[Asterisk-biz] FW: 911 Legislation

[Michael Welter]

jltaylor wrote:
> 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

In my younger days :-) intra-state private line rates in California were 
  exorbitant.  The net result was that most Pacific Tel. private lines 
in Northern California were routed through Reno and charged at the much 
lower inter-state rate.

Which makes me wonder... if a Texas resident signs for a service offered 
out of, say, New Jersey, does Texas law apply?

I reside in Colorado and use the NJ service.  If I travel to Dallas and 
use my NJ provider at the airport, does Texas law apply?

Not knowing where the customer is physically located, will all ITSPs 
have to comply with Texas law just to insulate themselves from lawsuits?

These politicians (lawyers all) are driving me nuts!