Article: Don't call 911 to test your new phone

Joel Kolstad wrote:

>>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.
>
>
> The problems are more with the cell phones than the PSAPs.

You STILL ignore the obvious: testing a cell phone on recepit of it does
not guarantee it will continue to work well in a different location
under different sets of corcumstances. How will testing your cell phone
under what amounts to ideal conditions give you the assurance you seek?
you refuse to answer this question. Could it be you have NO answer?

> I'd be a lot more sympathetic to you and others who are saying it's a bad
> idea to test 911 connectivity to a new cell phone if the Consumer Reports
> article found that there WEREN'T problems with the connections going
> through.

So basically, you're centering your whole paranoia and desire to flood
the same system you want working when you need it based on a single
Consumer Reports article.

The oh-so-horrifying details you're clinging so desperately to amount to
a very simple principle: if the cell phone does not have service... it
won't make a call to 911! What's the best way to check and see if there
is service? Well, you can either look at the signal strength indicator,
or make a routine call to a number o0ther than 911! If the call doesn't
go through, then 911 won't either. If the call DOES go through, then
it's reasonable to assume that there will be no problme with 911 as far
as end user equipment is concerned.

You can choose to be "sympathetic" or not. But that doesn't change the
fact that you're taking the results of a Consumer Reports article and
overextending the implication of said article into somehting that is
entirely untenable. Frequent "Test calls" by individuals will only make
the system LESS reliable, when in fact you want it to be more
reliable... at least I HOPE that's your aim.

> As it is now, you seem to be arguing that while clearly 911
> usually works as designed, the fact that there are cases were this isn't the
> case should be assumed to be a fluke or irrelevent occurence not worthy of
> continuing tests.

No. I am saying that there are a number of things that are already
being done that make end user testing of the 911 system an unnecessary
duplication of tests that are already conducted. They do not serve to
improve anything, and are a waste of time, money, and are a diversion of
resources that could otherwise be used by a person having a legitimate
emergency and needs the system to work.


> This reminds me of the case of the... space probe? missile? -- I forget
> which -- that once, during a ground test, had some bizarre inexplicable
> computer crash that was dismissed since it couldn't be reproduced and then
> had to be destroyed after launch when the same bug struck again.

And where did THIS paragraph come from? First you put words in my
mouth, and now this drivel. No citing of any incident, and for all I
know you just made something up. Quit grasping at straws; it's okay to
admit you're wrong from time to time, really.


>>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.
>
>
> Right


Good! We agree. Then we can end this thread.

> as I've said before, I'm suggesting people hedge there bets. At some
> point it becomes absurd and not worth the expense/hassle to test for every
> conceivable failure (and historically safety failures occur more often due
> to internal political communication problems rather than a lack of testing
> anywa).

Then clearly you see that testing to the point of overflowing the system
with tests meets your criteria for diminishing returns. Glad you're
seeing it my way.



--
E-mail address munged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my address to reply by e-mail.

---

› See More: Article: Don't call 911 to test your new phone

Joel Kolstad wrote:
> "Isaiah Beard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>And how could a 911 test uncover this when a normal call could not?
>
>
> The easiest way: Because almost all phones can be set not to roam becase
> their users don't want to incur roaming charges, yet 911 calls should ignore
> this preference is any coverage is available.

Uh huh. And so test-calling 911 in ideal conditions, in your home where
you have native non-roaming coverage, is going to ensure that this cell
phone will work when it's roaming, right?

It's amazing how badly you want to defend your position when even by
your own standards, what you propose simply won't do what you want it to.


--
E-mail address munged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my address to reply by e-mail.

Joel Kolstad wrote:
> "Isaiah Beard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>And how could a 911 test uncover this when a normal call could not?
>
>
> The easiest way: Because almost all phones can be set not to roam becase
> their users don't want to incur roaming charges, yet 911 calls should ignore
> this preference is any coverage is available.

Uh huh. And so test-calling 911 in ideal conditions, in your home where
you have native non-roaming coverage, is going to ensure that this cell
phone will work when it's roaming, right?

It's amazing how badly you want to defend your position when even by
your own standards, what you propose simply won't do what you want it to.


--
E-mail address munged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my address to reply by e-mail.

Linc Madison wrote:

> Actually, you are incorrect. There *IS* magic to 911 that makes a new
> cell tower sprout from the ground to miraculously give you coverage.
> Seriously.

First off, I don't see how Mr. Kolstad can argue that "test calling" on
your cell phone under ideal conditions, when you're at home and
presumably have cell service from your provider, will test roaming
conditions. And second, testing at home still dosn't address what
happens in unexpected situatuons. An emergency can happen anywhere, and
it's unlikely you'll be able to test 911 roaming in situations where it
might actually come into play under real life situations.

If anything, using a single initial test call as your yardstick for how
reliable your phone will be will only give you a very false sense of
security. To have that flase security with your trusty cell phopne at
your side, believing help is only a button push or three away is a very
dangerous and cavalier way of thinking.

Second... I still don't think that people SHOULD rely on roaming as
their saving grace. Even the largest analog networks do not cover all
of the US, and not all phones roam on all networks. Just like cell
service is still a service of convenience, roaming should be considered
a luxury, and should be relied on even LESS. It will not work 100% of
the time, no matter how much you test it.

So in general I'll admit I might be wrong about roaming, but from a
pratical safety standpoint, if you plan on getting mugged, having a
heart attack, or getting in a car accident, I wouldn't do it if my phone
said ROAM or NO SERVICE on it, thank you very much. And I must
reiterate: testing is a useless guarantee. It promises NOTHING, except
that it will cause unnecessary workload for the people who will help you
in a real emergency... assuming you can get to them, after being queued
behind all of those test calls.

> When you dial a normal call, you can only use the networks that your
> provider has billing agreements with, subject also to your handset's
> restrictions on roaming (digital only, digital or analog, no roaming,
> etc.). When you dial 911, your cellphone should grab *ANY* network it
> can communicate with, irrespective of billing arrangements of your
> provider and roaming settings on your handset.
>
> Of course, if there is no cell tower of any description, you can't call
> 911, but there certainly are situations where a regular call will not
> go through but a 911 call will.
>
> All the same, I stand by my opinion that testing 911 from your new
> cellphone is in general a bad idea, both because it gives you little if
> any useful information and because it may burden the 911 system with a
> non-emergency call. If cellphone performance with 911 is a serious
> concern to you, by all means read the Consumer Reports article and
> choose a phone model and/or provider that they recommend.
>
> I would also say that the few occasions where testing 911 is
> appropriate are best handled by knowledgeable folks in close PRIOR
> coordination with emergency personnel, to minimize the impact of the
> test on the 911 system and also to ensure that the test provides useful
> information.
>


--
E-mail address munged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my address to reply by e-mail.

Linc Madison wrote:

> Actually, you are incorrect. There *IS* magic to 911 that makes a new
> cell tower sprout from the ground to miraculously give you coverage.
> Seriously.

First off, I don't see how Mr. Kolstad can argue that "test calling" on
your cell phone under ideal conditions, when you're at home and
presumably have cell service from your provider, will test roaming
conditions. And second, testing at home still dosn't address what
happens in unexpected situatuons. An emergency can happen anywhere, and
it's unlikely you'll be able to test 911 roaming in situations where it
might actually come into play under real life situations.

If anything, using a single initial test call as your yardstick for how
reliable your phone will be will only give you a very false sense of
security. To have that flase security with your trusty cell phopne at
your side, believing help is only a button push or three away is a very
dangerous and cavalier way of thinking.

Second... I still don't think that people SHOULD rely on roaming as
their saving grace. Even the largest analog networks do not cover all
of the US, and not all phones roam on all networks. Just like cell
service is still a service of convenience, roaming should be considered
a luxury, and should be relied on even LESS. It will not work 100% of
the time, no matter how much you test it.

So in general I'll admit I might be wrong about roaming, but from a
pratical safety standpoint, if you plan on getting mugged, having a
heart attack, or getting in a car accident, I wouldn't do it if my phone
said ROAM or NO SERVICE on it, thank you very much. And I must
reiterate: testing is a useless guarantee. It promises NOTHING, except
that it will cause unnecessary workload for the people who will help you
in a real emergency... assuming you can get to them, after being queued
behind all of those test calls.

> When you dial a normal call, you can only use the networks that your
> provider has billing agreements with, subject also to your handset's
> restrictions on roaming (digital only, digital or analog, no roaming,
> etc.). When you dial 911, your cellphone should grab *ANY* network it
> can communicate with, irrespective of billing arrangements of your
> provider and roaming settings on your handset.
>
> Of course, if there is no cell tower of any description, you can't call
> 911, but there certainly are situations where a regular call will not
> go through but a 911 call will.
>
> All the same, I stand by my opinion that testing 911 from your new
> cellphone is in general a bad idea, both because it gives you little if
> any useful information and because it may burden the 911 system with a
> non-emergency call. If cellphone performance with 911 is a serious
> concern to you, by all means read the Consumer Reports article and
> choose a phone model and/or provider that they recommend.
>
> I would also say that the few occasions where testing 911 is
> appropriate are best handled by knowledgeable folks in close PRIOR
> coordination with emergency personnel, to minimize the impact of the
> test on the 911 system and also to ensure that the test provides useful
> information.
>


--
E-mail address munged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my address to reply by e-mail.

Isaiah Beard wrote:
>
> Linc Madison wrote:
>
> > Actually, you are incorrect. There *IS* magic to 911 that makes a new
> > cell tower sprout from the ground to miraculously give you coverage.
> > Seriously.
>
> First off, I don't see how Mr. Kolstad can argue that "test calling" on
> your cell phone under ideal conditions, when you're at home and
> presumably have cell service from your provider, will test roaming
> conditions. And second, testing at home still dosn't address what
> happens in unexpected situatuons. An emergency can happen anywhere, and
> it's unlikely you'll be able to test 911 roaming in situations where it
> might actually come into play under real life situations.
>
> <snip>

Holy ****?

Can you imagine everyone doing the "Can you hear me, now?" thing, to 911!

Notan

Isaiah Beard wrote:
>
> Linc Madison wrote:
>
> > Actually, you are incorrect. There *IS* magic to 911 that makes a new
> > cell tower sprout from the ground to miraculously give you coverage.
> > Seriously.
>
> First off, I don't see how Mr. Kolstad can argue that "test calling" on
> your cell phone under ideal conditions, when you're at home and
> presumably have cell service from your provider, will test roaming
> conditions. And second, testing at home still dosn't address what
> happens in unexpected situatuons. An emergency can happen anywhere, and
> it's unlikely you'll be able to test 911 roaming in situations where it
> might actually come into play under real life situations.
>
> <snip>

Holy ****?

Can you imagine everyone doing the "Can you hear me, now?" thing, to 911!

Notan

"Isaiah Beard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You STILL ignore the obvious: testing a cell phone on recepit of it does
> not guarantee it will continue to work well in a different location under
> different sets of corcumstances. How will testing your cell phone under
> what amounts to ideal conditions give you the assurance you seek? you
> refuse to answer this question. Could it be you have NO answer?

First, I suggested that testing of the cell phone should be performed where
it's most likely to be necessar. Secondly, it is of course true that
there's no way you can ever guarantee that your phone will complete a 911
call when you really need it to. But, performing a test under the
conditions that you feel are most likely to be encountered during an actual
call will give one a significant amount of assurance as to the way their
phone and the system will work during an actual 911 call.

> So basically, you're centering your whole paranoia and desire to flood the
> same system you want working when you need it based on a single Consumer
> Reports article.

I don't think the word 'paranoia' really applies in this case. Who,
exactly, is out to get me? :-)

I'm say that when a system doesn't behave the way many people arguably would
have expected it, in the future it deserves somewhat closer attenuation and
better testing. 'Better testing' only translate to 'flood' in your mind,
not in mine.

> The oh-so-horrifying details you're clinging so desperately to amount to a
> very simple principle: if the cell phone does not have service... it won't
> make a call to 911!

As other people have confirmed, the cell phone display stating 'no service'
does NOT indicate a 911 call will fail. By the same token, the cell phone
display stating that you DO have services doesn't indicate a 911 call will
go through either, but I'd be a little more peeved in that scenario if it
didn't.

> Frequent "Test calls" by individuals will only make the system LESS
> reliable, when in fact you want it to be more reliable... at least I HOPE
> that's your aim.

You're the only one suggesting 'frequent' calls. My number was something
like 'once per new cell phone, if you're concerned.'

> No. I am saying that there are a number of things that are already being
> done that make end user testing of the 911 system an unnecessary
> duplication of tests that are already conducted. They do not serve to
> improve anything, and are a waste of time, money, and are a diversion of
> resources that could otherwise be used by a person having a legitimate
> emergency and needs the system to work.

This sounds very much like someone who has been put under the microscope by
the likes of 60 Minutes, Consumer Reports, etc. or a private company turned
in by a whistle blower objecting that any continued scrutiny is a waste of
time, money, and a diversion of resources.

But you and I seem to have a basic disagreement on how much of an impact on
the system something like one quarter of one percent of cell phones users
placing a test call to 911 every couple of years (whenever they get a new
phone) is really going to be. By the numbers in another post, it worked out
to about 11 extra calls per day spread throughout the entire country...
surely the system can handle this? (Granted, the distribution of those
calls isn't uniform -- the problem the original news report pointed out.)

> And where did THIS paragraph come from?

It was actually bait for you; I'm glad you took it. :-) It really has
little to do with the conversation, I just thought it an interesting
anecdote: lack of testing is bad, that's all... but you'd probably agree
with that. (More bait: You'll also recall the Hubble Telescope, where some
outside party volunteered to test the telescope's optics FOR FREE but the
government turned them down because they felt their own internal testing was
perfectly adequate. Big 'oops!' there, eh?)

In general I don't believe in leaving ALL 'testing' to the government and
those with a fiduciary interest in what's being tested.

---Joel

"Isaiah Beard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You STILL ignore the obvious: testing a cell phone on recepit of it does
> not guarantee it will continue to work well in a different location under
> different sets of corcumstances. How will testing your cell phone under
> what amounts to ideal conditions give you the assurance you seek? you
> refuse to answer this question. Could it be you have NO answer?

First, I suggested that testing of the cell phone should be performed where
it's most likely to be necessar. Secondly, it is of course true that
there's no way you can ever guarantee that your phone will complete a 911
call when you really need it to. But, performing a test under the
conditions that you feel are most likely to be encountered during an actual
call will give one a significant amount of assurance as to the way their
phone and the system will work during an actual 911 call.

> So basically, you're centering your whole paranoia and desire to flood the
> same system you want working when you need it based on a single Consumer
> Reports article.

I don't think the word 'paranoia' really applies in this case. Who,
exactly, is out to get me? :-)

I'm say that when a system doesn't behave the way many people arguably would
have expected it, in the future it deserves somewhat closer attenuation and
better testing. 'Better testing' only translate to 'flood' in your mind,
not in mine.

> The oh-so-horrifying details you're clinging so desperately to amount to a
> very simple principle: if the cell phone does not have service... it won't
> make a call to 911!

As other people have confirmed, the cell phone display stating 'no service'
does NOT indicate a 911 call will fail. By the same token, the cell phone
display stating that you DO have services doesn't indicate a 911 call will
go through either, but I'd be a little more peeved in that scenario if it
didn't.

> Frequent "Test calls" by individuals will only make the system LESS
> reliable, when in fact you want it to be more reliable... at least I HOPE
> that's your aim.

You're the only one suggesting 'frequent' calls. My number was something
like 'once per new cell phone, if you're concerned.'

> No. I am saying that there are a number of things that are already being
> done that make end user testing of the 911 system an unnecessary
> duplication of tests that are already conducted. They do not serve to
> improve anything, and are a waste of time, money, and are a diversion of
> resources that could otherwise be used by a person having a legitimate
> emergency and needs the system to work.

This sounds very much like someone who has been put under the microscope by
the likes of 60 Minutes, Consumer Reports, etc. or a private company turned
in by a whistle blower objecting that any continued scrutiny is a waste of
time, money, and a diversion of resources.

But you and I seem to have a basic disagreement on how much of an impact on
the system something like one quarter of one percent of cell phones users
placing a test call to 911 every couple of years (whenever they get a new
phone) is really going to be. By the numbers in another post, it worked out
to about 11 extra calls per day spread throughout the entire country...
surely the system can handle this? (Granted, the distribution of those
calls isn't uniform -- the problem the original news report pointed out.)

> And where did THIS paragraph come from?

It was actually bait for you; I'm glad you took it. :-) It really has
little to do with the conversation, I just thought it an interesting
anecdote: lack of testing is bad, that's all... but you'd probably agree
with that. (More bait: You'll also recall the Hubble Telescope, where some
outside party volunteered to test the telescope's optics FOR FREE but the
government turned them down because they felt their own internal testing was
perfectly adequate. Big 'oops!' there, eh?)

In general I don't believe in leaving ALL 'testing' to the government and
those with a fiduciary interest in what's being tested.

---Joel

> First off, I don't see how Mr. Kolstad can argue that "test calling" on
> your cell phone under ideal conditions, when you're at home and presumably
> have cell service from your provider, will test roaming conditions.

For about the fourth time here, Isaia, this isn't what I advocated. Go
re-read some more posts.

You spend several paragraphs in here discussing how people shouldn't 'rely'
on the cell phone system, how it's not all that horribly reliable anyway,
etc. Perhaps this fact should be stressed more in cell phone manuals (it
certainly was in my manual already), but on the other hand something that is
NOT typically communicated to end users is that regardless of what the
phone's display says (no service, keypad locked, etc.), if you're in a
life-threatening situation and your cell phone is your only means of
communication, one should immediately _attempt_ to dial 911 on it. At
worst, you're no worse off than when you started, and if you're lucky, the
end results could be much more positive.

> Second... I still don't think that people SHOULD rely on roaming as their
> saving grace. Even the largest analog networks do not cover all of the
> US, and not all phones roam on all networks. Just like cell service is
> still a service of convenience, roaming should be considered a luxury, and
> should be relied on even LESS. It will not work 100% of the time, no
> matter how much you test it.

This exact same paragraph could be applied to landline communications as
well. It doesn't work 100% of the time either, no matter how much you test
it (even though it is, of course, more reliable than a cell phone).

And of course land lines don't work at all when you're not physically beside
them. A 90% solution that operates in all the places you expect to be is
arguably better than a 100% solution that operates where you only spend,
say, half your time.

---Joel

Executive summary: use 911 only for REAL emergencies.

In article <[email protected]>, Joel Kolstad
<[email protected]> wrote:

> First, I suggested that testing of the cell phone should be performed
> where it's most likely to be necessar. Secondly, it is of course
> true that there's no way you can ever guarantee that your phone will
> complete a 911 call when you really need it to. But, performing a
> test under the conditions that you feel are most likely to be
> encountered during an actual call will give one a significant amount
> of assurance as to the way their phone and the system will work
> during an actual 911 call.

If you already know where you're likely to need 911, check the area for
payphones -- just in case your cellphone's battery is dead.

Also, as I pointed out earlier, a random test now doesn't mean that the
cellphone will perform the same way (good or bad) when you actually
need it.

> I'm say that when a system doesn't behave the way many people
> arguably would have expected it, in the future it deserves somewhat
> closer attenuation and better testing. 'Better testing' only
> translate to 'flood' in your mind, not in mine.

You're not advocating BETTER testing. You're advocating MORE testing.
Quantity is not the same as quality, and this is an excellent example
of that principle. Having someone like Consumers Union do some tests,
coordinated with emergency response officials, with careful
measurements of things like signal strength of various carriers, can
yield useful information. Individual end users dialing 911 just to see
if it works, do not yield any useful information at all.

> As other people have confirmed, the cell phone display stating 'no
> service' does NOT indicate a 911 call will fail. By the same token,
> the cell phone display stating that you DO have services doesn't
> indicate a 911 call will go through either, but I'd be a little more
> peeved in that scenario if it didn't.

The cellphone display showing that you have service *DOES* actually
indicate that a 911 call will go through, quite reliably. Much more
reliably than it indicates that any other call will go through. The
bottom line: if you can call Aunt Martha, then you can be absolutely
100% assured you can call 911.

> > No. I am saying that there are a number of things that are already
> > being done that make end user testing of the 911 system an
> > unnecessary duplication of tests that are already conducted. They
> > do not serve to improve anything, and are a waste of time, money,
> > and are a diversion of resources that could otherwise be used by a
> > person having a legitimate emergency and needs the system to work.
>
> This sounds very much like someone who has been put under the
> microscope by the likes of 60 Minutes, Consumer Reports, etc. or a
> private company turned in by a whistle blower objecting that any
> continued scrutiny is a waste of time, money, and a diversion of
> resources.

Comparing an ordinary end-user opening a Christmas present and trying
it out on 911, to 60 Minutes or Consumer Reports, is absurd. If 60
Minutes or Consumers Union wants to test the cellular 911 system, I
trust them to do it in a responsible manner, including getting data
that will be useful to more than just one person.

> In general I don't believe in leaving ALL 'testing' to the government
> and those with a fiduciary interest in what's being tested.

Neither does anyone in this thread. You're making a straw-man argument
here.

Bottom line: DO NOT take your shiny new cellphone out of the box and
call 911 as a test. Call 911 only in a REAL emergency.

--
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.

For all you folks who are so anti-911 testing by consumers... perhaps the
solution to the article's original gripe is to get cell phone manufacturers
to put on page 1 of the manual that testing 911 shouldn't be performed.
This is better than what I received, that instead starts off about proper
911-testing etiquette (although I don't think it was page 1 :-) ) -- giving
people that list certainly implies that test calling 911 is reasonable in
the view of the manufacturer, no?

---Joel

I did a little checking, and you can find web pages run by PSAPs both
encouraging and discouraing test calls to 911. Example of the former:
http://www.averyco.com/comm/testcall.htm ...and the later:
http://www.city.waltham.ma.us/wpdweb...metips/911.htm . In
this fast and unofficial survey, the trend seems to be... the bigger the
agency handling the calls, the more discouraging they are of test calls.

The web site matches do tend to be heavily weighted towards 'don't call,'
although some of that may be the connection between bigger PSAPs (who
generally seem more discouraging) also being more likely to _have_ web sites
in the first place.

I also found references to the original Consumer Reports article, and it
discourages test calls.

As already mentioned, I think this all boils down to the need for consumers
to receive more information about 911 call handling with cell phones in as
prominent of a place as possible when they get the phone itself.

---Joel

Joel Kolstad wrote:
> For all you folks who are so anti-911 testing by consumers... perhaps the
> solution to the article's original gripe is to get cell phone manufacturers
> to put on page 1 of the manual that testing 911 shouldn't be performed.

Which will be ignored. One thing I found working retail -- as well as doing
Internet tech support -- is that you could have the directions on a huge
flashing neon sign and many people would STILL ignore them.

--
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.

"Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> But this really has little to do with test-calling 911 from a mobile
> phone, right?

Yes, the topic has certainly drifted. It does seem that the consensus is
that test calling 911 from a cell phone is a Bad Idea, and my initial
suggestion that people who were 'concerned' about their phone's behavior
during such calls was misguided. Hopefully most people would agree,
however, that continued testing by the likes of Consumer Reports and others
who have no regulatory or fiduciary interest in how the system operates is a
worthwhile endeavor, and can serve to benefit the folks who are paying for
the system in the first place.

I have a 'small town' background, so I probably am a little out of touch
about just how the putatively overworked and underfunded large city PSAPs
are.

---Joel