There's a 140+ page document from the FCC on how they plan to interpret and enforce Ray Baum's and Kari's Law which discusses a lot of this.
IIRC, and, not being a lawyer, it said that it wouldn't bother with the stickers due to the burden. It also made a point that if the phone were capable of placing a call, that it should be expected that the device can call 911. To me that says an E911 disclaimer is not sufficient to prevent a 911 call from being routed to a national centre or some other PSAP, but, I don't really know. There was not a point there that said, "If you can comply with this now, you must make changes" that I saw clearly. There are those that say systems must do these things and those which changed substansively past a point or which require money to be spent to implement need to . More or less it is pretty hazy but I did get out of it that if my softphone client has a 9 and a 1 on it that pressing the right combination of those should do something. Perhaps we can go back to rotary phones where we can put the lock on the 9. > > At some point, some ruling body had said those stickers were non-compliant > and meaningless. So I think the assumption is that they still see it that > way. I > think it was the FCC, but not sure. I think to them if it's on a desk and is > shaped > like a phone, it better work properly for 911. > _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
