Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: 26 Jun 91 19:38:34 GMT From: Jeff Carroll Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Message-ID: Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 496, Message 5 of 7 Lines: 34 In article covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert 25-Jun-1991 0727) writes: > I think Patrick is making laws up again. I would agree that from time to time Pat cites Illinois law as if we all lived in Illinois. It's important, especially with respect to such a field as telecom in the United States, to differentiate between those areas governed by federal law and those controlled (or perhaps not controlled) by the individual states. That said, I'll admit that I would not want to be called on to handle the questions that he does a pretty good job with, and that he has a much better command of Illinois law than I was able to acquire during the four years I was there. I never did figure out why I would need one of those bail bond cards, or why it was so easy to get a fake drivers' license. > My phone book says: "State law requires you to yield a party line > immediately when told the line is needed for an emergency." Here > Massachusetts is referred to. A phone book from neighboring New > Hampshire says: "Whoever shall willfully refuse to yield the use of a > telephone party line for giving of a fire alarm or emergency call ..." > My recollection in every other state is that this only applies to > party lines. This was the case in Indiana too. I'm not sure that such a law exists in Washington State. Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com