[117947] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Temkin)
Wed Oct 7 07:18:47 2009
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:17:57 +0700
From: Dave Temkin <davet1@gmail.com>
To: Alexander Harrowell <a.harrowell@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <200910070943.26457.a.harrowell@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Alexander Harrowell wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 October 2009 00:27:55 Joe Greco wrote:
>
>
>> Assuming that the existence of an infected PC in the mix translates to
>> some sort of inability to make a 911 call correctly is, however, simply
>> irresponsible, and at some point, is probably asking for trouble.
>>
>> ... JG
>>
>
> Also, someone mentioned that the FCC doesn't in fact mandate that PSTN
> terminals should be able to make emergency calls even if formally disconnected
> and asked about cellular.
>
> The opposite is true about GSM and its descendants; whether or not you're a
> valid roamer for the network you're talking to, have a prepaid balance, have
> paid your bill, you must be able to make emergency calls. Similarly, even if
> no SIM card is present, the device should register with the network as
> "limited service" - i.e. emergency only.
>
>
The FCC generally doesn't come into play when you're talking about ILEC
telephone service except at a very high level. In California, by PUC
regulation telephone companies are required to allow access to 911 so
long as there is copper in the facility and it was, at any time, active
with any sort of phone service.
Ref: http://ucan.org/telenforcers/files/SBC%20complaint%20PUC%20version.pdf
Ref2: http://law.onecle.com/california/utilities/2883.html
I believe this is also the case in numerous other states.
