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/
