[Asterisk-biz] 911 Thread

[Paul]

alex at pilosoft.com wrote:

>On Sat, 7 May 2005, Paul wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Jason, thank you very much for being our voice with big brother in DC.
>>
>>This makes me wonder just how far the FCC intends to go when it comes to
>>voip termination for business. Let's take a look at some typical
>>non-voip phone system 911 issues first.
>>
>>1) Does the FCC or any regulator require that the pbx switch handles
>>911?
>>    
>>
>Not FCC but many states have requirement already for PS/ALI support for
>PBXs with >N users. N varies by state. There are specific rules
>state-by-state that require ps/ali support for certain institutions
>regardless of their number of users (schools, hotels).
>
>See this for summary:
>http://www.nena9-1-1.org/9-1-1TechStandards/state.htm
>
>
>  
>
>>2) If so, is it illegal to use or sell an old switch that doesn't handle
>>911(or 9 for outside line followed by 911)?
>>    
>>
>It may be illegal to use depending on state. see specific laws.
>
>  
>
>>3) If only up-to-date switches are legal does the FCC require battery
>>backup in case of power failure?
>>    
>>
>Not to my knowledge, but that may vary by state.
>
>  
>
>>4) If battery backup is required, how much runtime is required?
>>
>>5) When the switch fails for any reason(including exhausted batteries)  
>>what are the requirements? Is there supposed to be a pots interface with
>>a red telephone always plugged in? Do all outbound T-1's and PRI's have
>>to include a pots interface for the "emergency phone"? Are we required
>>to have an extension jack with another red telephone on every floor and
>>within every n square feet of the building?
>>    
>>
>The requirement for a dedicated POTS "red telephone" for fire warden
>exists, it is by by NFPA, and it applies to every single state, to my
>knowledge.
>
>  
>
>>Now think about adding voip to the above setup. As long as the system
>>has a single line or channel that the ILEC supports 911 on, what
>>difference does it make if we use voip for most termination. As long as
>>we are meeting the same requirements that go with a pbx connected to
>>analog/digital telco trunking, we are providing the same level of
>>safety.
>>
>>If somebody already knows the answers to my questions above, please post
>>them. Then we can draft something to send to the lawmakers that makes it
>>clear that the FCC is way out of line.
>>    
>>
>Not really. See above.
>  
>
>>One thing we can point out about residential and business users with
>>traditional pots lines: There are many who only have telephones that
>>require a non-telco power source. All those phones come with warnings
>>that the phone will not work during a power failure. Many people never
>>read the warning. Many others read it and never heed it. If a bad guy
>>turns off the electricity and starts kicking the door in, how do you
>>call 911 when you only have a cordless phone? I just checked 2 of mine
>>to be sure. Unplug the power and you can't make calls from the handset
>>or the base. So maybe the FCC needs to outlaw those. Future models will
>>have to also have a trimline handset with a relay that connects it
>>directly to the line when power is off?
>>
>>It looks to me like the FCC already allows some possibly dangerous
>>practices. They just want to beat up on the voip crowd.
>>    
>>
>Stop feeling persecuted. FCC is finally doing something for the consumer,
>and I applaud them. Now, *imposing* 3-month-implementation requirement on
>ITSPs is insane - it took 10 years for wireless industry to conform to the 
>e911, and they had cooperation of the ILECs (because, wireless companies 
>*are* ILECs in most places). Now, I think the proper way to do this is to 
>require ILECs to provide interconnection for selective router access at a 
>reasonable price, and require intrado/nena to provide access to PS/ALI 
>database at a reasonable price. And yes, require ITSPs to provide E911 in 
>a reasonable timeframe (say, 12 or 24 months).
>
>-alex
>  
>
But it really is persecution of the providers and the consumers. Suppose 
that the consumer only wants and needs a $5.95/month BV BYOD-lite 
account for his wisip phone. Maybe he is semi-transient in nature. 
Doesn't he have a right to waive e911? Suppose he spends workday nights 
in NYC but spends all other nights out of town. And what about my 
daughter who has been in the US Army 4.5 years with 6 months in Kuwait 
and a year in Iraq, not to mention the different US bases she has served 
at? She has a notebook PC and even in Baghdad they had some internet 
cafe types of broadband access. If we don't fight the FCC on this, they 
will make it too expensive for people like her to take advantage of voip.