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: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
