The recent backhoe-fade issue brings up an interesting topic: As VOIP networks, are we legally required to provide 811 services? I"m pretty sure that we're exempt, want to kick it around with the group for a consensus view.... David
Even if you're not required to, why wouldn't you? The infrastructure you save may be your own or something you depend on. David Hiers wrote:
The recent backhoe-fade issue brings up an interesting topic:
As VOIP networks, are we legally required to provide 811 services?
I"m pretty sure that we're exempt, want to kick it around with the group for a consensus view....
David _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
No good reason not to support it; its just that legal/regulatory requirements go into the priority queue of the project plan. David On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Paul Timmins<paul at timmins.net> wrote:
Even if you're not required to, why wouldn't you? The infrastructure you save may be your own or something you depend on.
David Hiers wrote:
The recent backhoe-fade issue brings up an interesting topic:
As VOIP networks, are we legally required to provide 811 services?
I"m pretty sure that we're exempt, want to kick it around with the group for a consensus view....
David _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
I would assume if you have to ask the question, the customer will have the expectation that it will work, and I'd imagine you'd want the customer to have the perception this is a quality service that meets or exceeds the specs of the product they're replacing (probably POTS), and thus you wouldn't want a feature gap, even if you didn't see 811 as a "feature" per se. David Hiers wrote:
No good reason not to support it; its just that legal/regulatory requirements go into the priority queue of the project plan.
David
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Paul Timmins<paul at timmins.net> wrote:
Even if you're not required to, why wouldn't you? The infrastructure you save may be your own or something you depend on.
David Hiers wrote:
The recent backhoe-fade issue brings up an interesting topic:
As VOIP networks, are we legally required to provide 811 services?
I"m pretty sure that we're exempt, want to kick it around with the group for a consensus view....
David _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
David Hiers wrote:
The recent backhoe-fade issue brings up an interesting topic:
As VOIP networks, are we legally required to provide 811 services?
I"m pretty sure that we're exempt, want to kick it around with the group for a consensus view....
David _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Wow... About 3 months ago I went through this same thing along with our legal and management team here. I also had questions pertaining to e-911, and a slew of things. I've scoured through the FCC's website on this repeatedly as did others here and everything seems to be broadly worded. The end wording for us seemed to be, with regards to these services, cover your read "must be visible", in your "terms of service agreements" where after reading one to many a) subsets of 1) those clauses where a) is not limited to b) because it conflicts with a) 1) b), therefore you MUST creatively cover yourself. For lack of better explanations. There was no direct guidance so what we ended up doing is trying to match a regex, e.g., in Michigan: 's:811:8004827171:g' As they came along. We rarely received calls concerning this - as our main goal was guidance on 911. I posted this to VoIPSA once, perhaps I'd even get a better answer now... So here it is: In the traditional telco, if your number was disconnected the telco company usually gave a buffer time where dialtone was available and 911 was a routable call (for lack of better terms... routable on the PSTN?). In VoIP, when a client is disconnected, are we legally bound to keep e-911 running ;) Touche! And a six pack of beer for someone who can point that out on FCC.gov -- =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ J. Oquendo SGFA, SGFE, C|EH, CNDA, CHFI, OSCP "It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently." - Warren Buffett 227C 5D35 7DCB 0893 95AA 4771 1DCE 1FD1 5CCD 6B5E http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x5CCD6B5E
Its not a regulatory requirement that I am aware of but providing support for 811 and 311 in a residential play has become a expectation from the customer so that it works exactly like POTS. We didn't find it terribly difficult even on the national level, the biggest issue we encountered was just maintaining national translations for all the destination call centers. On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 07:57 -0700, David Hiers wrote:
The recent backhoe-fade issue brings up an interesting topic:
As VOIP networks, are we legally required to provide 811 services?
I"m pretty sure that we're exempt, want to kick it around with the group for a consensus view....
David _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8-1-1 All 811 services in the U.S. will end up using 611 by early 2007, as the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in March 2005 made 811 the universal number for the 71 regional services that coordinate location services for underground public utilities in the U.S. anorexicpoodle wrote:
Its not a regulatory requirement that I am aware of but providing support for 811 and 311 in a residential play has become a expectation from the customer so that it works exactly like POTS. We didn't find it terribly difficult even on the national level, the biggest issue we encountered was just maintaining national translations for all the destination call centers.
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 07:57 -0700, David Hiers wrote:
The recent backhoe-fade issue brings up an interesting topic:
As VOIP networks, are we legally required to provide 811 services?
I"m pretty sure that we're exempt, want to kick it around with the group for a consensus view....
David _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org <mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Yep, we route 811 to the local digalert number. 611 is handled differently. On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 15:27 -0400, Peter R. wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8-1-1
All 811 services in the U.S. will end up using 611 by early 2007, as the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in March 2005 made 811 the universal number for the 71 regional services that coordinate location services for underground public utilities in the U.S.
anorexicpoodle wrote:
Its not a regulatory requirement that I am aware of but providing support for 811 and 311 in a residential play has become a expectation from the customer so that it works exactly like POTS. We didn't find it terribly difficult even on the national level, the biggest issue we encountered was just maintaining national translations for all the destination call centers.
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 07:57 -0700, David Hiers wrote:
The recent backhoe-fade issue brings up an interesting topic:
As VOIP networks, are we legally required to provide 811 services?
I"m pretty sure that we're exempt, want to kick it around with the group for a consensus view....
David _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org <mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
participants (5)
-
anorexicpoodle＠gmail.com -
hiersd＠gmail.com -
paul＠timmins.net -
peter＠4isps.com -
sil＠infiltrated.net