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 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.

WISPA Wireless List:



WISPA Wireless List:



Reply via email to