[VOIPSEC] Odd e911 VoIP Regulatory Question

[Danijel Starman]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: voipsec-bounces at voipsa.org 
> [mailto:voipsec-bounces at voipsa.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Alvarez
> Sent: 29. siječanj 2009 2:57
> To: voipsec at voipsa.org
> Subject: Re: [VOIPSEC] Odd e911 VoIP Regulatory Question
> 
> > On Jan 28, 2009, at 4:54 PM, Dustin D. Trammell wrote:
> > 
> > If he's disconnecting them due to nonpayment, I would argue 
> that it's
> > safe to say that they are no longer a customer.  You left 
> off the second
> > half of that bullet point.  Here it is in it's entirety:
> 
> 
> That's a very logical argument.  However, many huge lawsuits have 
> drained a lot of money from defendants with a logical defense.  The 
> question here is two-fold in my opinion:  What am I legally 
> required to 
> do, and what should I do to cover my butt?
> 
> We have not yet had to disconnect a customer for non-payment, 
> but this 
> discussion has pointed out the need for us to at least 
> include language 
> in our contract that specifies that we will not carry 911 calls if a 
> customer is disconnected for any reason.

This is an interesting discussion. I think a lawyer should be consulted in any case.
Our residential customers are SIP users, first step after they don't pay after warnings is to stop them from making calls except for the emergency numbers and our toll free number. We are required by law to do this (In Croatia). If the customer doesn't pay after this after a period he is deactivated in our system and he can't make any calls. I belive this is in the contract the user signs (but I will check). I don't see a reason that a SIP trunk (or any other trunk) user should be any different.