[cisco-voip] Need some facts regarding DID's, Enterprise VoIP and LATAs

[Matthew Saskin]

I'll dig around.  I know ignorance doesn't make it legal, but everyone 
has seen literally hundreds of organizations that do this, including the 
documentation on Cisco's site outlining exactly how tail-end hop-off can 
be configured.

-matt

Bill Simon wrote:
> Can you confirm this?
> 
> We were told that, unless licensed as a "telco," (CLEC) we may not do
> any toll-bypass by sending traffic over VoIP to a location with a local
> gateway.
>   
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Matthew Saskin
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 3:10 PM
> To: Dark Fiber
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Need some facts regarding DID's, Enterprise
> VoIP and LATAs
> 
> The other responses answered the 911 portions correctly.
> 
> WRT the other issue, there is no legal problem with what you're doing - 
> it's similar to tail-end hop-off.  It can become questionable overseas 
> but I'm pretty certain that it's completely allowed within the United 
> States.  In fact, the only country I know it's illegal in that I do work
> 
> with is India.
> 
> -matt
> 
> Dark Fiber wrote:
>> In the last couple of weeks I have been dealing with e911/911 issues 
>> internally at work.  In trying to resolve and provide the best
> possible 
>> solution for 911 calling to all employees throughout the region I
> ended 
>> having to pull in our legal and regulatory folks to address some of 
>> these issues and what they felt we needed to provide at a minimum to
> our 
>> employees, so that we make sure we are completely covered.
>>  
>> In doing so I begin to layout the network and phone system for them 
>> explaining what we have and where we are going and such.  Upon seeing 
>> this the regulatory folk begin telling me that this is wrong /
> illegal.  
>> Basically saying that the way we have deployed phones and Call 
>> Manager and such is wrong and needs to be corrected.  I was seriously 
>> taken aback by this, never did I question our phone deployment if you 
>> will, I mean heck this meeting was about 911 you know.
>>  
>> The first thing they tell me is that DID's are for internal calling / 
>> usage, and not meant for external or incoming calling?  I was like
> blown 
>> away, this is completely OPPOSITE of what I have always thought and 
>> known.  DID's are direct inward dialing, you can 100 DID's if you will
> 
>> on a PRI from your service provider and assign them to individuals 
>> internally so that users can have a direct inward number from the 
>> outside.  Heck even wikipedia "which I know is not the end all source
> of 
>> all knowledge" but fairly reliable states exactly what I have always 
>> known DID's as.
>>  
>> Next they begin telling me I have to get circuits and DID's / numbers 
>> that correspond to each of my physical locations!
>>  
>> Basically, right now we have various small locations spread out in 
>> different cities.  Say as an example Houston, Dallas and San Antonio.
> 
>> Main office say is Dallas, my call managers and gateways are there in 
>> Dallas.  I get PRI's to terminate there and I have a large block of 
>> DID's all for Dallas.
>>  
>> All ip phones are setup with four digit extension, and are tied to a
> DID 
>> from Dallas even though the phone and user may be in Houston or 
>> something.  User in Houston places a call it goes out of Dallas, and 
>> incoming calls obviously go into Dallas then over our fiber to
> Houston.  
>> Blah blah, nothing new there I know alot of places that do the same
> thing.
>>  
>> Anyway, so they tell me I can't do this.  That legally I have to get 
>> circuits in each market, and provide those users numbers in that
> market. 
>>  
>> I just don't buy this.  I mean the past three employees I have been at
> 
>> and managed the call managers they all had similar setups and I am not
> 
>> the one who set them up so I know I was not the only one who believed
> it 
>> was perfectly acceptable to do things this way.
>>  
>> I would love some facts to use to show that it is perfectly acceptable
> 
>> to do this.  I can't find anything from a legal perspective to 
>> substantiate what they said or what I believe.
>>  
>> I even pointed out VoIP providers like Vonage and stuff, and said if
> it 
>> was illegal to do then don't you think these companies that base their
> 
>> business on just that sort of thing would exist?  That's one of the
> main 
>> selling points you can get a number from any market in the US pretty 
>> much no matter where you live.  Of course their answer was they are 
>> regulated differently.  And who knows maybe so.
>>  
>> Any thoughts or arguments out there on this?  Would love to be able to
> 
>> point to some law or case or something regarding this rather then just
> 
>> thoughts and examples since they would have more weight for me to
> prove 
>> my point.  But I would love to hear anything at this point.
>>  
>>  
>>
>>
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip