TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Internet Pioneer: VoIP is NOT Telephony

Re: Internet Pioneer: VoIP is NOT Telephony

Robert Bonomi (
Mon, 18 Apr 2005 23:57:38 -0000

In article <>,
Scott Dorsey <> wrote:

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How would you then deal with 'phone
>> patches', the little devices which allow VHF/UHF radios to link into
>> the public phone network? Should they also be subject to the rules
>> of the public switched telephone network? PAT]

> Yes. Patched calls are subject to BOTH the rules of the public
> telephone network AND the rules of whatever radio channel is in use,
> because the call is handled by both services.

> --scott

> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess what I meant to say was the
> person using the radio who issues certain tones to the base station
> where the 'phone patch' is located, who then makes outgoing phone
> calls over a (common, owned by the ham radio operator's club for
> example) phone line. Is that commonly-owned phone line, and the
> 'patch' device in the middle, and most important, the portable
> transciever (a two meter rig comes to mind) all subject to both
> radio and telco rules, for example, the 911 surcharge, and other
> fees on account of his transciever rig _can possibly_ be used on
> the phone network? What about the local number portability fee,
> etc? After all, he does have a _phone number_ (albiet shared in
> common with other club members) doesn't he? PAT]

NO, "he" does _not_ have a phone number. You cannot place a phone call
_to_ that ham by calling that number, for example.

The land-line is 'owned', and paid for, by "whomever it is" that owns/
operates the repeater with the phone-patch. Think of the transceivers
with the appropriate accessories to access the phone-patch as simply
multiple "extensions" on that single-number phone line. Land-line
"rules" say that there is a 911 surcharge _per_line_, paid by the line
owner -- it is a fixed amount, _regardless_ of how many 'extensions'
there are on that line. Same thing for the LNP fees.

"Land-line" fees are _not_ applicable to the "radio" portion of such a
call/service. Neither are land-line equipment requirements. And,
similarly, "radio" fees and equipment requirements do not apply to the
'land-line' portion of such a call/service.

Example: anything that is connected to the PSTN is required to have a
FCC registered (and -tested- rules-compliant) "network interface" --
what the phone companies sold/rented, once upon a time, as a "DAA". A
radio that is able to use a phone-patch to originate a call is *not*
required to have any such device. (Although the phone-patch, itself,

On the other hand, a call that traverses _both_ services, is
restricted to the "least common denominator" of the legal restrictions
on _each_ service. If a thing is proscribed on *either* kind of
operation, it cannot be legally done on a call that employs both kinds
of operations. e.g., on the aforementioned ham phone-patch it is
*illegal* (_criminally_ so!) for a ham radio operator to call the
neighborhood pizza joint to place an order.

Now, PSAP database locater requirements compliance raises
_interesting_ _questions_ as regards a "phone-patch" line. I'm not
knowledgeable enough on location-reporting requirements to even
_guess_ at how they apply in that kind of a situation. What do the
rules say for a phone line on a farm, where a _single_ POTS line is
connected to instruments in the house and the barn? No PBX or
anything, just the wires going out to the barn.

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: "Re: PPC Advertising, Click Fraud, and Its Effect on Search Engines"
Go to Previous message: Steve Sobol: "Re: SprintPCS Lousy Web Interface"
May be in reply to: Jack Decker: "Internet Pioneer: VoIP is NOT Telephony"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page