip capacity but not the voip it's self. Yeah, I know, there are people making money with voip. I heard that song and dance about hot spots too. IF you are one of the few out that with just the right model, capabilities, market etc. good for you. For the rest of the WISP market, there's far more money to be made over the years offering transport. Especially if the trend for DSL and cable companies to mess up other people's voip continues. Here's the real nail in the coffin of voip: http://im.yahoo.com/feat_voice.php;_ylt=AlRactYLuOa7.Wxwqq5epPBwMMIF And that's just ONE provider. More are bound to com
911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS)
Anyone who thinks that providing a POTS line along with VoIP service for 911 compliance either has read the order and/or has checked with council. If you provide any VoIP service your VOIP must be 911 compliant as per the order. Any other services you may or others may provide to the customer are not considered when testing your specific service for compliance. -Matt On Jun 19, 2006, at 6:27 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: One way to cherry pick on VOIP is to specialize in the phone systems and make sure that they keep at least one POTS line. Then, even with a dead internet connection, they will still have (albeit limited) capabilitity to get out and receive phone calls, and also to handle 911. I recently sold an 11 extension, four POTS line Asterisk phone system to a small business for around $2500, phones included. There was a considerable amount of profit margin in that amount, and it beat the nearest local competitor by $3000. The customer picked up my 1meg Internet service for $49.95 a month and is paying $50/month for 3000 minutes of long distance and a toll free line. I also get at least $35 every time they need a change made to their phone service (new phones, reconfiguration, etc).Because the 911 and local dial tone is all on the POTS lines, you clevely sidestep that risk. This beats the heck out of trying to do the "outsourced PBX" service, because they have hardware onsite and flexibility to go with multiple providers for dial tone, including land line ones. Just another way to look at the picture. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peter R. wrote: Marlon, He did say he was selling to SMB, not Resi. Very few small businesses are going to use Yahoo, AIM, or MS as a dial-tone replacement. Skype is free within the US now, so some will try that, but there are security concerns (growing daily) about VoIP, especially with the mandatory CALEA compliance. (http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,19495174%5E24170% 5E%5Enbv%5E24169,00.html) Weekly, ISPs come to me to offer VoIP. After the CommPartners mess, I stopped referring clients to anyone. You just don't know what the Wizard of Oz is really doing. Doing it yourself is difficult. When you take over the dial-tone of a business, you better make sure that you have 5 Nines of reliability with redundancy built-in, because if the phones are working, they are losing customers. And, Marlon, you are correct - most VoIP Providers are NOT making any money. 4Q05 delta3 did $9.1M in revenue and kept $25k in income. MSOs are probably making $$ on VoIP because they own the network, charge a higher rate, and have fixed modems that mitigate the 911 issue. The top 7 MSOs now have 10M VoIP users. When you consider that many CLECs like USLEC, FDN, ITC only have 25k customers and can barely eek out a living using wireline, you have to consider that VoIP may be difficult to profit on, too. Many will tell me that they are killing it - profitably - but these same companies have less than 1000 broadband subscribers. At a 15% take rate, that is 150 VoIP users. That is manageble and using Asterisk and a CLEC PRI in a small region could be profitable, before scale, growth, and scope start to weigh you down. Regards, Peter Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: I still believe that there's no money in voip for the service provider. Not in the long term. The money will be in the ability to offer good voip capacity but not the voip it's self. Yeah, I know, there are people making money with voip. I heard that song and dance about hot spots too. IF you are one of the few out that with just the right model, capabilities, market etc. good for you. For the rest of the WISP market, there's far more money to be made over the years offering transport. Especially if the trend for DSL and cable companies to mess up other people's voip continues. Here's the real nail in the coffin of voip: http://im.yahoo.com/feat_voice.php;_ylt=AlRactYLuOa7.Wxwqq5epPBwMMIF And that's just ONE provider. More are bound to come. Marlon -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/