PBX in tenent building - 911 calling

This has strayed pretty far from the original topic. The original poster asked a question about using a shared system for limited calling. We do that in hotels and motels all the time. A basic Mitel system, like maybe an SX-200 analog would pretty much fill the bill as it can trap and report any 911 call in real time.

I wouldn't screw with incoming service as it drives the initial cost and monthy recurring charg up quickly. An SX-200 Analog, carded 4x32 with console and a Viking apartment entry system ought to be available for less than $4K with a monthly cost of about %60 for 2 POTS lines.

Just my $.02

Carl Navarro

IMO, the big problem with what the OP wants to do isn't so much the PBX/911/equipment issues as it is the fact that by providing service to a multi-tenant residential property, even if it's free/bundled into condo association fees, he's becoming a "shared tenant services" provider, which comes with a host of regulations and requirements. Shared-tenant arrangements are not allowed for residential properties in many areas and have largely fallen out of favor for various reasons where they are; marketing agreements between regular LECs (ILEC or CLEC) and apartment owners/condo associations are much more common nowadays. Shared-tenant arrangements are still fairly common in commercial properties, where the STS provider often also acts as an interconnect.

I personally think that simply getting toll-restricted POTS lines for each residence (via some sort of bulk account arrangement) would probaly be cheaper than fiddling with a PBX, paying for business trunks and **metered usage** (STS does NOT qualify for flat rate nearly anywhere), etc., especially given the low number of units involved.

-SC

-->Only calling device is the "front door entry machine". No other stations are in the common areas. The Entry Machine has all of the unit numbers ( 101, 102, 103, etc ) so tenents can remotly buzz people into the building, the management companies number ( 611 ) and 911 for calling well, 911. That's it. Looking around DC, the other dialers also have 911 in/on their dialers. Good thing for us to check out though, legality-wise.

Scotty

-->I'm jusy playing around in the lab now. After all of the stuff in this thread, makes sense not to mess with the PUC regulatory and E911 stuff just for tenents.

Interesting system the SX-200. Doesn't look inexpensive either........ ;-) Looked on the website for an admin manual but all they have are user guides. Any .pdf admin guides/manuals for this system? Looks like a 5k+ system though.

Scotty

wdg@ wrote

Well, yes, but someone could slip on a doormat. And surely liability only arises from negligence?

Here in Scotland, houses in multiple occupancy can be required to have a fixed landline phone to call the emergency services, as part of their HMO licence conditions.

But then the building managers could be liable if someone wanted to use the phone and wasn't allowed by the guard to make an emergency call?

If there is known to be a large number of people in the building who don't have landline access, and the building manager installs a payphone for their convenience, and said payphone is under a maintenance agreement, I don't see how the building manager can be negligent.

Owain

Isaiah Beard wrote

How strange. If you want a private payphone in Britain you just ask BT and they install one (and charge you rental for it) and maintain it. You get to keep the money (if any) customers put in for calls. Rental of a payphone starts at GBP 37 per quarter up to GBP 130 for the more robust versions, line cost about GBP 10 on top of that.

And a line has to be provided for the reception desk anyway, in large buildings.

Owain

What fills the bill today vs what fills the bill *after* your state adopts

911 legislation requiring PBX station-side location reporting on any building with more than 40 extensions is another matter. An old sx200 Analog won't meet the new requirements. No doubt there'll be a grandfather clause for preexisting installations, but new installations will have to comply. At least MITEL's CESID information field (SX200 EL/ML/ICP) is already NENA-compliant and ready to address this. IMO Mitel also addresses 911 in a more intelligent manner (in recent software) than some of its competitors. It's also quite easy to build a 911 "accidental misdial" trap in the system speed call table. (helpful when your legal counsel suggests that you allow both 911 as well as 9-911)

Mitel (also in fairly recent software) has added a nice tenanting feature, at least in the 2K and 3300 platform (Dunno, perhaps SX200 as well). Ergo if there's any pbx out there that's ready to do 911 in a multi-tenant envoronment, Mitel would certainly be among those to consider. I just don't think I would want to take on the responsibility (multi-tenant 911) because of the potential liability in case something goes awry. Too many lawyers, not enough bullets. ;-)

Phone rules in the US are a very strange mix of national and state law and grandfathered historical status at times. And social activists have gotten lots of things written into local regulations turn out to have very unexpected results. Especially after the technology changes.

I've seen the NYC subway have new pay phones installed per a new local requirement about how many and where in public transportation locations which were literally 10 feet from existing phones that didn't meet the letter of the law as to placement. This was in the 80s.

In the great and wonderful legal system we're running in the US, not being negligent can have nothing to do with whether or not you get to pay out damages in a civil suit.