[188759] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: phone fun,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Apr 14 13:11:19 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160414124620.18804.qmail@ary.lan>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:09:56 -0700
To: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Apr 14, 2016, at 05:46 , John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>=20
>> If they're land lines, the NPA/NXX will be local to the CO so you =
won't=20
>> have out-of-area numbers other than a rare corner case of a very=20
>> expensive foreign exchange line. If they're VoIP lines, the address =
is=20
>> *supposed* to be so registered, but softphones and even VoIP handsets=20=
>> tend to move around without the user considering 9-1-1.
>=20
> VoIP was dragged kicking and screaming into E911, so now they charge
> extra and are quite clear about it. My VoIP provider regularly
> reminds me to update my 9-1-1 address, but since I don't have to pay
> the 9-1-1 fee if I lie and say I'm outside North America, that's what
> I do. Since I also have a classic CO-powered copper landline (1/4
> mile from the CO, no concentrators or repeaters) and a couple of cell
> phones, I think we're covered.
With my VOIP provider, I didn=E2=80=99t quite have to lie.
I generally don=E2=80=99t need my VOIP number when I=E2=80=99m in the US =
(cell is free here),
so I simply told them =E2=80=9CI do not intend to use this number or =
this service
within the US=E2=80=9D.
The first time I sent them a marked-up contract, they contacted me with
questions. The following year, the new version of the contract reflected
my changes to their original wording.
Since then, I=E2=80=99ve been pretty much satisfied with my service from =
callcentric
and the price is right.
Owen
