[cisco-voip] e911

Thu Mar 8 07:54:50 EST 2018

Great points Ryan.  

We have a standard 9-1-1 disclaimer in our scopes (as I’m sure many VARs do), though it primarily focuses on location and alerting versus access.  I would imagine it would now also need to include reference to this mandate prohibiting restrictions to direct access of 9-1-1 services... i.e. call it out BEFORE the sale to establish baseline notification to the customer.

We also use the Uplinx Reporting Tool (unpaid plug) to capture a snapshot of the CUCM configuration database during handoff to customers,  as well as pre-upgrade and post-upgrade snapshots during upgrades of existing systems.  Something like Uplinx or AXL/SOAP exports, BAT exports, or anything with time stamps bound to the config data will be crucial for everyone going forward.

Sent from a mobile device with very tiny touchscreen input keys. Please excude my typtos.   

> On Mar 7, 2018, at 9:16 PM, Ryan Huff <ryanhuff at outlook.com> wrote:
> 
> Legal language aside, I see this as a HUGE area for VARs to get into civil torts with customers.
> 
> Ideally the end customer is the true owner and stakeholder of the MLTS however; when levied with a government fine (presumably how it would be handled), due to e911 malfeasance, who was the last one to touch it?
> 
> Document everything, get sign off on everything and proceed with caution :) brothers and sisters.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Mar 7, 2018, at 22:10, Anthony Holloway <avholloway+cisco-voip at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I'd be cautious with this one.
>> 
>> 1) You penalize actual emergency calls from connecting as quickly as possible.  Do you really want to be the person responsible for that?
>> 
>> 2) You penalize the entire cluster by changing a global parameter, for the occasional accidental 911 call.
>> 
>> I think a better solution is to solve the human problem.  Just like we wouldn't tolerate our children playing on land lines or cell phones calling 911 (even my son has done it), we shouldn't tolerate adults doing it either.
>> 
>> Failing that, switch your PSTN trunk access code to another digit.  8 seems to be a popular second choice.
>> 
>>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:41 PM NateCCIE <nateccie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This might be a good time to talk about my favorite way to enable 911.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Set the interdigit timeout to a small value, like 3-5 seconds.  Then create a 911 route pattern, and a 911! Pattern, that does not route to 911.  If the user dials 911 and stops, the call connects.  If they keep dialing which usually what happens on a miss-dial, they get whatever your 911! Pattern is configured to do, usually I like block this pattern.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> -Nate
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> From: Bill Talley <btalley at gmail.com> 
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 2:22 PM
>>> To: Matthew Loraditch <MLoraditch at heliontechnologies.com>
>>> Cc: NateCCIE <nateccie at gmail.com>; Ryan Huff <ryanhuff at outlook.com>; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] e911
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Seems like there's two key aspects we need to be concerned with.  1) As I think Matthew is pointing out, notifications are only required if notifications are a native feature available "without improvement", i.e. add-on components.  2)  We now MUST configure direct 911 access without regard to customer complaints or PSAP complaints about accidental 911 calls.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> To answer your question Matthew, I have only ever used CER and Singlewire for notifications, sorry I can't provide more feedback.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:06 PM, Matthew Loraditch <MLoraditch at heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> As far as I know that feature doesn’t notify anyone internally.
>>> 
>>> The part of the law I’m referring to is this:
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> “A person engaged in the business of installing, managing, or operating multi-line telephone systems shall, in installing, managing, or operating such a system for use in the United States, configure the system to provide a notification to a central location at the facility where the system is installed or to another person or organization regardless of location, if the system is able to be configured to provide the notification without an improvement to the hardware or software of the system.”
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Matthew Loraditch
>>> 
>>> Sr. Network Engineer
>>> 
>>> p: 443.541.1518
>>> 
>>> w: www.heliontechnologies.com
>>> 
>>>  |
>>> 
>>> e: MLoraditch at heliontechnologies.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> <image001.png>
>>> 
>>> <image002.png>
>>> 
>>> <image003.png>
>>> 
>>> <image004.png>
>>>  
>>> 
>>> From: NateCCIE [mailto:nateccie at gmail.com] 
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 3:58 PM
>>> To: Matthew Loraditch <MLoraditch at heliontechnologies.com>; 'Ryan Huff' <ryanhuff at outlook.com>; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>>> Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] e911
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Um, I thought it did.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/unified-communications/unified-communications-manager-callmanager/200452-Usage-of-Native-Emergency-Call-Routing-F.html
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net> On Behalf Of Matthew Loraditch
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 1:36 PM
>>> To: Ryan Huff <ryanhuff at outlook.com>; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] e911
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> To piggy back on this, while Cisco doesn’t have emergency notifications built in, as the law mentions, and thus they are not required, does anyone know of options beyond Singlewire that they are happy with? The installs would monitor up to 1000 or so handsets but the folks that would be notified would probably be fewer than 50.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Matthew Loraditch
>>> 
>>> Sr. Network Engineer
>>> 
>>> p: 443.541.1518
>>> 
>>> w: www.heliontechnologies.com
>>> 
>>>  |
>>> 
>>> e: MLoraditch at heliontechnologies.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> <image001.png>
>>> 
>>> <image002.png>
>>> 
>>> <image003.png>
>>> 
>>> <image004.png>
>>>  
>>> 
>>> From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Ryan Huff
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 3:11 PM
>>> To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>>> Subject: [cisco-voip] e911
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> I wonder how cloud-based phone system like Cisco spark will answer this?
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/karis-law-you-compliant-edgar-salazar
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20180308/5b7f4c49/attachment.html>