Results 16 to 30 of 69
- 12-26-2004, 10:22 PM #16Linc MadisonGuest
Re: Article: Don't call 911 to test your new phone
In article <[email protected]>, Joel Kolstad
<[email protected]> wrote:
> A couple? of years ago Consumer Reports had an article on cell phones
> specifically focusing on how successful they were in their ability to
> reach 911 services under various conditions. For example, [...].
> Knowing how one's phone behaves in such situations is quite useful,
> and not something routinely found in instruction manuals.
In order for this test to be of any use, you would have to conduct many
tests under a variety of different conditions, in a variety of
different places (to sample various combinations of signal strength
from different providers). It would be easier to compile a directory of
all the police emergency numbers in communities you frequent.
The bottom line: no, testing 911 from your cellphone is not a
reasonable thing to do. The fact that the phone works or doesn't work
in your test will have very little relation to whether it works or
doesn't work in a real emergency.
The manufacturers and cellular companies should certainly conduct tests
under controlled circumstances to ensure that the phones will behave in
the best possible manner, including such things as automatically
overriding the user's roaming settings to grab the best signal from any
available carrier. (That includes figuring out the specific operational
definition of "best signal.") But testing by the end users -- either
haphazardly or methodically -- is not a good idea.
--
Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * [email protected]
<http://www.LincMad.com> * primary e-mail: Telecom at LincMad dot com
All U.S. and California anti-spam laws apply, incl. CA BPC 17538.45(c)
This text constitutes actual notice as required in BPC 17538.45(f)(3).
DO NOT SEND UNSOLICITED E-MAIL TO THIS ADDRESS. You have been warned.
› See More: Article: Don't call 911 to test your new phone
- 12-27-2004, 01:24 AM #17Linc MadisonGuest
Re: Article: Don't call 911 to test your new phone
Organization: California resident; nospam; no unsolicited e-mail allowed
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
User-Agent: Thoth/1.7.0 (Carbon/OS X)
Lines: 35
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.121.199.208
X-Trace: sv3-2M5jEp4GzaiBLpm5EQBwkdNGJfcnES0xmlJpj/OsBjtTAECaP2RA1tR0aQht+z5E9KuW3N8oROTluK0!z13AKNx6IjzEdB0rlDagjsrABnezitbyGz0kKXC7VYhQhO3zoXBe1Z0g+y7cKhUY+/hFLpgVx/YI!MA==
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.22
Xref: news.newshosting.com alt.cellular.sprintpcs:152619
In article <[email protected]>, Tinman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Steve Sobol wrote:
> > If you're planning on testing 911, from a landline or otherwise,
> > you're supposed to call beforehand and let them know, AFAIK.
>
> Well apparently you *don't* know...
Actually, Steve Sobol *DOES* know, and you left out the part of his
quote that demonstrates that quite clearly:
> > If you're planning on testing 911, from a landline or otherwise,
> > you're supposed to call beforehand and let them know, AFAIK. It's a
> > pretty standard thing to do when, for example, you're setting up a
> > PBX in an office...
It *IS* sometimes necessary and proper to make a test call to 911 when
you are setting up a PBX. Of course, you must contact the authorities
beforehand to determine the proper protocol and procedure.
What makes the PBX special is that the PBX may be able to pass
additional information to the 911 center beyond the default information
for the trunk line. For example, the PBX may be able to pass the
building and room number, rather than simply "somewhere at XYZ Corp's
362-acre headquarters complex."
Ordinary individuals should never make test calls to 911. However,
under certain circumstances, telephone installers may need to.
--
Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * [email protected]
All U.S. and California anti-spam laws apply, incl. CA BPC 17538.45(c)
This text constitutes actual notice as required in BPC 17538.45(f)(3).
DO NOT SEND UNSOLICITED E-MAIL TO THIS ADDRESS. You have been warned.
- 12-27-2004, 01:24 AM #18Linc MadisonGuest
Re: Article: Don't call 911 to test your new phone
In article <[email protected]>, Isaiah Beard
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Notan wrote:
>
> > While it's just an opinion, I can't believe that *anyone,* in the
> > 911 system, would encourage *any* type of testing.
> >
> > I'd like to see some type of "912" test number that people could
> > call. similar in all respects to 911... Rather than going to a live
> > operator, the call would go to a pre-recorded confirmation line.
>
> You know, there really doesn't need to be even that. When you get
> down to it, there is really nothing on the cell phone's end that is
> any different in how the call is made to 911 than if you called Aunt
> Martha to say hello. It must still find a signal; it must still be
> able to interface with a wireless network using whatever protocols it
> is compatible with; it must still be able to connect to the MTSO and
> pass through call information. The rest of the call is routed by the
> PSTN based on local and national 911 routing guidelines, just like a
> landline.
This is not at all true. From the cellphone's end, dialing 911 is
*VERY* different from calling Aunt Martha to say hello.
When you use your cellphone to dial 911, several things happen
differently. The phone should automatically override your preference
against roaming and even disregard the question of whether your
provider has billing arrangements with the provider whose network you
are using. The phone must disregard any lockout or security code that
you may have to enter to make ordinary calls. Furthermore, the
cellphone will not allow you to hang up on 911 quite as easily as on an
ordinary call. On my phone, I have to press some combination of extra
keys to disconnect from 911.
Furthermore, the routing of the 911 call once it enters the PSTN is
also quite different from the routing of a landline 911 call. In many
states, cellular 911 calls are routed to the highway patrol dispatch,
since a large proportion of cellular 911 calls are from freeways. I
don't know of any place that routes landline 911 to the highway patrol.
However, I still agree that testing 911 on your cellphone is a bad
idea. I know how my phone works from calling 911 to report a bona fide
emergency. (I also know how my phone works when I dial 415-553-0123 to
report a non-emergency situation to the San Francisco Police.)
Unfortunately, I learned the hard way that my phone wasn't properly set
up for analog roaming one night on an isolated rural road when I was
trying to call AAA. Thus, if you're concerned about the possibility of
being unable to call 911 when you're in an area without Sprint PCS
signal, you might try calling Aunt Martha from a rural area. Paying the
cost of a minute or two of roaming is better than burdening the 911
system with a non-emergency call.
--
Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * [email protected]
All U.S. and California anti-spam laws apply, incl. CA BPC 17538.45(c)
This text constitutes actual notice as required in BPC 17538.45(f)(3).
DO NOT SEND UNSOLICITED E-MAIL TO THIS ADDRESS. You have been warned.
- 12-27-2004, 01:27 AM #19Steve SobolGuest
Re: Article: Don't call 911 to test your new phone
Linc Madison wrote:
> Unfortunately, I learned the hard way that my phone wasn't properly set
> up for analog roaming one night on an isolated rural road when I was
> trying to call AAA. Thus, if you're concerned about the possibility of
> being unable to call 911 when you're in an area without Sprint PCS
> signal, you might try calling Aunt Martha from a rural area. Paying the
> cost of a minute or two of roaming is better than burdening the 911
> system with a non-emergency call.
What's your opinion about making test calls from a landline?
Just wondering,
S
--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
- 12-27-2004, 03:33 AM #20Pete StephensonGuest
Re: Article: Don't call 911 to test your new phone
In article <[email protected]>,
Steve Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:
> What's your opinion about making test calls from a landline?
As an EMS dispatcher myself (though working for a private company that
does 911-contract work, but not actually working at the 911 center
itself), you should coordinate with the 911 center, preferably by
calling their non-emergency line, talking to someone in a position of
authority, and explaining your request.
As an example, my home burglar alarm is connected directly to the police
department (as opposed to going through a monitoring company). A few
days ago, I was doing some re-wiring to ensure that the burglar alarm
was compatible with the DSL service that now shares the same line. I
called the non-emergency number, informed them that I was going to be
doing some wiring, and that the alarm may be sounded several times and
that no police response was necessary.
After doing the wiring, I called the police again, had them take me off
the "test" monitoring they were doing, informed them that I was going to
be testing the alarm one more time (this time in "production" mode) and
verified that the appropriate alarm signal and information was properly
transmitted.
Usually the emergency services are willing to accommodate reasonable
requests made by citizens so long as they do not interfere with
emergency calls. Call the non-emergency number at an off-peak time, ask
politely, explain precisely why you want to test and how you're going to
do it, and they may well agree to help.
Calling them every day to arrange a daily test, or doing "Can you hear
me now? Good!" tests from all over the region by cellphone will likely
cause them to be disgruntled. Dealing with emergency services at major
cities (i.e. San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc.) is
likely to result in frustration, while small and medium-sized cities may
be much more helpful. <insert common sense here>
<insert obligatory disclaimer about me representing only myself, not any
company or organization. Your mileage may vary. Ad nauseum.>
--
Pete Stephenson
HeyPete.com
- 12-27-2004, 10:18 AM #21John R. CopelandGuest
Re: Article: Don't call 911 to test your new phone
"Linc Madison" <[email protected]> wrote in message =
news:261220042324553671%[email protected]...
>=20
>=20
> When you use your cellphone to dial 911, several things happen
> differently. The phone should automatically override your preference
> against roaming and even disregard the question of whether your
> provider has billing arrangements with the provider whose network you
> are using. The phone must disregard any lockout or security code that
> you may have to enter to make ordinary calls.=20
> =20
> Linc Madison=20
How much time might typically elapse for the phone to find a "better"
signal provider, and then register on that possibly foreign system,
before placing the 911 call?
I'd like to believe it would be a negligible delay, but I'm curious.
- 12-27-2004, 11:22 AM #22TinmanGuest
Re: Article: Don't call 911 to test your new phone
Linc Madison wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Tinman
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Steve Sobol wrote:
>>> If you're planning on testing 911, from a landline or otherwise,
>>> you're supposed to call beforehand and let them know, AFAIK.
>>
>> Well apparently you *don't* know...
>
> Actually, Steve Sobol *DOES* know, and you left out the part of his
> quote that demonstrates that quite clearly:
>
I knew exactly what Steve was alluding to; I simply did not find it
germane to the, albeit sarcastic, point I was making.
This thread started... well read the subject to figure that out. Joel
Kolstad suggested it (test-calling 911) was a "reasonable" thing to do.
Notan asked, presumably sarcastically, if Kolstad was claiming it was a
good idea that everyone test 911. Kolstad then replied that anyone
"concerned" about their phone's ability to contact 911, should do so (at
a reasonable time)--even from landlines.
Most any citizen would say yes if asked if they are "at all concerned"
about their phone reaching 911. So if you are advocating test-calling
911 to any concerned citizen, there needs to be a 911 system in place
that is capable of handling many times the number of calls they receive
now. But the reality is that emergency systems--not just PSAP--are
tested professionally all the time.
And of course we don't, and likely never will, have the kind of PSAP
capacity to allow all citizens to test-call. Ergo, advocating 911
test-calling to any "concerned" citizen, particularly from a mobile
phone where a test is almost meaningless, is IMO absurd (unless you
believe that certain citizens are somehow more entitled to PSAP services
than everyone else). If you are going to throw out an idea, at least
consider it through to its logical conclusion--and this is what I
replied to originally.
For the record, I have coordinated the testing of 911 from PBX systems
myself--each and every station. But I did not place a sticker on each
station for the end users stating,"Please test 911 between 9AM and 11AM,
and don't hang up on the operator." This is no different than the
testing cellular carriers perform, at the point their systems interact
with the PSTN. Accordingly, mobile handsets don't come with stickers
asking users to test 911.
And to return to my original sardonic query, "why stop there?" Many
people would answer yes if asked if they are "concerned" about
police/fire/EMS response times. Why not advocate having the public test
them too? Seems to me to be just as important as reaching a 911
operator. And just as absurd to test by the general public.
This is Usenet, so any tangent that can possibly be taken, generally
is...
- 12-27-2004, 11:54 AM #23Joel KolstadGuest
Re: Article: Don't call 911 to test your new phone
"Isaiah Beard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You know, there really doesn't need to be even that. When you get down to
> it, there is really nothing on the cell phone's end that is any different
> in how the call is made to 911 than if you called Aunt Martha to say
> hello.
Please re-read my post. Although you're of course correct that much of the
way a cell phone connects to 911 is 100% identical to a call to Aunt Martha,
it is _not_ identical and (as I gave an example for) the differences are
enough that I don't think it's unreasonable to want to 'check' the system.
> Yet I don't see this person advocating that we periodically test our
> landlines to see if they can connect to 911 (and god help him if he does
> advocate this).
I wasn't suggesting 'periodically.' I think 'once per new phone' line is
probably fine.
I'm willing to bet you that there are many parts of the day during which
local 911 dispatchers are not actively handling calls. Although I'd imagine
they have plenty of other responsibilities as well, testing 911 during these
slow periods is not likely to create problems.
> I get this unfortunate impression that Mr. Kolstad thinks that an
> obligation exists among public safety agencies to ensure that any
> foolhardy individual can get help anytime, anywhere.
Not at all. But I don't see how you come up with that belief based on my
suggestion that it's reasonable to test out a new cell phone's 911 behavior?
> While that would be nice, this is not an ideal world, and even the
> Supreme Court is recognized that while PSTN's, mobile carriers and public
> safety agenices provide a valuable service by allowing you to get help
> when they are able to provide it, they are *not obligated* to do so
> (according to Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap.,
> 1981)
Keep in mind that our taxes and service fees PAY for those 911 dispatchers
and other safety agencies.
> Again, it's unfortunate, but the emergency workers have finite resources,
> and while it does run counter to what the average person beleives, testing
> 911 only bogs down the service and makes it LESS available when it is
> needed, rather than ensuring its availability.
At the end of the day, it comes down to costs. If for every 100 'real' 911
calls there's 1 test call, instead of 100 dispatchers you now need 101... so
the cost of running 911 goes up 1%. Of course, I don't know the real
numbers, and as previously mentioned, I'd suggest that since there have to
be more 911 dispatchers employed than are statistically expected to ever be
needed (to handle the rare situation where a lot of emergencies DO pile up
together), by being cognizant of proper '911 test etiquette' and knowing
good times for test calls we can kill two birds with one stone.
I like the other poster's idea of having a '912' number for tests. This
would require changes to cell phones such that '912' calls were treated
identically to 911, but I think it'd be worthwhile. He's really nailed
where the problem in the system is -- at present, the only way to test 911
is to use the Real Thing, which is an expensive enough resource that
alternative testing methods would be useful.
---Joel
- 12-27-2004, 12:32 PM #24Joel KolstadGuest
Re: Article: Don't call 911 to test your new phone
"Isaiah Beard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Reasonable in what way? The FCC has mandated that it MUST work.
FCC mandates and reality are two different things. Look at the Consumer
Reports article -- there are cell phones out there that DO NOT 'work' even
though the COULD with somewhat better programming. Presumably this gets by
the FCC because whatever test is used for 'MUST' work is a little different
than what most individuals would expect.
> And "testing" it also doesn't ensure anything. Just because it worked the
> moment you took the phone out of the box doesn't guarantee that the same
> operation will work later, in a different area and possibly on a different
> cell site or network.
True, but the idea of testing is to see how the cell phone behaves in an
area you might expect to spend a lot of time traveling through, i.e., you're
hedging your bets. I agree it's completely improper to call up 911 every
day to perform the 'test.'
> I'm sorry, but I think you've just shown your own naivete here. How does
> flooding a 911 call center with unnecessary calls educate anyone about
> anything, except how to make a 911 dispatcher very irate?
The article didn't claim the call center was 'flooded' (in the sense of...
they were getting so many test calls they were having difficulty processing
the real ones). I would be irate too if I were getting a bunch of hang-up
calls, but the point I'm trying to address is whether or not making test
calls to 911 in the first place is defensible.
> You have no emergency to report, so it's not as if you're making the
> dispatcher go through the entire process with you.
Although it's perhaps comparing apples and oranges, you do realize that
pretty much every radio-based emergency communications service out there
holds regular test drills to make sure that (1) the people involved are
prepared for the real thing and (2) the equipment is all working properly?
I'm truly amazed at how much anti-911-test sentiment there is out there.
Even with the current system, if you call the non-emergency number first and
ask if it's a good time to place a 911 test call (a suggestion from another
poster I like), the worst that happens is that you slightly increase the
overall workload of the dispatch center. If EVERONE starts placing, say,
one test phone call to 911 per year, do you really think it's going to be
that large of an increase in the operating costs? I don't. In fact, the
cost _per call_ might actually go down based on the ability to purchase
higher quantities of eqipment to handle the calls.
Although it doesn't look like we could create a '912' number any time soon,
I could see changing the current system to say, 'If this is just a test
call, press '1' now. If not, stay on the line and you will be transferred
to a live operator ASAP...' With, say, a 3 second delay (far less than,
e.g., routing delays already present in the phone system) this might work
just as well as the current system and reduce dispatcher annoyance.
> I don't know about you, but my manual clearly states what my cell phone
> will look for based on what roaming settings I have configured, and I
> clearly know what to expect because I've read my manual.
Does it specificially address 911 calls? For the umpteenth-time, WHEN YOU
DIAL 911 ON A CELL PHONE IT IS *NOT* PROCESSED THE SAME WAY AS A REGULAR
CALL.
> I'm sure that if you're in the middle of a true emergency and find that
> you have to be put on hold when you dial 911, you'll realize how very
> wrong you are. 911 is NOT a "universal" number.
By "universal" I meant that it works regardless of what geographic portion
of the country you're in. (And I know at one time, obviously, it wasn't
true that 911 worked nation-wide; I'm not sure if that's still the case,
althouh it's certainly very close to being universal. I mean, the whole
point is, "If you're going to remember just one emergency services number,
it ought to be 911," right?)
> It's a number specifically designed to be called only when you are
> absolutely certain that a true, immediate emergency exists and that life
> or property (and some states even omit "property") is directly threatened.
> It is not meant as a test line, nor is it meant to be called to get the
> dispatcher's opinion of whether something is an emergency.
Just because something is not 'meant' as a 'test line' doesn't imply that it
should never be tested.
> You also misunderstand the current intent of cell phones. Ask any
> wireless carrier whether they will guarantee that a cell phone let you
> reach authorities in an emergency, and all of them will invariably say
> that NO, it is a not guarantee. A cell phone is not a public utility. It
> is still very much an item of convenience, and subject to service
> availability, and it will be so for quite sometime.
Sure, I fully understand this. No one guarantees that landline 911 will
always work either, right? (A falling tree in a storm can easily take out
hundreds of phone lines...)
> People need to realize that while cell phones are useful tools in an
> emergency when they work, they are absolutely not a guarantee of emergency
> help.
There is NO guarantee of emergency help EVER, is there?
> Somehow people managed to get along prior to the 1980s when cellular
> networks were commonplace, and people need to realize that this technology
> still isn't perfect and you might find yourself in a situation where you
> will still need to cope however people did in the pre-mobile era of
> society.
People will cope just fine. I think the biggest mistake people make is not
being _aware_ of the limitations of technology -- you see a lot of people
going off hiking into the wilderness with cell phones expecting to use it to
dial 911 if necessary when they _aren't even aware_ that they'll probably be
well out of anyone's coverage range two hours into their backcountry tramp.
Nevertheless, advancing technology has and will continue to allow more
emergencies to end on a happy note rather than a sour one. (A good example
of this are those sometimes annoying On-Star commercials!)
By 2010 it's probably a safe bet that the percentage of people who own cell
phones will be greater than the percentage of people with landline phones
in, say, 1950. As the people paying for the government, we have a
responsibility to decide how much emergency coverage we're willing to pay
for, and then enact legislation to insure that coverage gets turned into the
appropriate technology. The Consumer Reports article demonstrated that
there can be a disconnect in this process between what the government (the
FCC in this case) decides and what actually gets implemented. (And I'm not
trying to imply that the cell phone manufacturers are at fault; the way laws
are written, it's probably quite ambiguous as to how some of the finer
details of the cell phone's 911 handling ought to be implemented.)
> I sincerely hope sir, that you never find yourself in an emergency,
> because I pity the "low quality" 911 dispatcher who will deal with the
> likes of you.
Look, 911 dispatching is a job like anything else. In my opinion, it's also
a job that the average individual can perform, and it's a far cry from the
work of firemen, policemen, and other emergency workers who are truly
risking their lives at times for their jobs. Hence, I don't give 911
dispatchers any special 'pass' on getting to complain about what are
predictable downsides of their jobs. All jobs have parts that suck, but
professional employees try to keep the stories of the sucky parts between
themselves, friends, and co-workers and don't go publishing them in a
newspaper in what would appear to be an attempt to 'scold' all those bad 911
test-dialers out there. If the public is 'misbehaving' so badly that it
warrants a public information campaign, there are far better ways to go
about doing it than whining. In my opinion, 'positive reinforcement' is a
better teaching tool than negative reinforcement. The key difference would
have been for the 911 dispatcher to say, 'if you DO want to test 911 service
with you cell phone, please follow these guidelines...'
---Joel
- 12-27-2004, 12:42 PM #25Joel KolstadGuest
Re: Article: Don't call 911 to test your new phone
"Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Why stop there? Let's all test the fire alarms in public and private
> office buildings.
Ummm.... you realize this is standard operating procedure in the US, right?
> Heck, while we're at it, let's test those EMS workers too.
I realize your post was meant to be facetious, but as some attempt to
address is meaningfully... the difference is that nothing you have is 'part'
of the EMS system (like your cell phone is to the 911 system). EMS workers
test themselves on a regular basis, however, and I expect that they'd be
happy to have you come on down and watch their practice runs if you're
concerned about it.
Most communities have a program that allows any citizen to ride along with a
police offer for a good chunk of a day to better understand what their jobs
are like and how the system works. When I was in high school, every single
kid in the school got to do this during senior year. (And somehow I don't
think this additional burden created some huge crime spree in the city...
"Hey, hey! Look, it's March -- all those high school kids are gonna be
riding with the cops, we'd better hold up the City Bank then!")
> And how do we know the TSA is doing their job right? Might as well
> organize a Bring Your Gun to the Airport day. That'll teach those
> low-level unhappy bastards a lesson in how to work, right?
News organizations often DO those tests, obviously after making the right
contacts and making sure supervisors know what's going on.
> Each "test" call has the potenial to delay help to someone who truly needs
> it.
Hence the impetus for having a test line, or -- given that that's probably
not in the cards at the moment -- first calling the non-emergency number to
insure there's ample resources available to handle a test call.
> I don't give a **** whether someone is pathologically curious or not. If
> they abuse the 9-1-1 system they should be punished.
Testing 911 with the consent of the dispatch center is not abuse.
> How about having those "concerned" idiots "test" the brakes on 18-wheelers
> by jumping in front of trucks. Need to be sure those brakes actually work.
This is absurd, obviously. A better example might be wanting the TRUCKER to
test the brakes and... hey... guess what... highways usually do have
brake/tire testing areas before large hills!
Oh, and if you want to test your own emergency driving skills, there are
tracks and schools available for that purpose.
---Joel
- 12-27-2004, 12:54 PM #26Joel KolstadGuest
Re: Article: Don't call 911 to test your new phone
Tinman,
"Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> And of course we don't, and likely never will, have the kind of PSAP
> capacity to allow all citizens to test-call. Ergo, advocating 911
> test-calling to any "concerned" citizen, particularly from a mobile phone
> where a test is almost meaningless, is IMO absurd
Do you really thing there are more 'concerned' citizens out there who'd want
to test-call 911 than the number of people who call 911 for not truly
life/property threatening sitations anyway? I expect that many 911 calls
are situations along the lines of, 'my cat is stuck in the tree!,' 'I locked
my car with the keys inside!,' etc.
I'm not advocating that if there are already lots of improper calls to 911
that test-calling is just another form that should be accepted, rather that
911 already has had to be built up to handle far more calls than are srictly
necessary for true emergencies, and that test calls to 911 would be a drop
in the back compared to the overall capacity of 911.
> (unless you believe that certain citizens are somehow more entitled to
> PSAP services than everyone else).
Absolutely not...
> For the record, I have coordinated the testing of 911 from PBX systems
> myself--each and every station. But I did not place a sticker on each
> station for the end users stating,"Please test 911 between 9AM and 11AM,
> and don't hang up on the operator."
So you should be allowed to test each and ever office phone as part of a PBX
system that dials 911 because you're a professional phone installer, yet the
owner/operators of cell phones shouldn't because they couldn't possibly do
it the way they're supposed to, huh? Sure sounds like you're the once
claiming that some people are more 'entitled' than others...
> And to return to my original sardonic query, "why stop there?" Many people
> would answer yes if asked if they are "concerned" about police/fire/EMS
> response times. Why not advocate having the public test them too?
The difference is in cost. A test call to 911 should be somewhere in the
'under a dollar' ballpark to test; not enough to make it worthwhile to bill.
If people want to test the police/fire/EMS -- and are willing to pay for the
test -- it's a little absurd but I suppose I'm all for that too if you call
them up and tell them, "Hey, I'm willing to pay for a practice drill of your
firemen, so long as you pretend it's my house that's burning down. When
would be a good time to arrange this drill?" I'd expect THOSE tests would
run more in the hundreds to thousands of dollars, however, so unless you're
wealthy you'll just have to take your chances.
---Joel
- 12-27-2004, 01:02 PM #27Joel KolstadGuest
Re: Article: Don't call 911 to test your new phone
Linc,
"Linc Madison" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:261220042022186248%[email protected]...
> The manufacturers and cellular companies should certainly conduct tests
> under controlled circumstances to ensure that the phones will behave in
> the best possible manner, including such things as automatically
> overriding the user's roaming settings to grab the best signal from any
> available carrier. (That includes figuring out the specific operational
> definition of "best signal.") But testing by the end users -- either
> haphazardly or methodically -- is not a good idea.
Do you think, then, that it was wrong of Consumer Reports to perform their
tests? (Which I'm sure were done with the coordination of the emergency
agencies involved.) If so, I'd say you're then on a slippery slope of
trying to define just who 'should' or 'shouldn't' perform such tests.
Especially when you consider that CR found out that the phones they testsed
did _not_ behave in the 'best possible manner,' it certainly suggests to me
that having SOME outside party (other than the manufacturers and cell phone
companies) perform such tests is worthwhile.
I agree there's plenty of potential for problems if every Aunt Martha out
there were to start placing calls to 911, but my expectation is that _in
general_ very few people are going to bother making such calls anyway. I
expect the problem the original article referred to (people calling 911 from
new cell phones they received for Xmas and then hanging up) eminates from
the fact that many times cell phones are given as gifts specifically as
'safety' devices for the recipient. Given that reality, perhaps it would be
better overall if the cell phone manufacturers did spend a few paragraphs or
two in the 'quick start' manuals discussing what the proper way to test
would be.
---Joel
- 12-27-2004, 01:22 PM #28Isaiah BeardGuest
Re: Article: Don't call 911 to test your new phone
Steve Sobol wrote:
>> Why stop there? Let's all test the fire alarms in public and private
>> office buildings. I mean, we need to be sure they work, right? Oops, I
>> forgot about private homes. We'll all need to call the local FDs to
>> "test" their response time. Never can be too safe, right? Heck, while
>> we're at it, let's test those EMS workers too.
> If you're planning on testing 911, from a landline or otherwise, you're
> supposed to call beforehand and let them know, AFAIK. It's a pretty
> standard thing to do when, for example, you're setting up a PBX in an
> office...
Test a PBX's emergency call routing is an apples to oranges comparison
though. A PBX is a test of a private phone system that interconnects
with but isn't officially *PART* of the PSTN (though you could argue
that Centrex is more fully integrated). In such rigs, a one-time test
by the party(ies) responsible for maintaining that PBX to ensure things
work is reasonable.
The cell phone, however, is a device that connects with a switch whose
emergency call routing can reasonably be assumed to have been tested FOR
you by the carrier responsible for providing you with service. If it
can make and receive non emergency calls, then really the parts that you
can and should test have already been tested. Chances are, it hasn't
been a terribly long time since the last person called 911 from that
MTSO, meaning it's unlikely an issue with 911 call routing has gone
unreported.
--
E-mail address munged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my address to reply by e-mail.
- 12-27-2004, 01:25 PM #29Isaiah BeardGuest
Re: Article: Don't call 911 to test your new phone
John Richards wrote:
> "Isaiah Beard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> People who do this should automatically have their cell phones
>> confiscated. They've just proven they can't handle the responsibility.
>
>
> Let's just make it a mandatory $100 fine for calling 911 without an
> emergency. People who still want to test can do so and pay the price.
I would accept such a proposal, with an amedment: let the "tester" pay
the actual, accountant-certified itemized cost for such a response.
Generally PSAPs report that false 911 calls cost taxpayers a lot more
than $100 per occurrence. So, let the fine be whatever direct costs can
be proven.
--
E-mail address munged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my address to reply by e-mail.
- 12-27-2004, 01:51 PM #30Isaiah BeardGuest
Re: Article: Don't call 911 to test your new phone
Joel Kolstad wrote:
> "Isaiah Beard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>You know, there really doesn't need to be even that. When you get down to
>>it, there is really nothing on the cell phone's end that is any different
>>in how the call is made to 911 than if you called Aunt Martha to say
>>hello.
>
>
> Please re-read my post.
If I responded to your post, then you can assume that I read it. Just
because someone disagrees with you, it does not make them illiterate,
and implying so only bolsters the idea that you cannot sufficiently
defend your position.
> Although you're of course correct that much of the
> way a cell phone connects to 911 is 100% identical to a call to Aunt Martha,
> it is _not_ identical and (as I gave an example for) the differences are
> enough that I don't think it's unreasonable to want to 'check' the system.
The system is "checked" many, many times a day in real life emergencies.
There is nothing inherent to one person's particular cell phone that
will permit them to uncover a problem with the PSAP that has not already
been discovered through legitimate requests for assistance, and
fulfillment of those requests. Thus, it IS unreasonable to "check" the
system. Such "checks" are unwarranted and make the system less
available to those who need it.
>
>>Yet I don't see this person advocating that we periodically test our
>>landlines to see if they can connect to 911 (and god help him if he does
>>advocate this).
>
> I wasn't suggesting 'periodically.' I think 'once per new phone' line is
> probably fine.
Which brings me to my other point, which you so cleanly glossed over: a
single test of a cell phone when new does not guarantee that the same
cell phone will work later. It ony guarantees that had you been in an
emergency at that place at that time, help might have gotten to you. It
does not assure the same performance in different situations, perhaps on
a different cell site on a different channel, during a different time
frame. Again, the "test" you propose is useless and unreasonable.
> I'm willing to bet you that there are many parts of the day during which
> local 911 dispatchers are not actively handling calls.
And as someone with PSAP experience, I can tell you that you are wrong.
>>I get this unfortunate impression that Mr. Kolstad thinks that an
>>obligation exists among public safety agencies to ensure that any
>>foolhardy individual can get help anytime, anywhere.
>
>
> Not at all. But I don't see how you come up with that belief based on my
> suggestion that it's reasonable to test out a new cell phone's 911 behavior?
Your seemingly paranoid desire to test new cell phones by calling 911
seems to indicate that you expect your cell phone to provide you with
help when you need it, on command, when neither the cell phone nor the
emergency services it may or may not connect to can guarantee such a
thing 100% of the time.
That, or you are just extremely ignorant about how cell phones operate.
>
>> While that would be nice, this is not an ideal world, and even the
>>Supreme Court is recognized that while PSTN's, mobile carriers and public
>>safety agenices provide a valuable service by allowing you to get help
>>when they are able to provide it, they are *not obligated* to do so
>>(according to Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap.,
>>1981)
>
>
> Keep in mind that our taxes and service fees PAY for those 911 dispatchers
> and other safety agencies.
So you DO admit that as a taxpayer, you expect a guarantee of help?
Then why did you deny it just one paragraph ago?
But that's neither here nor there. As case law demonstrates, just
because you may or may not pay your taxes does not mean that you are
guaranteed round the clock protection. Emergency services are human,
and they are also often underfunded, because people don't LIKE paying
taxes, and certainly it's proven they don't like to pay more of those
dreaded for the promise of more services.
But I digress.
>>Again, it's unfortunate, but the emergency workers have finite resources,
>>and while it does run counter to what the average person beleives, testing
>>911 only bogs down the service and makes it LESS available when it is
>>needed, rather than ensuring its availability.
>
>
> At the end of the day, it comes down to costs. If for every 100 'real' 911
> calls there's 1 test call,
Already your math is unreasonable. How many cell phone users are in the
US? On Sprint alone there are more than 20 million, and on a typical
quarter, they add around 400,000 new customers. By your philosphy, they
should all test their phones at least once. So, for Sprint customers
alone, that amounts to 4,444 and change in false emergency calls per day
in the US, JUST from Sprint customers, and JSUT new customers... not
accounting for existing customers who havd upgraded or exchanged their
phones. Other carriers have economies of scale that are higher, and
some that are lower, but they all add significantly to the numbers. And
I'm willing to bet that the numbers would add up to more than just 1
call out of 100.
> I like the other poster's idea of having a '912' number for tests. This
> would require changes to cell phones such that '912' calls were treated
> identically to 911,
....which means you've just eliminated any advantage to a "912" number,
because now you are requiring the same facility and the same people to
handle those calls. People may as well just call 911.
Besides, I'm sure that NANPA would take issue with the assignment of 912
as a test number, as the reservation of such a number would reduce North
America's already dwindling supply of available NXX-xxxx addresses by a
few million.
> but I think it'd be worthwhile. He's really nailed
> where the problem in the system is -- at present, the only way to test 911
> is to use the Real Thing, which is an expensive enough resource that
> alternative testing methods would be useful.
Well, once again you've contradicted yourself. Earlier you were arguing
that the costs of such tests were insignificant. Now you're championing
a test number to ease the burden of such costs? Which is it then?
--
E-mail address munged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my address to reply by e-mail.
Similar Threads
- Fido
- Nokia
- General Cell Phone Forum
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.cingular
How to Network Unlock Your Samsung Galaxy S24 from Claro
in Samsung