Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility

[Robert Bonomi <bonomi () mail r-bonomi com>]

> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi.com () nanog org  Wed Oct  7 06:18:24 2009
> Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:17:57 +0700
> From: Dave Temkin <davet1 () gmail com>
> To: Alexander Harrowell <a.harrowell () gmail com>
> Subject: Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility
> Cc: nanog () 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.

"Not exactly".  They are required to do it only 'to the extent permitted by
existing facilities'.  To wit, if they need that wire pair to provide service
(say, an additional line) to a paying customer, they _can_ physically disconnct 
the 'inactive account' premises, and hook up the new paying account to that
pair.

On occasion, telcos are known to re-use the pair, by just hooking the new
customer onto it, _without_ pulling the bridge clips at the 'multiple' where
the old custmer was connected.   This leads to all sorts of messes.  the 'non-
customer' discovers dial-tone on the pair and starts using it.  Calls are being
made which the _real_ customer didn't make, which leads to real arguments with
the billing department.  Then, the customer picks up their phone, and instead
of getting dial tone, discovers a conversation _in_progress_ on the line -- when
_nobody_else_ at their place is on the phone.  Strangely, the parties to that
conversation refuse to identify themselves, and one of them is _really_ anxious
to terminate that call, so you can use "your" line.

I, personally, have been through this more than once, in older, high-density
housing neighborhoods.