Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-27 Thread Peter R.

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)

2006-06-27 Thread Sam Tetherow
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)

2006-06-27 Thread Sam Tetherow
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)

2006-06-27 Thread Blair Davis
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)

2006-06-27 Thread Sam Tetherow
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)

2006-06-27 Thread Blake Bowers

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 wireless@wispa.org
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)

2006-06-25 Thread Matt Liotta


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)

2006-06-25 Thread Tom DeReggi

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 wireless@wispa.org
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)

2006-06-25 Thread Tom DeReggi

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 thought. 

Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-25 Thread Tom DeReggi

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' wireless@wispa.org
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)

2006-06-24 Thread Matt Liotta

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:

Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-24 Thread Matt Liotta

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)

2006-06-24 Thread Butch Evans

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)

2006-06-23 Thread Matt Liotta


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)

2006-06-23 Thread Tom DeReggi

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 wireless@wispa.org
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 only has the 
address of a building how is someone going  to be directed to the correct 
floor or the correct

Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-23 Thread Peter R.

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)

2006-06-22 Thread Butch Evans

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/


911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-20 Thread Matt Liotta
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/


Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-20 Thread Tom DeReggi

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 wireless@wispa.org
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 come.

Marlon




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe

Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-20 Thread Matt Liotta

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)

2006-06-20 Thread Matt Larsen - Lists
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)

2006-06-20 Thread Tom DeReggi

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 wireless@wispa.org
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)

2006-06-20 Thread Matt Liotta

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)

2006-06-20 Thread Tom DeReggi

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 wireless@wispa.org
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/