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:

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
Mikrotik Certified Consultant
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to