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: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
