nanog mailing list archives
Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility
From: Dave Temkin <davet1 () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:17:57 +0700
Alexander Harrowell wrote:
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.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. ... JGAlso, 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.
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.
Current thread:
- RE: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibilityfor bottedclients, (continued)
- RE: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibilityfor bottedclients Barry Raveendran Greene (Oct 06)
- RE: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility for bottedclients lee (Oct 06)
- Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility for bottedclients Owen DeLong (Oct 06)
- Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility for bottedclients mark [at] edgewire (Oct 06)
- Up Next: Quarantine Phishing (Was: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility for bottedclients) Jeroen Massar (Oct 06)
- Re: Up Next: Quarantine Phishing (Was: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility for bottedclients) Sean Donelan (Oct 07)
- Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility for bottedclients Barry Shein (Oct 06)
- Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility for bottedclients Peter Beckman (Oct 08)
- Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility Joe Greco (Oct 06)
- Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility Alexander Harrowell (Oct 07)
- Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility Dave Temkin (Oct 07)
- Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility Owen DeLong (Oct 07)
- Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility Joe Greco (Oct 07)
- Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility Rich Kulawiec (Oct 09)
- Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility Lee (Oct 09)
- Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility Michael Painter (Oct 09)
- Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility for bottedclients Nils Kolstein (Oct 05)
- Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility for bottedclients Rich Kulawiec (Oct 05)
- Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility for botted clients Peter Beckman (Oct 04)
- Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility for botted clients Christopher Morrow (Oct 04)
- Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility for botted clients Gadi Evron (Oct 04)