Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 69
  1. #16
    Linc Madison
    Guest

    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




  2. #17
    Linc Madison
    Guest

    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.



  3. #18
    Linc Madison
    Guest

    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.



  4. #19
    Steve Sobol
    Guest

    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.



  5. #20
    Pete Stephenson
    Guest

    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



  6. #21
    John R. Copeland
    Guest

    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.




  7. #22
    Tinman
    Guest

    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...





  8. #23
    Joel Kolstad
    Guest

    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





  9. #24
    Joel Kolstad
    Guest

    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





  10. #25
    Joel Kolstad
    Guest

    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





  11. #26
    Joel Kolstad
    Guest

    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
    Joel Kolstad
    Guest

    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





  13. #28
    Isaiah Beard
    Guest

    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.




  14. #29
    Isaiah Beard
    Guest

    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.




  15. #30
    Isaiah Beard
    Guest

    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




  • Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast