[Asterisk-biz] FW: 911 Legislation

Wed Apr 20 12:11:19 MST 2005

Greetings Honorable Representative Frost,

 My interpretation of the language for your proposed Bill is that a
broadband phone service provider must include a letter that must be
signed and returned by the customer acknowledging that the VoIP
Broadband Phone services they are purchasing does not include direct,
nor indirect Access, to 911 emergency services as any reasonable or
normal consumer would expect if they were being sold regulated
"telephone services".

Cellular phone companies are pretty much unregulated as compared to a
LEC/CLEC phone to your house. That is why Cellular phone companies never
answer the phone when you have a problem. They are not threatened by any
government action when your service doesn't work. 

The requirement for the consumers to sign and return a document gives
clear evidence that consumers understand they are not getting "real",
five nines, 99.999%, uptime phone service. It forces the consumer to
consider that while the "telephone" service they are purchasing does
work it cannot be relied upon to act in the same manner as a PUC
regulated telephone service. The letter is forewarning the consumer that
911 will not be there and they should not rely on their broadband phone
service provider to connect them with 911 emergency services.

This is to stop telephone service providers and sellers from telling
customers that 911 be available when it won't. Having a letter on file
at the telephone service provider office, with a signature and a date on
it, protects the telephone service provider. And it protects the
customer.

I do not believe that most consumers realize the difference between a
PUC Regulated Telephone Company and a broadband phone company. They only
understand the words "Telephone Company". I know this because I talk
with people looking to disconnect from the LEC/CLEC grid all the time
and they think they are saving money. They might save some money but
they are getting no government with teeth backed PUC authority to
complain to the "broadband" phone company.

When a company is required to explain, in writing, to a customer that
they must sign the 911 liability release form that states that their new
phone service is only going to be as good as their cable TV service I
think many of them will decide to keep their LEC/CLEC phones. Many will
risk the lack of 911 services. And many will use broadband phones as
primary with a secondary Analog PUC regulated phone in the house for 911
times.

The requirement for the letter and yearly renewal is a very reasonable
precaution. People don't expect 911 to work on their CB radio but they
did expect channel 9 would get them help. You can't imagine how many
idiots are out there. The yearly renewal clause insures that should the
original signer of the no longer reside there that any new "occupants"
would eventually be told of the lack of 911 services.

I don't see how checking a box on a web page on your broadband telephone
service website compares. If you are not going to provide 911 then you
better get it in writing. I would even ask for a thumb print.

This passage does not prevent a company from signing up customers
online. It only requires that the company send them a letter on paper
that explains to them what they are not getting. This requirement has
nothing to do with how they sign up. It only requires that your company
be honest in its dealing with important issues such as the lack of 911
services.

Representative Frost's Bill must require written proof to insure public
safety and protection from unscrupulous vendors. Imagine how angry you
will be when you find out your Grand Mother does not have 911 service
because someone offered her a better deal on her phone charges.

If you are going to provide "dial tone" service to homes you had better
be damn responsible to your customers.

Race Vanderdecken

-----Original Message-----
From: asterisk-biz-bounces at lists.digium.com
[mailto:asterisk-biz-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of jltaylor
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 1:28 PM
To: Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion
Subject: [Asterisk-biz] FW: 911 Legislation

I'm working with Texas State Rep Frost's office on wording for this
bill.
Some type of language will make it through this session.

The language below will make it almost impossible for customers to
signup on
the web and provision their own service.

It appears that this legislation favors the LEC's.

Cellular is not required to give notice about how 911 may not work
properly.
I live so far out that when the electricity goes off, my phone service
will
fail in about two hours and the LEC is not required to have me sign off
on a
document that warns me of not having 911 after a storm.
The argument that VOIP service is Interstate is a good one.

However, some type of acceptable legislation would afford us some kind
of
protection from the standpoint of "we are complying with the law"

Your comments are appreciated.

James Taylor
MetroTel
3505 Summerhill Road
Suite 11
Texarkana, Tx  75503
903-793-1956

=========================================================

79R5881 CBH-D

By:  Frost                                                        H.B.
No.
2592

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT

relating to a requirement that certain broadband network operators
provide notice of inability to access emergency services.
	BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
	SECTION 1.  Subchapter A, Chapter 64, Utilities Code, is
amended by adding Section 64.005 to read as follows:
	Sec. 64.005.  NOTICE OF INABILITY TO ACCESS EMERGENCY
SERVICES.  (a)  This section applies to an entity that uses a
broadband network to provide a service that would be classified as a
local exchange telephone service if the service were provided by a
telecommunications utility and the service provided by the entity
does not provide access to 911 service or dual party relay service.
	(b)  An entity to which this section applies may not enter
into a contract to provide a service described by Subsection (a)
unless the entity first provides to the customer a notice that the
service does not provide access to 911 service or to dual party
relay service, as appropriate. The notice must:
		(1)  be a separate document;
		(2)  include a requirement that the customer sign and
date the document; and
		(3)  conspicuously state that, by signing and dating
the document, the customer acknowledges that the customer will not
be able to use the service to access 911 service or dual party relay
service, as appropriate.
	(c)  At least annually, an entity to which this section
applies shall send to each customer to whom the entity provides a
service described by Subsection (a) a notice that the service does
not provide access to 911 service or dual party relay service, as
appropriate.  The entity shall include the notice as a separate
document in the customer's bill.
	(d)  Except as preempted by federal law, the commission has
all jurisdiction necessary to enforce this section.
	SECTION 2.  This Act applies to a contract entered into or
renewed on or after the effective date of this Act.  A contract
entered into or renewed before that date is governed by the law in
effect on the date the contract was entered into or renewed, and
that law is continued in effect for that purpose.
	SECTION 3.  This Act takes effect September 1, 2005.

 James Taylor
MetroTel
3505 Summerhill Road
Suite 11
Texarkana, Tx  75503
903-793-1956

_______________________________________________
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz at lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz